Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2/13/1990
l iSc:)^ P, E:) ACT I ON I MPLEMENTA-Ir I ON BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A• REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 13, 1990 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 18 #0' 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. INVOCATION - None 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Approved. A. Approval of Minutes of Special Meeting of 1/11/90 Approved as B. Approval of Minutes of Special.. amended. Meeting of 1/15/90 6. CONSENT AGENDA Approved. Requested A. IRC Bid 90-23, Laboratory Service staff to investigate the benefits of a County testing Testing (Tabled from 2/6/90 meeting) lab. (Memorandum dated 1/30/90) Approved. B. Report of Occupational License Taxes Collected During January, 1990 (Memorandum dated'2/5/90) Approved. C. Travel and Seminar Registration (Memorandum dated 2/7/90) Approved. D. Final Plat of Woodbridge Estates Subdivision (Memorandum dated 2/7/90) Approved. E. Request Authorization to Attend Seminars (Memorandum dated 2/7/90) Approved. F. Filling Assistant County Attorney Position (Memorandum dated 2/7/90) BOOK, FEB 13 1990 BOOK ti./ 6. CONSENT AGENDA - CONTINUED Approved. G. Budget Amendment 032, FEMA Grant (Memorandum dated 2/2/90) Approved. H. State Aid Grant Agreements (Memorandum dated 1/26/90) Approved. I. Final Plat Approval for Tall Pines Subdivision (Memorandum dated 2/5/90) Approved. J. Out of County, Travel Approval for Commissioner Wheeler and Appropriate Staff, and some of the Judges to Tour Straight Institute, Orlando During Month of February 7. CLERK TO THE BOARD None 9:05 AM S. A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS Ord. 90-3 Adoption of Comprehensive Plan adopted. (Memorandum dated 1/30/90) 9. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 10. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' None B. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT None C'. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS None H. UTILITIES None 11. COUNTY ATTORNEY None ,•. 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. FEB 13 1990 BOOK f Au107 12. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD Adopted P agreement and 9 1990 Firefighters/Indian River directed staff to escrow County Fair $9,000 in appropriate (Memorandum dated 2/7/90) account. C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR. E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER 13. SPECIAL DISTRICTS ,•. 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. FEB 13 1990 BOOK f Au107 Tuesday, February 13, 1990 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, February 13, 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; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order, and Commis- sioner Scurlock led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 11, 1990. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 11, 1990, as written. The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc- tions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 15, 1990. Chairman Eggert had a correction on Page 8 in the first full paragraph where the numbers regarding units per acre were reversed. She asked that this be corrected to read as follows: "..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." FEB 13 1990 BoaK F114 FEB 15 1990 BOOK ( t� Pr ON MOTION By Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of January 15, 1990, as corrected. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock requested that Item A be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion, and Chairman Eggert requested that Item J be removed also. A. Bid f90-23 - Laboratory_ Service Testing The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Mascola: DATE: January 30, 1990 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General/Sery�i FROM: Dominick L. Mascola, CPOO Manager Division of Purchasing SUBJ: IRC BID#90-23-LABORATORY SERVICE TESTING On request from the Utility Division the Subject Bid for Laboratory Testing Service was properly advertised and Sixteen (16) Invitations to bid were sent out. On Nov. 22, 1989 bids were received. Four (4) vendors submitted proposals for the commodity. ANALYSIS: Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to specifications. Envircanetrics was the low responsive and responsible bidder that met all requirements. Flowers was the lowest bidder. Their pick up point did not meet speci- fication and their EPA rating was unacceptable. Bio -Services was the second lowest bidder and the bid did not contain any EPA, DER, or HRS rating information as per the scope of the service. The bid was inccanplete. The Envirometrics bid includes an approved QA/QC plan, an EPA rating of 93% acceptable analyses and an affidavit that the business is a minority enterprise. Enviroanetrics will subcon- tract analyses not performed in-house to ABC Research, who also has an approved QA/Qc plan. Fa FUNDING: Monies for this project will cane from Budget Utility Funds. Other professional and other contractor services. Estimated amount is $96,000.00. Staff recc mends the Award of a Open End Contract and authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the contract for one additional year subject to satisfactory performance, no cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination the re- newal is in the best interest of the County. The initial contract period shall begin with the date of award and shall t-tninate one (1) year from that date. • BOAAb OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Date ail/27/89 184025thStmet,vemBeac&Mraa32960 PURCHASING DEPT. • BID TABULATION Submitted By Dominick L Mascots sw�a+, T.bw,ar, aaa •a m+•.,•, Ing $674000 Z i y , j PURCHASING MANAGER. a Bid No.' 90-23 Date Of Opening 11/22/89 # rtecommended Award �IORIOp' e Bid Title Laboratory Analysis 8 Sampling 105,826.83 i! 1.' Flowers Chemical Lab P.O. Box 150597 Altamonte Springs,'Florida 32715-0597 2. bio -Services of Vero $110,490.00 .2501 27th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32960 3. Envirometrics $128,991.00 i 725-C SW 27th Avenue Vero Beach, n 32960 4. ABC Research Corp 3 32 869 00 3437 SW 24th Ave Gainesville, Florida 32602 General Services Director Dean advised that he could respond to any questions in regard to bidding procedure, but Utilities Director Pinto would have to answer any technical questions. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the Bio -Services bid did not contain any EPA, DER or HRS rating information. His question is if that is available and they are a qualified bidder, would it not be in our interest to readvertise and possibly save $10,.000 to $12,000? Director Pinto advised that it was his understanding that they didn't have the proper ratings. 3 IFF I 199 BOOK Frii�Cid FEB' IS 1990 BOOK .79 �.,r Commissioner Scurlock noted that these costs in terms of testing are substantial and gaining. He knew that the City of Vero Beach established at least a partial lab sometime within the last years, and they ran into some problems with the state accepting their results without secondary verification. He asked if it would not behoove us to see if we could not get some kind of regional or subregional approach with neighboring counties and possibly approach the Community College to see if services couldn't be provided in a more economically feasible way. Director Pinto felt that is a good idea. He explained that the problem is becoming certified. The City is not certified to do all the testing, but it is getting to the point now where if one of the counties established a lab that could be certified, there could be some joint effort. Commissioner Scurlock commented that, with the Commission's permission, he would like to ask staff, to pursue this idea. He noted that the testing at the well in the Landfill is not the costly item, it is the monthly and bi-monthly testing procedures. We negotiated the testing back considerably from what they originally proposed, but he felt we could save substantial dollars with a joint effort to get a certified tester and then work together. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com - Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid 90-23 to Enviro- metrics, as being the low responsive and responsible bidder in the amount of $128,991.00 and authorized award of an open end contract as recommended by staff. B. Reports The following report on collection in Occupational License taxes for the month of January, 1990, was received by the Board and made part of the Record: 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: February 5, 1990 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed that $4,832.98 was collected in occupational license taxes during the month of January 1990, representing the issuance of 209 licenses. -�LArl4k� Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector C. Travel and Seminar Registration The Board reviewed memo from Chairman Eggert: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 7, 1990 FILE: SUBJECT: Travel and Seminar Registration FROM: Carolyn R. ggert REFERENCES: In reviewing various seminars that are coming up, I realized that while the BCC and the Administrative Assistant to the BCC bring each request for travel and registration to the consent agenda and each request from a County department is approved by the County Administrator either through a list submitted with the department's budget or individually, no policy exists for the County Administrator or the County Attorney's office. In talking with Jim Chandler and Charles Vitunac about this matter, we agreed to bring the following policy for your approval: 1. Any travel or registration that is to be paid through the County Administrator's or County Attorney's budget will be put on the consent agenda just as the BCC does, 2. If any County department requests that one of the County Attorneys or a Commissioner attend a meeting with them and the Attorney's or Commissioner's expenses are to be funded through that department's budget, the County Administrator is to approve that funding in advance. Recommend your approval and procedures. of this for consistency of policy ` —90 BMc. BOOK' FACE. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the policy set out in Chairman Eggert's memo dated Feburary 7, 1990. D. Rescinding of Final Plat Approval 8 Granting of Final Plat Approval - Woodbridge Estates The Board reviewed memo from Asst. County Attorney Collins: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: V>( William G. Collins II - Assistant County Attorney DATE: February 7, 1990 SUBJECT: Final Plat of Woodbridge Estates Subdivision On January 9, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved a final plat for Woodbridge Estates Subdivision. Around January 29, 1990 the mylar of the final plat for recording was presented for signature. In reviewing the final plat as approved by the Board -on January 9th and the one presented for signature and recording, I determined that some of the dimensions and numbers on the plat had been revised. Apparently a 30 -foot strip of land on the project frontage along 8th Street had been shown as an easement over property within the final plat of the subdivision. After final plat approval, it was determined --that there was a deed rather than an easement to the drainage district for 30 Feet of right-of-way. Accordingly, the plat was revised to reflect the changed boundaries and to exclude the land deeded to the drainage district along 8th Street. It would not be appropriate to have one plat spread upon the Commission minutes as having final plat approval and the second plat in a different configuration to be recorded of public record. To avoid this problem I recommend you take the following action. RECOMMENDATION 1. Rescind the final plat approval granted Woodbridge Estates on January 9, 1990. 2. Grant final plat approval to the Woodbridge Estates Subdivision as depicted in the attached exhibits. 3. Authorize the Chairman to execute the final plat on behalf o.f the Board of County Commissioners, and to execute the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement which the developers of Woodbridge Estates have submitted in order to secure their warranty of utilities Installed. 6 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously rescinded the Final Plat Approval granted Woodbridge Estates on January 9, 1990; granted Final Plat approval to the Woodbridge Estates Subdivision as depicted in the attached exhibits; and authorized the Chairman to execute the final plat and the Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement. WOODBRIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION A SUBDIVISION IN SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA 0®IGIDION ' KNOW ALL DY THESE PRESENTS. THAT WOODBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. FEE SIMPLE OWNER OF THE LAND DESS YID PLATTED MEREN. BOW N INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA HAVE CRUISED SAO U1FOS TO BE SURVEYED AND PUTTED AS SHOWM HIEREDN AMD DOLS lEIEBY DEDICATE AS WLLD� STREETS AND OOITS-OF-RAY SHOWN ON THIS PUT ARE HEREBY DECLARED is R AND SHAW REMAIN PRIVATE. THEY ARE DEDICATED FOR THE MISE AND BENEFIT ,TRE CFRIWIFm THE LANDS AS DIED AND SHOWN ON THUS PUT ARE N THE NAVE O', AND APPARENT RECORD TITLE IS HELD BY, THE PERSDNL PERSONS, OR ORIGNalum EEELVDD THE DEOCATIOC AND ALL TAXES PAVE BEEN PMD ON SAID PROPERTY AS REWIRED BY 5197.051. FLORIDA STA UMS. AS AMENDED. AND THE OFFICIAL RECORD BOCIK AND PAGE NUMBER OF ALL BARtES ANY) AGAINST THE MND. AND THE WIRES � PERSO6 HOIDKO No INTEREST N R= MORIGML UT. OR ElR7IMBRO E (6 ANT) SMALL BE PLAT BOOK I PAGE DOCKET NUMBER -COVENANTS. RESIRIODO6. OR RESERVATIONS AFPECINO THE 09NER9B OR USE OF THE PROPERTY SANDRA N THIS PW ARE FRED N 0R. BOOK _ PAGE ' K Aft er BOARD OF CONI! MIUSSIONIERS THIS 6 TO CERTITY, THAT ONTHi F FLAT AT RAS APPROVED AND THAT THE DFDMOREF6 AHEREBY ACCUIFED N. AVID LISTED BELOW. BY THE DOM O COUNTY COMMISOFERS OF MM HAVER COMM. FLOROA 1DGIE ESTATES ox eaOt am CHAIRMAN THE BOARD- : THE STREETS PAGED 0143-0109 ATIESE• MD OF COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOAM OOORE R. HERZOG APPROVED AS 30 FOO ANO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ARE DEDICATED A LICENSED FLORIDARmA A7IOONEY C0111EIY ATTORNEY• BOARD O COLNFf COMMISSIONERS NDAN WNCOUNEY. FLDPoM O' APPROUOIL THE COINNAM EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ARE DEOCATED N PERPETUITY FOR CO75T TUCTION AND YNNTEFANCE OF DRAINAGE FACDITIES ANO SMALL B[ TRE ��.5 cif , VAMI ED AND APPROYE DUE— PERPETUALWANIENAFDE OBLSA11IO1 O 1!E WCOOBRIDOE ESTATES PROPERTY OWNERS' COUNTY AOIDI61RATp1 ASSOCIAT CORED ACCESS EASEMENTS AS SHOWN ARE OEOCATED N PERPETUITY TO STALE OF ROOM Now RIVER COUNTY THE BOARD OF COONTf COM640NER5 OF NONAN W40 COLANIY. FLORIDA FOR THE . PURPOSES O CONTROL AND .NR6OUCIOH OVER ACCESS RIOHIS. TRAGI 'M 6 DflMYOFFICIAL AS A CONSERVATION EASEMENT AS PER L RECORDS TM DERIBO R.D DOES TERM CERIWT THAT O 6 THE MOLDER O A CERTi1OOlON OF CLERK ROOK PAGE _ . TRACE IF 6 DEDICATED TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FOR MORTGAGE UPON A PORTION Of THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREON, AND ODES STATE OF FLORIDA. �_ RICHT-OF�WAY FOR 39TH AVE". 101ALT 'C' 6 OEOGTED TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY HEREBY ,ION N AND CONSENT TO THE OE=TON O THE LAND DESCRIBED N DIVAN RIVER COUNTY FOR RIGHT -0F -WAY FOR ISM STREET. So OCIRCATOH BY TIME OWNER THEREOF ANO AGREES THAT IIS MORTGAGE N WRNERS WHEREOF. THE ABOVE NAMED BERM PARTNERSHIP HAS WISED WHICH 6 RECORDED N OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 0670 AT PAGES) 0103-0109 O PLI LO RECORDS OF INDIAN RMA CWNIY. FLORA 99U BE SUBORDINATED L JEFFREY R BARTON. MEIN OF THE CNMN COURT O' INDIAN RIVER CDMM. THESE PRESENTS TO BE BONED BY ITS PRESIOENIS. ROBERT G. LOONEY, JR MID ROBERT E. EATSPARK7. AND SIGNED AND BY ITB AND ITS CORPORATE TO THE DEDICAIION SHOWN HEREOF. FLOPOA DO HEREBE CERTIFY THAT 1 HAVE EXAMINED THIS PIAT AND THAT B SUES AFFIXED HERETO Of ANO WITH THE AUDLO1W O IIS O DIRECTORS. COMPLIES RTII ALL REQUIREMENTS OF CHAPTER 177 OF TEE LAWS O THE STATE IRIS — DAY OF 1990. N WITNESS WHEREOF. L 1108ERI W. BEACON CO 16RETRRO SEE i0H111 M7 FANO AND SEAL THIS — DAY O 1994 O FLpRIOII AND 6 FILLED FOR RECORD TNS _ DAT O 1990. AND RECORDED ON PACE 0 PLO BOOK — N THE OFFIM or TWIT WOODBRIM DEVELOPMENT COMPANY. A FLORIDA WISRAL PAREIERPO N CIRCUIT COURT O NOUHN RIVER mmm ROROIL BY: WONESSE4 JEFFREY K. BARION ARCHER O VERO BEACH. 91G WRDWOOD PROPERTIES. BIO. ROBERT W. DEACON. AN NDIIIIOUAL MERK O THE CNMNT COURT (CFNERM. ►ARINER) EGENERAL PMINER) 16 FOR REST PARK AVENUE INDIAN RIVEN CWMY, FLOW= A FLOROA COMORATIOM A FLOWDA CORPDRATIOI ATSLO tJFAGH4 it 33963 ny or ROBERT 4 YOOVEY. JR, ROBERT F. PARKER. PRESIDENT AMOFORF9QOAR TO MOREF GM CO®B BT• DEPUTY CLERK CHL ARCHER OFVERO BFANC. WCDWOOD PROPERTIES, NC. SWE or FLORIDA 9NVF/OM9 CERTIFICATE A7TFSD ATIM., NONAN RIVER CWNIYfAMM BEFORE ML THE UNDERSFNED NOTARY PUNIC. P♦RSONNLY APPPEARED KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS. THAT THE UNDERSIGNED. BERG A LICENSED AND REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR DOS HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ON BEFORE ME. THE IIDERSONED NOTARY PUBLIC, PERSONALLY APFFJIRm ROBERT ROBERT W. DEACON. AN RIINOUAL AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT HE WAS EXECUTED HE COMPLETED THE G. /OONEY. A TO ME WELL KNOWN TO BE PRESIDENT O ARCHER O VERO BEACK Or- SUICH INSTRUMENT. SURVEY O THE IRDS AS BONN N THE FORECONG PUT: THAT SAID PUT A FLORIDA CO IVRATION. AND ROBERT F. PARKER PRESIDENT O WIDWOOD PROPERTIES. NC- A FLORIDA CORPORATION AND ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THEY HAVE EXEWIED SUCH WITNESS YY HAND AND SEAL THIS AMY OF 1990 IS A OR SUB CORRECT PRESENTATION T ATMPERMANENT REFERENCE MDNUMEF M HAVE BkT.TH PLACED, INSTRUMENT AS OFFICERS O BAND COPORAIONL NOTARY PUBLIC AND PERMANENT CONTROL POINTS HAVE BEEN SEY AS 9xmN TNEREON AS WONFBS MY HAND AND SM THIS — DAY OF 1990 STATE O FLORIDA REQUIRED BY CHAPTER 177. FLORIDA STATUTES AND THE INDIAN RIVER COU4M' SUBDIVISION A AND THAT SAID IAMO 6 LOCATED TOIARY PUBLIC MY COMMISSION EXPI ES• N DOM RIVER C�OYtM�, Fly STATE OF FLORIDA IFF COMMISSION OtRRE$• �—� ��� �—� �—� �—� �—� /—. WE - 71113 DIBROIM WAS PWAM m:DARSELi y Y �� �� 4 ►� SrN� 11cQU.9A9 AND Pt )EDQCECi AND ASSO(a IIN I` �� �� �� �� /� REMIERED SURVEYOR N0. 4490 DONSULTLSC LSREE36. SMIBRTORe, AND PIAHDim \ VETTIR ♦ / ` � � � � � � � �. i �. / STATE OF FIDRIDA TIO zzcA PAQ SLT7C #301 vES0 Bum FIDAOA 57160 K WILOWOOD 1 2 ram, INMrp x9 -E32 DATE: m -/l 90 - ERIC Y Yx 2TAW WWI.- TEL— N OARY - - CL41MFET of . BOOK. % BOOK Y fr�iJ C. FE SIS 090 W71 Y O i] cc G"D La 1L1 qj L1111 16 9 WOODBRIDGE ESTATES SUBDIVISION PLAT BOOK 15 10 PAGE A SUBDIVISON IN all SECTION ,,. DOCKET NUMBER 60 30 0 60 IN 130 W4tZIN 1• . W tE14wA; ff9wsp _gmL1yRp_ NORM TACANT (U"%Ar=) WE >m-0 30M LYNN POSfRR (U1IMA I t / 18-� _ CIL. Y31AM (P8 3. P0. Q, ID`t / >d� rL'1e CIIRW GAADEI0 ( LPa H) ID. /11-6 SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ' THIS INSTRUMENT WAS PREPARED BY: DARRELL E. MCQUEEN, P.E. MCQUEEN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING ENGINE M. SURVEYORS. AND PLANNERS 700 22nd PLACE, SUM 4201 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32960 Dwnx£• (An71 SA0_1:t" [ATP_• M_11_10M CLRVE DELTA RADIUS ARC • CHORD TANGENT 1 90.00100• 30.00 47.01 41.43 30.00 t 19.28'16• 10.00 30.1E 30.M 15.44 3 19'[9'03• 10.00 30.61 30.16 13.45 4 31.34.22• 90.00 49.39 48.97 23.44 3 19.28'16• 90.00 30.1! 30.44 13.44 6 19.28.16• 90.00 30.39 30.44 13.44 j 31.34.22• 70.00 47.3E 48.77 15.44 e 17'29'03• '10.00 30.61 30.46 15.43 1 19.28 16• 90.00 30.39 30.44 15.44 10 40.07'0'1• 35.00 24.31 e4.01 le.» 11 40.07.09• 30.00 33.01 x.30 18. e6 12 90.00'00• 10.00».34 50.00 70.71 50.00 13 !0.00'00• 10.00 ».s4 70.71 50.00 14 40.07'09• 50.00 35.0134.30 18.26 MEG 13 40.07'09• 35.00 14.51 14.01 18.70 16 90.00.00• 30.00 47.11 42.43 30.00 17 90.00.00• 30.00 47.12 42.43 30.00 18 40.07.09• 33.00 24.51 14.01 te.79 1'1 40.07.09• 30.00 75.01 34.30 18.M 20 90.00'00• 30.00 70.54 70.71 50.00 21 90.00'00• 30.00 78.54 70.71 50.00 39 EAST CURVE TABLES CHORD ERG CURVE DELTA R 30 'w Be 40.07.09• s 00.134204 23 40.07.09 N 60.47'1/•E 24 90.00.00• N 35.13 29'E 23 !0'00'00• N09'44.08'E [� 40.07'09' N O9'44.OB'V [ 40.07'09• N 35:15't8'V g6 90.00.00• 90.00.00• N 60.47'114 N 00.15'521V cs9 30 40.0709• S 6'1'56.25'[ 31 40.07'0!• N 69.56'LIS V 32 90'00'00• i 4s•00.00'V 33 10.00 00• t 45.00.00•[ 34 40'07'09• N 69.56'25.1 33 40.07'09• s 69.36•es1V 36 90.00.00• N 43.00.00•V 37 90.00.00• N 43'00'00•E 38 40.07'09• S 69.56'26•E 39 40.07'09• N 69.56'E5•V 40 90.00.00• S 45.00.00•V 41 90.00'001 S 45.00.001[ 42 90.00.00• TOVNSW„ mum ANO .. . 1R DO EAT[ D.1" >m Cw= all FLOMA 1+yVfiA1yl\ Or..C.AL.A LEGAL DEsCp=ON 1SSL48 FEET TO In POD" OF 11L'DQmq ' Lum LYING IN TIM AYORE.1-m MET1oN MORS PARTIC" DESCRY AS TOUDUt R SOUTH Or 64. 41' 101 ALONG ffi TDR APOMS-In 81R.MN 15 A DIITAIO TEXRCE RUR 90M Or 00. 1E' LAR I.S1.OS 7m, T10DTCR RUN NO= T A DISTANCR OF 86500 Yi7S 1211FICK 07 Ur EASY A INSTANCE OP I=L70 1'RRY INnOMING CON TADm1G 20.065 A 1107 0SUBJECT TO ALL RAMOaM AND or 'T TRAT CRRTM DRAIN&OR SRhOP-TAT I DEED ODOR 48. PACE LT OF I= PUH['. tOWI amn iTOWL L 10 CDXSTRMMK TiM 0139701011 rat a PLACED D1 Mmam WOMM COUNTY APPROVAL L TRW MAY BE ADDIDONAL ffiiRiCTID11 TRAT ASR NUT RECORDED ON 1703 PLY TILT WAY B1 FOUND IN TIM MIX RECORDS OP 7103 COUNTY 1 NRARDIN BASED ON N Br' 6i' 41' IF ASMOD) AIDNG NOSIB UNS OF SE.TRIR 1 MJ. PRM 4 ALL Lar 1110 NL4® ON cc= L01N -EL MARMARKEDAim rr.Tfl tvum10 (DUE Norm BOOM RAIL ON MONUMENT L ALL LOT law ON curet An RAHLL DMFS craIRTME DMICAM RADIUS ARC CHORD TANGENT CNDRD 1R6 s0.00 33.01 34.70 18.26 N 69.76'27'[ 33.00 e4.SI 14.01 12.78 S 69.56'2s'Y 30.00 47.11 42.43 30.00 N 45'00.00•V 30.00 47.1EL 42.43 30.00 N 43'00'00.1 33.00 E4.11 21.01 f2.» S 69.56.23'[ 10.00 33.01 34.30 fB.26 N 69.56'25•V 50.00 78.54 70.71 50.00 S 45'00'00•V 50.00 78.54 70.71 50.00 S 43'00'00•[ 50.00 33.01 34.30 19.16 N 119.56''15'[ 33.00 24.51 24.01 it S 69.56'23•V 30.00 47.1E 42.47 30.00 N 41.00.00•V 30.00 47.1E 42.43 30.00 N 45.00.00'E 35.00 14.11 24.01 1E.» S 69.56'e5'C 50.00 35.01 34.30 I8. E6 N 69.56.23'Y 50.00 ».54 70.71 50.00 S 45.00.00•V 50.00 78.14 70.71 50.00 S 45•oo•00•L 50.00 35.01 34.38 18.26 N 69.56'25'[ 35.00 24.11 e4.01 12.70 'S 69.56:23•V 30.00 47.1E 42.43 30.00 N 45.00.00•V 60.00 94.25 64.81 60.00 N 43.00.001[ 60.00 94.es $4.93 60.00 N 45.00.00•V SHEET 2 OF 2 [J m' 1 E. Attorney's Office -_Authorization to Attend Seminar The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitunac: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney DATE: February 7, 1990 SUBJECT: CONSENT AGENDA - MEETING OF 2/13/90 REQUEST AUTHORIZATION TO ATTEND SEMINARS The Office of the County Attorney requests authorization for one member of its staff to attend the Florida Association of Counties meeting In Jacksonville on February 15, 16 and 17 and the Special District Seminar in Orlando February 27 and 28. Attached is the seminar information for your review. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized one member of the County Attorney's staff to attend the Florida Association of Counties meeting in Jacksonville on February 15,16 and 17, and to attend the Special District Seminar in Orlando, February 27 and 28. F. Filling Assistant County Attorney Position The Board reviewed memo from Attorney Vitunac and attached letter from City Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien: FES 13 MU 9 BOOK 1 FF - FEB FEB I � X990 BOOK E117 TO: Board of County Commissioners Qv"fL� FROM: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney DATE: February 7, 1990 RE: FILLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY POSITION Pursuant to the authority granted to me by the Board at the February 6, 1990 meeting, I have offered Terrence P. O'Brien, City Attorney of the City of Vero Beach, the position of permanent Assistant County Attorney at the salary of $49,500 per year beginning April 23, 1990. By a letter of contract attached to this memo Mr. O'Brien has indicated that he will provide his own hospitalization and would take no more vacation leave and leave without pay than eight weeks per year. Pursuant to existing County policy, no vacation or sick leave will be accrued during his leave without pay. I am also attaching a copy of Mr. O'Brien's resignation letter for your information. Our entire office is looking forward to having Mr. O'Brien work with us and respectfully requests your approval of Mr. O'Brien's hiring under the terms and conditions contained in his attached letter. February 7, 1990 1124 Olde Galleon Vero Beach, F1. 32963 Charles P. Vitunac County Attorney Board of County Commissioners 1840 -25th Street Vero Beach, F1. 32960 Res Assistant County Attorney position Dear Charles: This letter is to reduce to writing my understanding of the terms of my employment with the County. Position: Permanent Assistant County Attorney Salary: $49,500.00 per year Hospitalization: I will provide for this Vacation: A combination of vacation leave and Leave without pay, not to exceed eight (8) weeks per year. I am looking forward to working with you again. 10 0 Sincerely, J Terrence P. O'Brien City Attorney t ON MOTION by Commissioner,Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved the hiring of Mr. O'Brien under the terms and conditions contained in his letter dated February 7, 1990. G. Budget Amendment #032 - F.E.M.A. Grant The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Baird: TO Members of the Board. of County Commissioners DATE: February 2, 1990 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT 032 - F.E.M.A. GRANT CONSENT AGENDA THROUGH: Joseph A. Baird' OMB Director FROM: Irene E. Lewis, Budget Analyst DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Joyce Johnston, Director of Welfare, has obtained a F.E.M.A. grant totaling $33,174.96 for the purpose of assisting welfare applicants with certain living expenses, such as food and shelter. In addition, Ms. Johnston was able to obtain $677.04 for administrative costs associated with the F.E.M.A. programifunding which will be used to defray certain operating expenditures in the Welfare Department. F.E.M.A. GRANT F.E.M.A. Funds Granted Food $ 677.00 Shelter 32,497.96 $33,174.96 Administrative Costs 677.04 T O T A L $33,852.00 Staff recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment #032, as follows, as recommended by the OMB Director: 11 BOOK ( FME 1. FEB 13 1990 FED 13 1990 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird - OMB Director BOOK .79 FA.GE 1110 SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 032 DATE: February 2, 1990 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/. Welfare F.E.M.A. Grant 001-000-331-066.00 $33.852.00 0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/ Welfare Travel 001-211-564-037.02 100.00 0 Welfare/Supplies 001-211-564-037.04 577.04 0 Welfare Disbursement 001-211-564-037.091$33,174.961 0 H. Library — State Aid Grant Agreemts 6 Budget Amendment The Board reviewed memo from Library Director Mary Powell: DATE: 1/26/90 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR THRU: H.T."SONNY DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERV ES SUBJECT: STATE AID GRANT AGREEMENTS FROM: MARY D. POWELL,.DIRECTOR'-Ile- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MAIN LIBRARY 0Arvennil un. An application requesting State Aid funds was signed by Chairman Wheeler, submitted to the state, and approved in September, 1989. ANALYSIS: The chairman of the Board of County Commissioners' signature Is required on both original agreements in order to receive the approved allocation. RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff respectfully requests that the Board authorize its Chairman to sign both agreements and return originals to the Main Library Director to be forwarded to the State Library so grant awards can be made. Staff also requests that the attached budget amendment be approved. 12 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the State Aid to Libraries Grant Agreements and also approved Budget Amendment #033, as follows: CONTRACT ID: 90 -ST -21 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES GRANT AGREEMENT AGREEMENT made and entered into this______ day of ............ in the year 1990, by and BETWEEN the State of Florida, Department of State, Division of Library and Information Services, hereinafter referred to as the DIVISION and the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, hereinafter referred to as the GRANTEE for the STATE AID AMOUNT: $89,178.00 released in quarterly allotments, in accordance with the schedule set forth in ATTACHMENT A. WITNESSETH WHEREAS, the DIVISION is authorized pursuant to Sections 257.16, 257.17, 257.171, 257.172, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes, to administer operating, regional library, equalization, and establishment grants for public library service; and WHEREAS, funds have been appropriated to the DIVISION under Sections 257.16, 257.17, 257.171, 257.172, 257.18, and 257.19, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the GRANTEE has made application and certified eligibility for receipt of grants authorized under Sections 257.16, 257.17, 257.171, 257.172, 257.18 and 257.19 Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the GRANTEE has centrally expended for the operation of public library service during the fiscal year ending September 30, 1988, the amount'of $ $665,453.00 exclusive of federal and state grants; NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto mutually agree, in execution of the Agreement, as follows: FE a 13 BOOK 1 3 1990 BOOK 79 inE I The GRANTEE agrees to expend grant funds awarded pursuant to this agreement in full compliance with the terms and conditions of Chapter 257, Florida Statutes, and Chapter 1P-2, Florida Administrative Code, relating to free p«blic library service, and to provide access to financial records when an audit review is deemed necessary by the DIVISION. GRANTEE further agrees that in the event funds are not expended as set forth above, said funds shall be returned to the DIVISION. II The DIVISION, for and in consideration of the GRANTEE'S performance hereinunder, and contingent upon the availability and release of funds to the DIVISION, awards an operating grant(s) in the amount of eighty-nine thousand, one hundred seventy-eight ($89,178.00). IN WITNESSETH,WHEREOF, the parties hereto have agreed and executed the Agreement the date and year first above written. WITNESSETH: THE GRANTEE L��_�=__---- Signat�reof�riLed Offi al Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Typed Name and Title of Authorized Official ------------------------- ' Wi ss - --------------------- fi tness Approved: 2-13-90 THE DIVISION Jim Smith Secretary of State State of Florida ---- Witness ------ Witness . r------ $89,178.00 The first payment will be made on receipt of the signed contract. The third and fourth quarterly allotments will be processed for payment in April, 1990. 14 STATE AID TO LIBRARIES Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County ATTACHMENT A QUARTERLY ALLOTMENrs PAYMENTS July 1, 1989 $22,294.50 October 1, 1989 522,294.50 $44,589.00 January 1, 1990 $22,294.50 April 1, 1990 $22,294.50 $44,589.00 $89,178.00 The first payment will be made on receipt of the signed contract. The third and fourth quarterly allotments will be processed for payment in April, 1990. 14 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners .� FROM: Joseph A. Baird, OMB Directol'r SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT NUMBER: 033 DATE: February 6. 1990 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Main Library Eauinment Maintenance 001-109-571-034.63 S 5 000.00 S 0 Books 001-109-571-035.45 $15.000.00 S 0 Microforms 000-109-571-035.47 S 1,000.00 S 0 Audio Visual 001-109-571-035.48 1.178.00 0 ,Elderly Books 001-109-571-038.31 16,000.00 S 0 Elderl Subs. Microforms 001-109-571-038.35 S 5.000.00 0 Automation Materials 001-109-571-038.51 S 3,000.00 0 Automation Su lies 001-109-571-038.57 S 5.000.00 0 GENERAL FUND/N. County Library Rent/Of ice Ecruipment 001-112-572-034.43 S 250.00 0 E i me t Maintenance 001-112-572-034.63 S 500.00 0 In House Printing 001-112-572-034.71 S 500.00 0 outside -Printing 001-112-572-034.72 S 500.00 0 Office Su lies 001-112-572-035.11 1.000.0o S 0 Other O grating Su lies 001-112-572-035.29 S 1.000.0o 0 Institutional Su lies 001-112-572-035.25 250.00 .0 Audio Visual 001-112-572-035.48 1,000.00 0 Youth Books 001-112-572-038.11 4 000.00 9 0 Youth Audio Visual 001-112-572-038.14 S 1. 000.00 0 ,Elderly Books 001-112-571-038.31 2,000.00 S 0 'Elderly Audio Visual REVENUES 001-112-571-038.34 1,000..00 0 GENERAL FUND State Aid Libraries 001-000-334-071.00-$54,178.00 0 FED 13 1990 1 5 p/'rIy _� y�p BOOK f��i•CFe✓f.me F E >> 15 1990 BOOK f, GE I _Final_Plat Approval - Tall_ Pines_ Subdivision The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner Cheryl Tworek: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: R6bert M. Keatin , AIQ,p` Community Develo menti irector THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Chief, Current Development FROM: Cheryl A. Twor Staff Planner DATE: February 5, 1990 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR TALL PINES SUBDIVISION SD -88-07-10 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of February 13, 1990. DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION: Tall Pines Subdivision is a 17 lot subdivision of a ±4.61 acre parcel of land located at 38th Avenue and 14th Street. The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single Family Residential (6 units per acre) and has an LD -2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per acre) land use designation. The proposed building density is 3.68 units per acre. At its regular meeting of May 11, 1989, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat approval for the subdivision. The owner, Joan Stawara, is now requesting final plat approval and has submitted the following: 1. a final plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat; 2. a certified cost estimate from the project engineer that sets the amounts for required posted security instruments; 3. a contract for construction of the remaining required im- provements (sidewalks); 4. a letter of credit guaranteeing the construction contract; 5. a warranty maintenance agreement and Bill of Sale for the. completed, publically dedicated required improvements; and 6. a letter of credit guaranteeing the warranty maintenance agreement. 16 ANALYSIS: All required improvements, with the exception of sidewalks, have been constructed by the developer and have been inspected and deemed acceptable by the Public works Department and the Utilities Department. The developer is contracting to construct the required sidewalks and is posting security to guarantee the contract. Also, the developer is warranting all publically dedicated subdivision improvements and is posting security to guarantee the warranty. The project engineer has submitted a certified cost estimate covering the _sidewalks to be constructed and cost basis for the warranty maintenance agreement. The'County Attorney's office has reviewed and approved the submitted contract for construction of required improvements, warranty maintenance agreement, and the letters of credit which guarantee the contract and warranty maintenance agreement. All applicable requirements regarding final plat approval have been satisfied. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends thatihe Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for Tall Pines Subdivision, authorize the Chairman to execute the submitted contract for construction of the required improvements, and accept the warranty maintenance agreement and both letters of credit. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously granted Final Plat Approval to Tall Pines Subdivision; authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Construction of Required Improvements; and accepted the Warranty Maintenance Agreement and both Letters of Credit. COPY OF SAID DOCUMENTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE J. Out -of -County Travel for Commissioner Wheeler, appropriate staff, and Judges Chairman Eggert noted that there is no backup on this item, and she asked Commissioner Wheeler if she understood the costs on this will be the dost of the plane, lunches, etc. Commissioner Wheeler advised that there should not be any costs other than fuel, which would be about $30/40. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved out - BOOK FED 1603 1990 M 1990 BOOK .'19 Fr,:ud2jj) of -County travel for Commissioner Wheeler, appropriate staff, and some of the Judges, to tour Straight Institute, Orlando, during the month of February. 1990 FIREFIGHTERS/INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIR Chairman Eggert requested the Commission's permission to move up this item, which is the last on today's Agenda, so it can be taken up before we get into the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board had no objections. Commissioner Bird then reviewed the following memo and also letter from the Firefighters: TO: Board of County Commissioners ru FROM: Charles P. Vitunac - County Attorney DATE: February 7., 1990 RE: 1990 FIREFIGHTERS/INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FAIR This office has recently been given an executed copy of a contract betwe.en the County and the Firefighters for holding the 1990 Firefighters/Indian River County Fair. Our application to the state for a fair permit now needs to be made, and it is necessary for the Board to execute the attached contract, permit, and affidavit to complete the application package. In addition we have received a letter from the Firefighters discussing how they wish the $9,000 rent to be spent. We respectfully request the Board to authorize the Chairman to execute the contract and attachments and approve the -County Attorney's 'Office submitting the 1990 fair application to the State of Florida. 18 _ Firefighters Indian River County Fair P.O. Box 1974 . Vero Beach, FL 32961-1974 February 1, 1990 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Ms. Chairman: As you know, the 1990 Firefighters Indian River County Fair will soon be under way and we look forward to our most successful year yet. This will be our sixth year at the fairgrounds and even though our fair grows more popular each year we are again finding it difficult to get local merchants and displays involved in the fair due to lack of permanent facilities. Even though we are able to accomodate some of these patrons by supplying tempo— rary structures such as tents we are finding that our costs are continually rising. The firefighters and many community and business leaders have expressed concern to me regarding what Indian River County's future plans are for fairgrounds improvements. The Board of Directors of the Vero Beach Firefighters'Associa— tion, Inc. has authorized me to present to you the idea of earmarking this years $9,000.00 -rent charge be placed into a special account for fairgrounds improvements. We hope that in future years these monies could possibly be matched by the county and other municipalities and thru donations in order to make the fairgrounds a more attractive place for future events. The firefighters wholeheartedly support this idea and will help anyway possible. We look forward to discussing this with you further. Si cerely, Joseph H. Earman, Jr. General Manager cc: Mr. Jim Chandler, County Administrator Mr. Bob Komarinetz Telephone - (407) 562.2974 Sponsored by The Vero Beach Firefighters Assoctallon Inc. (A non -poli! corporalton) 1`. 19 BOO BOOK 79 F',ti GE Administrator Chandler wished the Board to be aware that a request already has been made for improvements that need to be out there in preparation for this year's Fair. Among other .things, it included stabilization of the center area, and we have about $5,600 expense in that. Commissioner Bird believed, in fairness to the Firefighters, that improvement would benefit any activity using the facility, not necessarily just the Fair. Commissioner Scurlock believed it is time that we establish a fund where we can put whatever dollars are available after annual fair so that any improvements are consistent with the master plan. Although there may have been some funds already expended this year, he felt at least the balance should be escrowed for capital improvements for the future. OMB Director Baird informed the Board that he has accounted for all the revenues and operating expenses, utilizing the reve- nues from the Fair to offset the operating, and it is balanced now. If the Board takes that revenue out, it will become unbalanced. Commissioner Scurlock inquired about the revenue we have from some of the other activities out there, and Director Baird reviewed figures, noting that we are estimating $13,000 total revenues for the Fairgrounds this year. We have a maintenance account of $6,000, and we have about $5,600 left, but that does not include the mowing done by our crews. He stressed that it is barely a balanced budget, and he did not think we could move the whole amount into a trust fund, possibly half of it. Commissioner Scurlock did not think the Firefighters Fair should be the balancing act for the operation out there, and possibly we should adjust some of the revenue from the other activities. Commissioner Bird expressed his feeling that we need to put a certain amount of improvements up front, and then the revenues 20 M i M will come in when the facilities are in place and the amount of usage increases. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the contract with the Firefighters in regard to the County Fair and approved submitting the 1990 fair application to the State of Florida and directed staff to escrow $9,000 in an appropriate account for future capital improvements; those funds to be expended only by Commission decision. SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD. ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 1090 21 r� BOOK F`A ED I �s X990 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2395 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER rf1� �curttdl STATE OF FLORIDA ii 1 Beare the underelgned autlmrilyy parwnaI" appeared JJ. Schumann, Jr. aha on oath says that he la I ,," Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a trcwapsper published at Vero Beech In Indian River County, Florlde; that d isnf�.J nt-0 vain _ z3' a4fq.US i Was published In said newepaper In the laaue(s) �z61, IGaa �»av-A- Swoornuto and subscribed before me this (SEAL) BOOK ' C PAGE 12-0 NOTICE. OF CHANGE OF LAND USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con- sider a proposal to adopt an ordinance to adopt the Indian River County com- prehensive plan with changes and to change the use of land within the' unincorporated portions of Indian River County as shown on the map in this advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, Feb- ruary 13, 1990, at 9:00 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor- ida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider adopting the County's Comprehensive Plan with changes. . AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: FUTURE -LAND USE; TRAFFIC CIRCULATION; MASS TRANSIT; PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES; HOUSING;'. SANITARY SEWERS; POTABLE WATER; SOLID WASTE; DRAINAGE; AQUIFER RECHARGE; COASTAL MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE, INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDI- NATION; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR LEGAL STATUS, CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVI- SIONS, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the proposed Comprehensive Plan Adoption. The plan may be inspected by the public at the Community Development De- partment offices located on the second floor of the County Administration Build- ing at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m.' and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. This public hearing will be continued to other days if necessary. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made of this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is mode which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Carolyn Eggert, Chairman Feb. 7, 1990 22 Chairman Eggert referred the Board to director Keating's memo, noting that the most comments we have received on any item have been on the 25% upland retention, and she would like to take that item up first and then go back to the Land Use Element. After that, we would take up the other elements in order: TO: James Chandler County Administrator t� FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP AM K Community Development Director DATE: January 30, 1990 SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTION It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of February 13, 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 draft comprehensive plan in terms of compliance with state rules and consistency with state objectives. It is the ORC report objections and how they are addressed by the county that will determine whether the comprehensive 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 objections are not adequately addressed, the comprehensive plan will be found "not in compliance" by DCA. Staff has reviewed the ORC report and, based on direction provided by the Board of County Commis- sioners, has made appropriate revisions to the plan elements. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: Two options exist regarding adoption of the comprehensive plan document itself. The first is to adopt the entire plan as written, including the background data, existing conditions section, and the analysis portions. The second option is to adopt only those portions of the plan which state law requires be formally adopted and maintain the other portions of the plan as support documents. It is staff's position that only the sections of the plan mandated for adoption by the state be adopted. These are: ° The goals, objectives, and policies of.each element; ° Capital Improvements Element including: - Requirements for Capital Improvements implementation; - Procedures for monitoring and evaluation of the Indian River County Plan; 23FEB) 1121) 1990 MOK - Concurrency Management System; ° Required maps showing future conditions; and BOOK ° A copy of the Comprehensive Plan adoption ordinance. The advantage of this option is that there is a specific differentiation between what is adopted and legally binding and what is supporting. This option also makes it easier to change the data sections of the plan without going through the formal plan amendment process. The staff has structured the proposed adoption ordinance to reflect adoption of only the required Portions (adopted portions) of the comprehensive plan. Of course,'the most important consideration at this hearing is the set of state objections to the plan. 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; and policy deficiencies in the following subject areas: urban sprawl, affordable housing, and environmental. The attached revisions submitted for your consideration fall in one of the following categories. ° Revisions to the goals, objectives, and policies of each plan element; these goals, 'objectives and policies are part of "the adopted portion of the plan"; ° Revisions to the land use map, which are part of "the adopted portion of the plan"; and ° Revisions to the data and analysis sections of each element. Any recommended deletions to the goals, objectives, and policies are noted as a 0fhA0XiY_UA passage, and any recommended additions to the goals, objectives and policies are noted as underlined. The remainder of the attached pages represent changes to the body of the Comprehensive Plan text. These pages address misprints, new additions which were not included in the submitted draft, and necessary changes to the text due to revisions in the goals, objectives and policies. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the revised Comprehensive Plan and direct staff to submit 5 copies of the adopted plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for compliance review. Commissioner Scurlock needed some clarification about exactly what we are doing today. Chairman Eggert believed that staff's memo sets this out, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that he.read it, but he did not fully understand it. Apparently the policies we adopt, we then transmit to DCA, and at a point, they say we are either in compliance or non-compliance. If they say we are not in -compli- ance, his question is whether there is a step between that and the administrative hearing process. 24 M M M Director Keating noted that staff shows it as an "either/or" step. You either work out a compliance agreement, or you go to the 120 hearing process. Commissioner Scurlock felt that at last meeting it seemed like there was extra emphasis on the fact that no one has been successful through the administrative hearing process. He has done some research, and it seems that significant adjustments have been made in negotiating compliance. For instance, Brevard County negotiated and managed to have an adjustment made setting everything west of 1-95 at 1 upa, and he just wanted to make sure the same deal is available to every county whether they be big, highly populated areas or little citrus counties. Chairman Eggert commented that every county has the ability to negotiate, but not every one has the ability to come out with the same results. Commissioner Scurlock continued to stress that`Indian River County is and has been conservative, and he did not want us to end up, just because we are small, being punished because we do a good job. He just wanted to be sure we don't overlook any of our alternatives for working with the state. He had significant questions in terms of some of the social planning aspects and continued to emphasize that he wanted someone to explain the compliance deal, particularly because he did not want to sit here and be "whipsawed" and concede and consent because we think we have no option. Director Keating felt he could give an explanation. He noted that the Board can adopt anything they want. The DCA sent their objections; we have been working to address them; and staff feels comfortable with what we have come up with. Director Keating focused on the fact that the Board has 3 alternatives. One, you can adopt a plan the DCA finds in compliance; then, if the plan you adopt is found not in compliance, you have 2 subsequent alternatives - you go to the 120 administrative hearing process or there is the constant negotiation to work out FEBr-10 A 13 1990 25 BOOK E�,�c.e FEB P4 1990 BOOK79 F1�E136 a compliance agreement. He further explained that each region adopted a plan consistent with the state plan, the main objective of which is reducing urban sprawl, and now local government must have a plan consistent with their region and the state. Commissioner Scurlock continued to object to what the DCA is doing, stating that they have even got to the point of telling us that we are going to issue long term bonds for infrastructure, and, on the advice of the Finance Committee, we got a 1¢ sales tax passed just so we wouldn't have to issue bonds and incur interest expense. Chairman Eggert did not think DCA told us we had to do that. She believed it has been rewritten in here, and there is a difference in agreement as to what it means. Director Keating continued to explain the state plan and the local plan, emphasizing that consistency is one of the issues and one basis by which DCA makes its determination of compliance and non-compliance. Commissioner Wheeler expressed his concern that we are arbitrarily deciding about the use people's property can have just based on the location of a certain line. Director Keating did not think we did things arbitrarily and believed he can supply reasons for what we did. Commissioner Scurlock believed the people in our particular community said they would like low rise, low density, and now we get the Urban Sprawl concept, and the DCA is saying raise some densities east of 1-95 because we want to concentrate it in there. So what happens is that you get packed in there, and then you move the line to the west, and the result of that is a higher density countywide and more population in the long run. He believed the DCA originally said that if you can provide the infrastructure to meet the needs of the growth, that is what the goal is. One of the problem he has with the urban sprawl idea is that you don't give any credit for the node concept. He 26 ® s M personally likes the lower density the people want and spreading it out rather than people packing. Director Keating noted that what we are here for today is a final adoption hearing of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, and we have been working on this for several years. Staff has done a lot of research; we have had a lot of hearings and a lot of workshops; and what the Board has before them today is a lot different that what they reviewed at the transmittal hearings in August. Director Keating advised that we have received comments from the DCA, the TCRPC, and 1000 Friends of Florida, plus numerous letters and other comments, and while we have made substantial changes and have what he feels is a much better plan than we had in August, he doubted that we have made one person happy in the process. Director Keating continued that probably the most important change is not a substantive change, but a format change. What they are recommending today is that the Board adopt what they call the adoptive portions of the Plan, which basically are the goals, objectives and policies of all the elements, and a number of maps. The rest of the 1500/1600 page document is acknowledged by reference as support documents. Discussion continued regarding adoption of the Plan, and Commissioner Bird reviewed that once we send the approved plan to DCA, at that point, if they sign off on it, it is done, but if they have objections, we have the ability to negotiate the objec- tions; however, if we sign off on it, then we can't change it after today unless it is changing it to try to comply with DCA. Director Keating agreed, but stressed that regardless of what DCA does, what the Board adopts will be the adopted Plan and will be implemented as of today. There is the ability for anyone to request an amendment every 6 months, and we have to do an evaluation of the Plan every 5 years. Commissioner Scurlock believed the County can initiate a 27 BOOK G� FEB 13 1990 1990 �fj BOOK 8 F,�GE �e � "re -look" at the Plan any time before 5 years, and that was confirmed. Director Keating again emphasized that what staff has pre- sented today they support and recommend for adoption. He felt every decision the Board makes today will involve trade-offs, and everything comes at a price. He stressed that everything we have got here can be reduced to two issues - objective and policies. Objectives are an aim; they are where you want to be; policies are how you are going to get there. At this point Chairman Eggert asked Walker Banning, repre- sentative from the DCA office in Tallahassee, to read the following letter from the DCA into the record, and Mr. Banning read aloud the letter sent to Chief Planner Sasan Rohani on January 23rd: STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2 7 4 0 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE, F L O R I D A 3 2 3 9 9 BOB MARTINEZ THOMAS G. PELHAM Gkoverfor Secretary January 23, 1990 Mr. Sasan Rohani Community Development Indian River County 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Rohani: In response to your request of January 3, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs will send a representative to participate in the February 13, 1990 public hearing to adopt the proposed Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. The Department's representative is authorized to restate our position as expressed in the Department's December 11, 1989, Objections, Recommendation's and Comments Report, and to listen to all parties. It is the Department's position that the adoption public hearing is not the proper forum for modifying the Department's position or approving proposed revisions to the comprehensive plan. The Department's representative will be without authority to modify the Department's position or approve proposals discussed at the public hearing. The Department's role with respect to approving proposed revisions will begin upon adoption and submittal of the comprehensive plan, pursuant to Chapter 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. If I may be of further assistance in this matter, please contact me at (904) 488-9210. Sincerely, AL*wt q. Robert G. Nave, Chief Bureau of Local Planning BN/wbbr 28 Attorney Vitunac asked if there is an opportunity for our staff to meet with the DCA staff in Tallahassee in an informal meeting to resolve problems, if there are any. Mr. Banning advised that when you send in plans, there is a 45 day review period. If the DCA has problems or questions, they definitely will be in touch with the County staff. He stressed that the DCA has a very open and constant communication process; they have met with staff several times and talked with them on the telephone, and he did not feel there should be any communica- tion problem. Commissioner'Bird asked if, in the review of each county's plan, the DCA staff looks at each plan from the objective of each county and its particular needs and topography, etc., or are they bound by a "cookie cutter" approach? He did feel that we have a somewhat unique county here geographically - we have a coastal ridge, a 10 mile ridge along 1-95, and residential in between with Agriculture and marsh lands to the west, and he asked if the DCA will look at this county differently than the counties to the north and south of us. Mr. Banning confirmed that the DCA does have that ability, but their process is a combination of the "cookie cutter" approach combined with knowledge of the particular community involved. Their process is made up of the blending of a rigid checklist with a good dose of reality. Mr. Banning stressed that just because they approve something in one community doesn't mean they will approve the same thing in another. Chairman Eggert asked if the DCA places heavy weight on our conformance with the TCRPC Plan for our district, and Mr. Banning confirmed that they do. POLICY RE 25% UPLAND RETENTION OF NATIVE PLANT COMMUNITY Chairman Eggert asked that the Board first take up the 25% upland retention problem. G 29 u0� 79 - FEB 9FEB 11 1990 Director Keating commented that it could be considered the 25% problem or 25% opportunity. He agreed that this unquestion- ably is the issue on which we have had the most comment. He continued that the one valid objection we got from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council is in regard to the fact that our Plan exempted Agricultural operation, and the RPC felt it should include agriculture. Since we have gotten the RPC review and the state review, we have made some revisions and have come up with Alternative Policy 6.12, which does provide a sliding scale as recommended both by the RPC and 1000 Friends of Florida. Alternate Policy 6.12 is as follows: Conservation Element Alternate Policy 6.12 Policy 6.12: The county shall adopt regulations whereby develop- ment projects 5 acres or largerincluding agricultural operations, _shall set aside, through selective clearing and micro -siting of buildings and construction :activities, a minimum percentage of the total cumulative acreage of native plant communities which occur on site (e.g. flatwoods, xeric scrub, coastal/tropical hammock, etc.). The minimum percentage set aside area shall be as follows, based on development type: Agricultural operation: 20% of the total cumulative native plant community acreage Residential development: 25% of the total cumulative native plant community acreage Commercial development: 20% of the total cumulative native plant community acreage Industrial development: 20% of the total cumulative native plant community acreage. . Such set aside areas .shall be preserved in viable condition with intact canopy, understor-S�, and ground cover, and shall be protect- ed by the filing of conservation easements. The preserved set aside areas(s) shall be allowed as credit toward other county land development regulations such as landscape, buffers, open space requirements and minimum yard setback requirements. Where preservation of the referenced percentage of the native plant communities on-site is not feasible given site specific characteristics, the county shall consider off-site preservation and/or habitat creation (type -for -type) as an alternative to on-site preservation. Moreover, as an incentive to preserve contiguous tracts which provide more habitat value than linear buffer set aside areas, the county shall allow a 5 percentage point reduction in the set aside percentage of the cumulative native plant community acreage, for those preserve areas set aside as a contiguous tract. 30 Agricultural operations proposed for lands currently consisting of upland plant communities may, as an alternative_ to._,20 percent pre -servation of the on-site community: (1) pay an impact fee equivalent to (the average assessed value of one acre of the particular habitat type under consideration ) X (the number of acres of habitat type that would otherwise have been set aside); or (2) attach a deed restriction to the property limiting its use to only an agricultural operation until such time the impact fee described in item�(1) of this condition (adjusted to reflect average value of the habitat at the time of land use change) is paid to the county. This impact fee shall be used by the county for acquisition of comparable native habitat preserve areas and for management of such lands. Commissioner Bird asked where the 25% figure came from, and Director Keating explained that it is a policy in TCRPC Plan. 25%. Commissioner Wheeler wished to know where the RPC got the Terry Hess of TCRPC advised that he is not an ecologist or biologist and he was not with TCRPC when that was prepared; so, he cannot answer, but he was told that was determined to be a minimum amount of habitat that the wildlife and animal species would have to have so they would not be threatened with extinction. Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois pointed out to the Board that the county staff has made a somewhat more flexible interpretation in our revisions. Our original policy referred to preservation of "each" native community on site, and it now is revised to reflect a percentage of the "total cumulative native plant community acreage," which will provide flexibility to work within the design on the property. Commissioner Bird felt that whether the number was arbitrary or not, there is a basic question - do we have the right to require that set-aside of property which is a "taking" or a limitation of a person's use of their property? If we feel strongly that we want to preserve these environmental communi- ties, should we not find a way to buy these properties. He did not feel we should confiscate them from people who have owned them and paid taxes on them for years. He noted that years ago we had a provision that when you platted a subdivision, you had to set aside a park, and we subsequently found those parks were F`L 1 1990 31 BOOK f `.��► 1990 t9 Fa 'E 13 much more a nuisance than a benefit. We have pretty much dropped that requirement now, and now he sees us going back to that on a bigger scale. Commissioner Bowman felt you must consider that was a donation then, and now it is what we would call an impact fee. Commissioner Scurlock felt it is site related and asked Attorney Vitunac how he viewed this particular requirement. Attorney Vitunac stated that it is legal and his office can defend it. Chairman Eggert pointed out that what is in here that hasn't been before, and she felt makes a difference, is the sentence: "The preserve set aside shall be allowed as credit toward other county land development regulations." Commissioner Bird asked if staff has followed through as to just who maintains the acreage that is required to be set aside, who pays taxes on it, who has access to it, etc. Director Keating confirmed that has been addressed. He advised that now in the Subdivision requirements, any time there is any type of common property, there has to be a Property Owners or Home Owners Association set up to take care of the maintenance responsibility. If areas such as that are not maintained adequately, there is an ability for Code Enforcement to take action, and we have done that with many things we have approved where wetland tracts have been set aside, recreation areas, etc. Director Keating felt the Board's questions bring up two issues. First, is the Board concerned and do they want to protect the native upland communities, and, if that is their objective, what is the fairest and most equitable way to achieve that. Commissioner Bird continued to question just how these set-aside lands would be handled, and Director Keating explained that the Property Owners Association would pay taxes on it and only the people within the project would have access to it. He noted that is the big difference between this and the beach 32 access requirement. There we actually were taking it by requiring an easement where the public could use it, and it was not the exclusive use of the owners at that point. Attorney Vitunac further clarified that this is a land development regulation; we are not taking title. The theory in constitutional law is that the property owner does not have the right to destroy everything on his property, and if the land regulation says he must keep it the way it was because of the harm it would cause to the public if it were destroyed, then the regulation is not a taking. If it is to confer a benefit on the general population, then it might be a taking, and the public would have to pay for it. His office says a regulation like that is just like a setback or open space regulation that we deal with all the time in this county. 1-1 Commissioner Scurlock asked what happens if the configura- tion of this requirement renders the property undevelopable, and Commissioner Bowman noted that, on the other hand, from the environmental point of view, these pieces may be so disparate that they are really of no ecological value. Planner DeBlois made the point that there is a 5 acre or larger threshhold also written into the revised policies and some flexibility to address the situation where something would be in the center of the property. We also give the option of off-site mitigation and allow for perimeter buffering as crediting towards this. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff feels there is enough flexibility, and Director Keating stated that they do and noted that we have worked with this in the wetlands and have worked with all the options. Commissioner Bird thought staff wanted the 25% to remain in a contiguous block of property - that they wanted the plant community to stay intact and did not want it scattered throughout the development. 33 EiJGK ft z�, FED, 1 1990 E B 13 1990 Boos A Director Keating confirmed that is the case, and that is why we have built in incentives for reducing the set-aside percentage required if they preserve it in contiguous pieces. Planner DeBlois further explained that staff's position is that while the intent is to provide at least minimal habitat for identified listed species on the site, we also have some provision for the more common species of urban wildlife such as songbirds, etc. Commissioner Bird did not believe anyone would debate that what we are attempting to do is good from an environmental standpoint, but the question is are we going about it the right way in taking the property from the present property owners or is there a better way of accomplishing that. For instance, we have on the drawing board right now a Parks & Recreation Open Space Impact Fee Ordinance. The purpose of this would be to place an impact fee against new construction that would generate funds to go out and purchase lands to be developed into P&R facilities. That has not been adopted yet, and he felt it would be simple to add to that the ability to purchase lands for conservation purposes, and then we could go out and target the pristine areas that really do enhance nature, put a price tag on them and preserve them and put them in a conservation mode. Chairman Eggert believed that we have that as part of the mitigation that is stated under No. 1. Chairman Eggert opened the public hearing regarding the policy for 25% upland retention of native plant community acreage, and announced that she would ask people to speak in the order she called out from the sign-up sheets. Chamber of Commerce - David Risinger, 1940 10th Avenue, advised that he was the sub -committee chairman who put together the review of the Comprehensive Plan as it relates to industrial development specifically. Mr. Risinger addressed the Chamber's position on the upland requirement as related to industrial land use. He stressed that the 25% requirement will hamper new 34 L:__1 M industrial development in the county. They believe this require- ment is not being applied equally statewide and that it would put us at a disadvantage. Their position is clearly that this requirement should be deleted from the Land Use Plan for industrial. Tashkede Properties - Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing Tashkede Properties, owners of about 2900 acres immediately adjacent to SR 512 and Route 60, the NE section. Attorney Henderson advised that they have been going about 12 months of permit application with St. John's, DER, the Corps of through St. John's, the Corps of Engineers, and EPA. As a result, they already have had to set aside 450 acres of very questionable wetland, and this rule would possibly require an additional set-aside. Attorney Henderson wished to have a definition of "uplands." Planner DeBlois stated that the assumption is that it is clarified in itself as being those lands other than jurisdic- tional wetlands. The reference here specifically are native plant communities, and they are identified in the support documents of the Conservation Element. Attorney Henderson was -curious as to how the determination is going to be made, insofar as AG properties are concerned, and Planner DeBlois explained that improved property, for instance citrus that has been in production, is not included. In the western county we are talking mostly pine flatwoods. Cypress swamps would not be included in this category because those are considered under the wetlands. Director Keating noted that this is the plan and the implementing mechanism will be the Land Use regulations that are developed. Those will provide the procedure for determining exact boundaries and will also provide for an appeal mechanism. He stressed that it won't be a staff decision on its own; it probably will be an appeal to the P6Z Commission. 3 5fil* e c 4 � i 80079F'A;E 14 Attorney Henderson believed Policy 6.12 refers to both "native plant community" and then "native upland plant commu- nity," and Chairman Eggert believed in both cases it should be found in the Conservation Element. (8A Ecological Communities FLora 6 Fauna) Attorney Henderson informed the Board that his client intends to develop his 2900 acres into agriculture. At the present time, he and Delta Farms Water Control District have applied for development loans with various banks. They feel that this kind of imposition creates an encumbrance on the property even though there is a delay in the actual payment of the so-called "impact fee." Attorney Henderson felt this is not an impact fee; it is simply an "exaction" from the property owner. In any event, they feel this encumbrance will adversely affect his client's ability to get the financing he needs for his citrus operation. Attorney Henderson believed there may be some internal inconsistency in the Plan itself. In the Future Land Use Element Policy 6.2 states "Indian River County shall protect and conserve Agriculturally designated lands through financial incentives and development regulations....." He did not feel this is much of a financial incentive at this point, at least in his client's situation. Attorney Henderson asked if any other counties have had success in exempting Agriculture from this requirement. Director Keating was not sure just what other counties have had approved. Terry Hess of TCRPC did not know how many different regional planning councils have a similar policy in their regional plan, but the protection of native systems was considered important in TCRPC. Of the four counties in their region, they have only reviewed Palm Beach County, and it has a 25% requirement which includes commercial and agriculture. Chairman Eggert believed that our regional plan tends to be a little more restrictive than many. 36 Attorney Henderson continued to emphasize this requirement could throw his client over the edge of feasibility because these things are taken into account in appraisals for loan purposes. He urged the Board to consider exempting agriculture. Carter Associates, Inc. - Marvin Carter read the following letter into the record: CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING; ENG1NI-_I_'RS AND LAND SURVE-IY RS MARVIN E. CARTER, R.L.S. DANA HOWARD, R.L.S. DEAN F. LUETH.iE, P.E. FRED R. BANFIELD, P.E. GEORGE SIMONS, P.E. STEVE. SNOBERGER, P.E. Hon. Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 1708 - 21 st STREET VERO BEACH, FL 32960-3-172 407 - 562-4191 FAX 407-562-7180 February 13, 1990 RE: Adoption of Goals, Objectives and Policies of Comprehensive Land Use Plan Dear Chairman Eggert and Members of the Board: Most of you know that I am a Native of Indian River County and that my Grandfather, R. D. Carter, was an early pioneer, Land Surveyor and Engineer, involved in the very early development of this Coun- ty. I am a third generation Land Surveyor and President of Carter Engineering firm involved with Engineering and Land Development, primarily within Indian River County. With this pioneering background, and associated strong personal property rights advocate, my comments are based on professional training and involvement in small, medium and large land develop- ments (both urban and agriculture), an inherent sense of equity and concern of development within Indian River County, and just plain common sense. These comments might apply to all development but are focused on the impact on Agricultural development and specifically addresses the 1 unit per forty acre density proposal in certain Agricultural Land Use designations, and the mandatory 25% preservation of all on-site native plant communities. In reviewing this proposed document I understand that it is both the State and Local policy, objective and goal to protect, conserve and enhance agricultural development. In order to accomplish this, the Plan is proposing to set aside thousands of undeveloped acres lying in the mid -western part of our County and classifying it as Agricultural Lands. By that classifi- cation, in the name of protecting, promoting and conserving agri- cultural lands: w., ��� 37 BOOK rL BOOK 79 Far,E 145 (A) Commercial development is not permitted. (B) Industrial development is not permitted. (C) Condominiums and multifamily developments are not permit- ted. (D) Even low density residential development is not permitted unless you happen to own at least a 40 acre parcel. These restrictions make Agricultural Lands the lowest value of any usable land within the County. This devaluation of land values reduces the borrowing power to the farmer, and effectively prohib- its the development of citrus and other agricultural uses. Such restrictions do not protect or promote agriculture. In reviewing the plan it appears that one -unit per -forty acre zoning has been applied where there is already a platted subdivi- sion (Fellsmere Farms Company Subdivision) which created 10 acre tracts (lots) back in 1913. This proposed rezoning will create many "non -conforming" uses of the property and deny the intended use of many individual land owners of these tracts. Now lets review the agriculture development of a parcel of land with respect to the existing and proposed preservation regulations. Typically the flatwood lands of Indian River County contain any- where from 15% to 40% environmentally sensitive lands which have to be protected undercurrent regulations. For citrus development, of the remaining 85% to 60% of uplands, storm water and irrigation/freeze protection management practices dictate that 10% to 15% must be placed in detention/ retention reservoir systems. Add to this the proposed 25% upland preservation requirement and you can see that a farmer can only plant 50% (or less) of his land to actual citrus. I can think of several agricultural projects now under planning and permitting stages that are economically stressed under current regulations that will become economically unviable - will not go forward - will not result in citrus development. The land owner will have no alternative, in many instances but to litigate for relief. In summary, through the process of planning and rules and regula- tions of various government agencies, presently undeveloped lands, without compensation to the owner, are required to shoulder the entire burden of promoting and protecting the public welfare. There is enough burden on undeveloped agricultural lands now without further restrictions, devaluation, and without taking an additional 25% and setting it aside for public welfare and benefit. It appears that undeveloped agricultural lands are being singled out, and are carrying out, an unreasonable burden of providing for the public benefit and welfare. Not only can you not develop the land for anything other than agricultural purposes, you can only develop approximately 50% of the land for agricultural purposes, and much of the remainder goes, without compensation to the land- owner, to serve the public interest. What has happened to the American concept of private ownership of property? What has hap- pened to the Constitutionally protected concept of no taking with- out just compensation? 38 _ M M If the law permits a taking of the nature proposed through the planning process, common sense says there is something wrong, and I would hope that the County Commissioners would not succumb to pressure by planners of the Department of Community Affairs and Regional Planning Council and would adopt a plan that is responsive and fair to the people of Indian River County. If these proposed rules and regulations are truly in the interest of public benefit and welfare then you and I and all of the citi- zens of Indian River County should share in the cost and not place an unfair burden on the shoulders of undeveloped land owners. I urge you not to adopt these recent changes to the plan without further public review and explanation with those citizens of our County that are so greatly affected. Over the years, you and those Commissioners before you have done an excellent job in directing the development of Indian River County and its unique characteristics. I hope that you will not permit persons from outside our County destroy that uniqueness and make our County like theirs. (JA 'a arter Indian River Citrus League - Douglas Bournique, Executive Vice President of the Indian River Citrus League, read the following thoughts from Alto Adams of the pioneer Adams family of Fort Pierce: THE ADAMS RANCH BRAFORD CATT E y4 ; " Vol •��.ra�r.�,'/'w't'�r{�'+„ : w'vi.S.�T [',1�!lt2l�E?� • ' ��•i ,• ..,��`•._.• r • .���t %A�I•.)ai J. r. YnT: -fes, •1 J;lvs.-. 41 � pr_ :_'ros}.-' � }_��•'��•..Y moi;-�IT�SC1A�R�� / ���.. - ., J J 1•�_�-� ._ K :�" �`i-_ _t��..r�-•' y� .. .t �17it' - ..re.e �..�`� f' `� �� , � ©© py��-� ��J ., �,`•'9.-� .1°• i i-�Vv'r// f'iYN" V'YD10 Post Office Box 1030 Fort Pte Florida 34954 • .: �L . �I. .4,J_ \. '•„� �'-Li.,: i.:� rhe. Telephone (407) 461-6321 January 10, 1990 Mr. Douglas Bournique 535 Date Palm Rd. From the desk of Vero Beach, FI, 32960 DOUGLAS BOURNIQUE EXECUTIVE VICE PRESIDENT i Dear Doug, INDIAN RIVER CITRUS L•EAGUri Enclosed are some thoughts in regard to Florida's Growth Management Plan. Sincerely, ` -�L Alto Adams, Jr. FED I 1 1990 39 Pa L Most of the civilized earth is turning to a market oriented, free enterprised economy. Land must be used at its highest and best use. Central planning with armies of enforcers is not the way to go. The Growth Management Plan will result in more homeless people, higher cost housing, increasing unemployment, and less tax base. Concurrency will require present taxpayers to pay for an infrastructure that will be used through most of the 21st century. There is nothing wrong with allowing residents in the next century to help pay for these improvements. The basic legislation setting up the Growth Management Plan and the Regional Planning Councils is flawed. It designates representatives from other counties to decide the development of its neighbors. This puts these people in a position of conflict of interest. It disenfranchises the citizens of a county by having their fate decided by representatives elected by another county. It strips county officials of power to determine the type of county that their citizens wish to have. For example, Okeechobee and Palm Beach counties are different and should be allowed to keep their local character. The Regional Planning Councils have the power to dictate what must be done but they do not provide the financing. The infrastructure cannot be put in before the people get here because it will bankrupt both developers and local governments as in 1926 when local governments collapsed due to bonded debt, and people would not come to Florida and be encumbered by the debt. Florida has a proven system of government that is workable and responsive. The Regional Planning Councils have added an unneeded layer of government that has not controlled growth and has done little significant planning. They are an unnecessary burden to a state that needs the money for schools and highways. Mr. Bournique referred the Board to the following letter from Bernard Egan, President of the Indian River Citrus League opposing the 25% upland rule and the proposed densities for agricultural land: 40 r IR R' . =e FRUIT INDIAN RIVER eet=4 Ze4fae o �44'Yfq °'tlJ P.O. BOX 519 7925 20TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961-0519 TELEPHONE: 407/562-2728 OFFICERS JOHN A. SCOTTO Chairman of the Board February 9, 1990 PHILIP C. GATES, SR. Vice -Chairman BERNARD A.EGAN President BEN F. BAILEY, Ill Vke�Preatdent Honorable Carol Eggert, Chairman Carolyn gg r J. J. PARRISH. III Board of County Commissioners Vice-president GEORGEEORGEF. HAMNER, JR. Indian River County ver oun Y Vice -President 1840 - 25th Street GEORGE A.KAHLE Tressurer Vero ero Beac , FL 32960 DOUGLAS C. BOURNIGUE ExeAGeattiveneral anagesidenl b General Manager Dear Madam Chairman: M.R. BUCKALEW Special Consultant I would like to offer the following comments to the Indian River DIRECTORS County Commission regarding the impact of the proposed comprehen- BEN F. BAILEY, III sive plan on behalf of the Indian River Citrus League's 1600 VereBeech grower members who grow citrus in a six -county area from Palm RICHARD E. BECKER Fort Pierce Beach County to Volusia County: DAVID L. BROWN Mims TALBERT COOPER, JR. The district is comprised of approximately 220 000 acres of P PP y , Fort Pierce commercial citrus. Last year we packed a record 32 million 4/5 NCROFTON OR. R. Titusville Titusvillebushel cartons for an F.O.B. value of $223 million. This equates J.V. D'ALBORA, III to approximately $2.1 billion in economic activity for the Indian Vem BERNARDRNARDA.EGAN River Citrus District alone. Indian River County's portion of the Fort Pismo district is impressive containing 20 of our 34 affiliated packing WILLIAM ch ESTES veroeeach houses and 400 p , y growers who produce citrus on 67 000 acres. Count PHILIP C. GATES, SR. wide this equates to an F.O.B. value of $100 million and a $700 ce Fan GEORGE F. GEORGE F. HAMNER, JR, million dollar economic impact. Citrus provides one of the clean- p Vero Beach est and lightest industries a county could hope to have, employing GEORGE A. KAHLE Vero Beech 1 out of 5 people in the work force, producing a vast greenbelt, a PATRICK 0.LEARY healthy product and a very steady, secure financial base. It F JOHHNNM. LUTHER L doesn't take long to figure out what an area would be like without vemBeach its economic base for merely look at the old northern citrus belt JAMES J. Pismo which, unfortunately, was frozen out during the 1983, 1985 and JOHN MINTON 1989 freeze events. That area had to cut its services, close its FPierce TRAAVISVISMURPHY, JR. rascaY Jusg schools and drastically adjust its budget to continue forward. Fort Pierce Citrus in the Indian River District is an extremely viable and JTftusv RISH,ItI TMosN11e health industry but one that also needs friendly local support Y Y y in LALAN RYALL order to maintain its prosperous outlook. Citrus has historically JOHNA.SCOTTO migrated in the State of Florida since its inception. Early Fort Pismo plantings in north Florida have migrated continually south seeking E.R. e Beach warmer climes and their,, friendly local reception. There is no ,question that citrus in Indian River County is here in a big way and wants to continue to stay here. The Indian River citrus pro- duction is primarily exported. Two-thirds of the total cartons packed last year were exported to Japan, Europe and the Pacific Rim. There Indian River County growers compete with fruit from around the 'world - Cuba, South Africa, Australia, Texas, Israel, South America - for an increasingly smaller and smaller market. In that market quality and price is essential in moving our product. We feel that the regulations proposed in the comprehensive plan, asking that 25 percent of the uplands be preserved along with burdensome densities on agriculture, would subject our industry to an insurmountable production cost increase basically taking us out of some key markets throughout the world. We have to comply with federal, state, local, water management, army corps and numerous other regulations asking for more and more of our property and of our income to comply with local regulations where other countries not only do not 41 �140 FE63 1990 CEO I�_1990 Boa'! m,,r 14SI have these regulations but, in some situations, subsidize their industries. We have to meet this competition in a world market where price is a very critical component. We also feel that these regulations will lower the value. of our property thus, reducing borrowing power to our growers which is essential in periods of hard times, such as a freeze which just happened, or a canker outbreak, when a grower needs to borrow against the value of his property. With these regulations in effect, a growers' borrowing power would be reduced by 25 percent and his ability to produce on the land he owns and pays taxes on would also be reduced 25 percent. We urge you to reconsider these regulations that are harmful to agriculture such as the 25 percent upland rule and the proposed densities for agricultural land. Sincerely, Bernard A. Egan President Sea Oaks Communities - Attorney Bruce Barkett appeared rep- resenting Sea Oaks Communities, as well as Edgar Schlitt, Dale Sorensen, Tom Hamilton, the Estate of Carson Platt, and Jim Caine. Attorney Barkett advised that he has a specific recommen- dation in regard to the alternative proposed by staff "Where preservation of the referenced percentage of the native plant communities -on-site isnot feasible given site specific characteristics, the county shall consider off-site preserva- tion......" He felt the implication is that the county might reject that alternative, and he felt instead of consider the word should be permit. Attorney Barkett then addressed Commissioner Bowman's comment that setting aside these little tracts may not do any good at all. He believed if the county is going to set aside native upland communities, they, as a county, should have the opportunity to buy them in large tracts where they will be viable. He noted that the county has only given the AG opera- tions the ability to buy out of this 25% set-aside, and he felt that option should be given to all developments. Lastly, many of his clients have AG properties, or potential AG properties, that would be affected detrimentally by this proposal, and he felt Mrs. Bowman's remark was well taken. The goal should be to preserve viable ecological communities and not just little 42 parcels of property. Attorney Barkett advised that Sea Oaks, in particular, has an approved site plan; they are in the process of getting a Coastal Construction Control Line permit, and this rule could cause them to be denied. He felt this whole issue should be readdressed. Vero Beach/Indian River County Board of Realtors - Nancy Offutt deferred to Herndon Williams. Mr. Herndon stated that the Board of Realtors are strong advocates of growth management and of conserving a natural environment, but they must object to what they consider a "taking," and he was surprised at the County's legal view that it would not be considered a taking. They oppose that provision in the Plan. Mr. Williams then referred to the provision that "Agricultural operations proposed for lands currently consisting of native upland plant communities may, as an alternative to 25% preservation ... (1) pay an impact fee....." He found it difficult to understand why the land owner would have to bear the entire burden when this is for the benefit of the entire community. If it is essential to the community, then the property owner should be reimbursed for the cost of the land. The Chairman asked if anyone further wished to comment on the 25% upland retention requirement. Pat Corrigan came before the Board representing his family's properties and the Indian River Cattlemen's Association. He appreciated what has been said, but wished to give the Board some "country boy" perspective. Mr. Corrigan noted that land owners in the county have suffered the loss of property rights in recent years at an astonishing degree. Those in AG have suffered disproportionately because their business depends on larger quantities of land than other industries, and the situation is magnified as it pertains to the cattle industry. He contended that their property values are being destroyed by the recent Growth Management legislation. Mr. Corrigan stressed that his family was protecting the environment long before most of these self-proclaimed environ - 43 BOO � ' 19�1 K d . au, BOOK 9 FlgIF. x.51 mentalists came to Florida. He personally has been protectiong sea turtles, gopher turtles and snakes, deer, turkeys and alligators for 45 years. His ranch has forests of large pines that he has maintained with controlled burning, and he has enhanced wildlife habitat by draining areas that were otherwise unusable. His father stopped the paving of Jungle Trail 40 years ago, and one year was awarded Conservationist of the Year by the State of Florida. His family has been protecting the environment for three generations, and now they are being punished by drastic devaluation of their land. He felt strongly that the County should not "take" the land, but should pay for it. Mr. Corrigan contended that things are not equal statewide. He believed because Indian River County was proclaimed to be within the jurisdiction of the TCRPC, our Commissioners are being told to do a lot of excessive regulating, including lowering densities west of 1-95 to 1 unit for 40 acres. He pointed out that their ranch in Brevard County is even further from residential areas, and the density there is 1 upa west of 1-95, and now he understands that he can use another 250 of his own property if he buys that much more to give up. Mr. Corrigan felt that Indian River County has had a long range Plan for many years that is unrivaled in the state and that has resulted in a model community. He believed our Commissioners know best what is right for our county, but emphasized that when the county lowers densities below 5 units per acre, it is breaking AG's back and destroying their borrowing power, and this is especially true of the cattle business. Mr. Corrigan wished to oppose this thing, or at least slow it down, and get Indian River at least equal to other counties in the state. John Morrison, citrus grower in this county and real estate broker in Florida since 1959, wished to introduce, as a facet not yet presented today, the sociological and economic aspects of crippling the orderly development of citrus in this county. He 44 � � r �v v r � � noted that he used to live in Fort Lauderdale, and when urbaniza- tion took place, the many people who had been gainfully employed in the AG industry lost jobs, went to Welfare, went into drugs, etc., and the whole place went to the dogs. If anything is done to deter the operation and orderly development of citrus in this county, those workers who are illiterate, although they are highly trained men, do not have the capability of moving out of the AG sector into other jobs, and there are many such people. He believed if this happens, the DCA is going to be confronted in the courts of this land and will find out just what rights they have or do not have. Peter Robinson, president of Laurel Homes and representing Treasure Coast Builders Association, referred to the following letter sent to the Board by Treasure Coast Builders Association: TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION 6560 South Federal Highway, Port St. Lucie, Florida 34952 January 31, 1990 I.R.C. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Commissioners: UI�zT'?(BUTION LIST C--- -iissioners A,..;:i:strator ✓ At: -',..''Y Pc.iel Pu 'Norks C; ............y Uev. v Utilities FinEnce Other We are writing to you today to express our objections on certain issues of the county's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan as it affects us in the home building industry. Some of our objections include, but are not limited to: 1. The possible imposition of yet another impact fee to pay for parks and recreation. 2. Arbitrary zoning densities dictated by a state agency (the DCA) which has little knowledge of, or concern for, the uniqueness of Indian River County's growth patterns and philosophies. 3. The unrealistic requirement to set aside 25 percent of .each native plant community which occurs on a building site. This requirement when added to drainage and other requirements may shut down all economic expansion in this county. 4. The need to protect land owners' rights by vesting of development orders and associated capabilities needed for that development, while also preventing hoarding of capacities. �' 15(Ea X990 4 5 P�GK ; , A BOOK A 1517, 6. The increase in risk and instability associated with land ownership due to ever-changing availability of capacities. This can have a dramatic effect on banking, real estate, and all who do business in the county. These are some of our objections, but the list is by no means all- encompassing. We understand the need for planning the future growth of our county and for maintaining the quality of life we all enjoy in Indian River County. However, this should not be done in such a manner that industry in Indian River County is thrown into economic turmoil and uncertainty. We must be allowed to grow in a way that is financially sound. We must have a business climate that is conducive to growth and investment, rather than one that is characterized by uncertainty and unacceptably high risks. We therefore urge you to consider how the Comprehensive Growth Management Plan will impact on the housing needs of our residents, the ability of the home building industry to meet those needs in the future, and the ability of future residents to earn a living which will allow them to maintain the quality of life we presently enjoy. Sincerely, TREASURE COAST BUILDERS ASSOCIATION �Y Kenneth C. Marshall, Chairman Indian River County Chapter Mr. Robinson wished to talk about the point brought up by Commissioner Bird as to how you take care of these 25% retention areas because he certainly agreed that the little parks, which were formerly required when platting subdivisions, ended up by becoming problems. He noted that Director Keating said we are smarter now - we are going to make you set this aside, but now we will make you responsible for taking care of it and seeing that trash isn't dumped on it, etc. Mr. Robinson felt this is a "taking" and that the government should pay for it and, at the least, should be responsible for taking care of it. Peter Spyke, citrus consultant, 126 43rd Avenue, informed the Board that he was involved with the Martin County Comprehen- sive Land Use Plan, and they discussed this 25% set aside at length. He had a, possible solution to suggest in regard to Agriculture. Mr. Spyke felt the 25% figure is fairly arbitrary and it originally came from Palm Beach County where mapping 46 determined that certain native upland plant communities had been cleared to the point where there was only 3-5% of the original land area remaining in them. That 25% in their Plan is essenti- ally a situation where they are saving 25% of the remaining 30, which isn't very much. The 25% rule was developed as part of the TCRPC policy in 1987, and the provision for the impact fees and deed restrictions on AAG were added because it was realized that AG was in a different situation and that was -the best they could come up with at the point, except that there weren't very many people from AG involved with that decision. Mr. Spyke noted that although the policy has been there with TCRPC for these years, up until this point it hasn't been enforced; it was only a policy. Mr. Spyke pointed out that with commercial, residential and industrial development, where there are usually landscape and open space requirements, it is not as tough to deal with this thing. Unfortunately in AG, they are already planting trees as densely and as close as they can and can't plant more to compensate. As to the impact fee option, AG would have to go out and buy more land to allow them to use what they already have, and AG has no setback or open space requirements to apply the 250 rule against. He noted there is even a question as to the legality of the Comprehensive Plan regulating AG. Mr. Spyke believed AG is specifically excluded from the term "development" as defined in the Growth Management Act since that Act is designed to regulate growth of people. Mr. Spyke then asked what do you do about timber and cattle? If you set aside 250 of the native habitat, does that include the timber and how would it affect logging of the timber, which is native trees. He advised that in Martin County they discussed mapping to provide an indication of what appropriate kind of preservation policies would be feasible. He further noted that at this point in time an AG development that is involved in a change in land use (i.e., from native pasture to citrus grove) is involved with obtaining F-� r � 1990 47 BOOK. BOOK 79 PAGE 155 permits from numerous agencies, and the idea of sticking more regulations on top of that is not an appealing one. Mr. Spyke did feel that there will be some change in TCRPC policy and believed the position the Commission should take would be to have mapping and classification of upland properties, and if preservation is warranted in the next 20 years for AG, then the appropriate procedure would be to purchase this from the AG producers to ensure it is preserved for the public good in a way that will be successful. Commissioner Scurlock commented that after what he has heard so far, he has reached a position where he is looking at Alter- nate Policy 6.12, and to give everyone an idea of where he is heading, he would suggest at the appropriate time, a possible Motion to eliminate AG totally from the 25% retention requirement and to reduce Residential, Commercial and Industrial to a consistent 20%. Then, in Paragraph 3, as suggested by Attorney Barkett, insert the word "permit" instead of "consider" off-site preservation, and in the last paragraph where we are referring to Agricultural operations, that would be eliminated, and he would make that option available for Residential, Commercial, and Industrial. Michael Buska, Assistant Director of the TCRPC, believed from what he has heard, the Board is saying let's find a way to make this less painful. He noted that the RPC doesn't mandate that the counties adopt the 25% policy. TCRPC understands that there is more than one way to skin that cat, but they haven't heard a lot of solutions except what the Board is considering now. They do feel there needs to be some fair share responsi- bility spread out through the community. You can see the consequences of not doing that by looking at what has happened in Dade and Broward Counties where there is literally no intact upland habitat left in the urban area, and Palm Beach County is struggling. The landowners there who own the 4 or 5 remaining pieces of native habitat are now being regulated to save 48 everything to make up for the people not thinking about uplands previously. With respect to AG, Mr. Buska commented that the policy understands that we were willing to give up the benefits of native habitat on AG lands as long as those lands remained AG; so, AG essentially is exempt until they decide to do something different. He also has heard the comment that 2 acre parcels aren't important - well, they are important to such things as migratory bird species, and that benefit goes far beyond the borders of Florida; it is global. Mr. Buska stated that he has not heard compelling reasons today why AG should be exempt and he would suggest that at this point AG still be included and a less painful solution found. Douglas Kneller, representing NorPak Corporation owners of approximately 8,000 acres in northeast Indian River County, came before the Board and expressed their objections to the Compre- hensive Plan, as set out in the following letter: J. SAM OW �JR. _^ 1� GLENN D.S O CH sz{ .1VED MARY Q HA N BOARD CO'J*N l� WINSTON K. Owe"MISSIONE•RS , + DOUG A. KN EL R[ I,U Y' r ?�2� OF COUNSEL 1(( [��' DEANNA E. BOONE �:0T^ � OWENS 8 STORCH 12th January, 19JO. Carolyn X. Eggert, Chairman of County Coi-nmission, Indian River County, 18.10 25th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32960. Sasan Rohani, Chief, Lona Rang Planning, Community Development Department, Indian River County, 1340 25th Street, Vero Beach, FT. 32960. CERTIFIED :NAIL # P 683 694 161 CERTIFIED MAIL i# P 683 694 160 Re: FLORIDA STATUTE 163.3184(1)(a) AND 163.3184(7) WRITTEN OBJECTIONS FOR PROPOSED MdIPREHENSIVE PLAN OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Dear Sirs: On behalf of NorPak Corporation, parsuant to Florida Statute 163.3184(l) (a), this letter is su5tnitted in objection to the proposed Comprehensive P1tta of Indian River : Fri BOOK . I F"GE 157 Corporation is the owner, of the W.W. Ranch, approximately 8000 acres, depicted in Exhibit "A". After rev iewinb the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the Objections, 1,ecommendations and Comments(OPLC) from the Department of Community Affairs (issued December 21st, 1939), the following objections are submitted: 1) Page 19, paragraph 28 of the aIRC report recommends residential density of one unit per forty acres upon conservation designations. The draft of the Comprehensive Plan submitted to the D1.1k, Policy 1.4 (page 39), stated a density of one unit per one acre east of I-95. Because the conservation designation is upon private property east of I-95, a reconbnended density of one unit per forty acres may constitute inverse condemnation by the County. _NorPak Corporation requests that the conservation density remain at one unit per one acre or a land use elesignation of 'Rural -2, Low -1, or Lo,r4-2 is placer upon the land presently designated as conservation upon Exhibit "A". 2) Page J, paragraph J; page 13, paragraph 18(0); pave 16, paragraph 24; page 17, paragraph 25; page 18/19, paragraph 23, of the O:tC report reco:nnend less intense densities and land designations east of I-95. A population -based plan: a) -lay lead to the ignoring of regional dynamics, which will lead to more growth than the historical trend ;vouId indicate; b) Limits supply of developable land based on mainly historical growth trends; c) 'Chis more limited supply results in restricting the home building industry's access to lower-priced land; and, d) Phis restriction causes the value of land designated to accommodate the proposed population to increase abnormally, resulting in an increase in Nous i Ilg Costs . NorPak Corporation objects to any change upon the aural -1 designation upon the ,�.S. ranch east of I -J5, unless the change is to increase the density. 3) Page 18/ 1 J, pararapll 28 of the Ott- report recommends residential densities within agricultural designations from one unit per twenty acres to one unit per one hundred acres. NorPak Corporation objects to the recommended density and requests one unit per ten acres (or more intense) density for that designation. l) NorPak Corporation objects to the agricultural designation upon its land west of I-95 (see Lxhibit "A"). To properly plan a large tract of land (considering future infrastructure), it is necessary that arbitrary lines are not drawn on that land dividing a- ricultural and residential uses. NorPak Corporation requests residential and commercial/industrial designations :vest of I-95 upon EXIIi5it 50 M M - 5) Noe Pak Corporation ohjects to the insufficient acreage of the colmlercial/industrial area located at the intersection of I-95 and Cousity Road 512. Because `>'orPak Corporation is the owner of a Dirge tract of land, it is likely that the pIannisij of this land vill occur in its entirety. For proper planning, the coainercial/industrial area needs to be expanded to the east ;ind to the north, alIowin- efficient access points to major t`ioroughfarcs . Not -Pak ::orporation requests such expansion. NorPak Corporation reserves the right to amend this objection letter. If you have any questions, please call me. Very truly yours, �t TYJUGLA �1. KNELLER -ure 2.34a m _ EXHIBIT "A" _ Boundaries are approximate LAND USE MAP o.. c o u n t Y _:` �. G �: ...� ..► n S •.i? Sebastian, g 51 ,_,, POOK 1990 V r BOOK 7 9 F,,;;c 15 Attorney Kneller stressed that NorPak objects to any per- centage requirement of the upland native vegetation. It is a "taking" and also in violation of the "equal protection" clause. He stated that it is very important today that the Board know the effect of what they are doing, and stressed that whether the figure is 190, 200 or 250, no one knows the effect. Other counties, particularly with their traffic concurrency management programs, have implemented programs without knowing the effect, and the result was a moratorium. He again warned the Board that it is very important that they know the effect of what they are doing. Darrell McQueen, of McQueen Assoc., came before the Board representing two developers in the area being affected. He liked the direction the Commission is going, and as far as setting aside some of the natural vegetation, he that is normally done in upscale developments. He continued that one of the developments he represents consists of about 2,000 acres of completely natural vegetation which has never been cleared; associated with it is about 400 acres of wetlands, and when you talk about the 25% rule, you are talking about 400 acres of uplands. You need 12 to 15% in stormwater management, and when you get through with all those figures, it leaves 1,000 acres in this parcel. The other parcel consists of about 1,200 acres sparsely vegetated, and setting aside of that would not create a problem. Mr. McQueen liked the suggestion of possibly 200 over the entire range, but he would further suggest that the Board put a cap on that 200 such that it does not exceed 100 of the total project area. In fairness to the people who still have a parcel in its natural state, there should be a cap. Bill Myers, Lloyd & Assoc. spoke in opposition to Policy 6.12. He advised they have absolutely no objections to Objective 6 and think Policies 6.1 through 6.11 validly support that objective, particularly the concept of mapping and photographing the county to see what you have and truly want to preserve. As 52 � � D Attorney Vitunac pointed out Objective 6 appears to confer a benefit upon the general public, and it is not site specific. Mr. Myers contended that if a landowner has to go out, and in order to mitigate, has to buy another parcel of land of equal environmental value, that is an unreasonable regulation because where a man started out with a parcel of possibly 100 acres, then he has to go out and repurchase 250 of it in order to develop it. He felt that proves the unconstitutional nature of the regulation. Mr. Myers noted that his remarks are summarized in his letter, which is as follows: svd KIMBALL/LLOYD & ASSOCIATES, INC. P ENGINEERS, ARCHITECTS, PLANNERS AND SURVEYORS e PHONE - (407) 562-4112 - FAX - (407) 778-8836 February 13, 1990 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Comprehensive Plan Scheduled for Adoption on February 13, 1990 Dear Ccamuissioners: This letter is our corporation's and Lost Tree Village Corporation's written objections to the Comprehensive Plan scheduled for adoption on February 13, 1990. Our firm and Lost Tree Village Corporation are persons who own an equitable.or legal interest in property located in, or who reside in, or who own or operate a business within the boundaries of Indian River County. The written objection raised is to Policy 6.12 (and any similarly stated policies) which overregulates and/or takes 25 percent (or more) of the private property of an equitable or legal landowner. This objection is based upon the guarantees of both the United States Constitution and the Constitution of Florida that private property cannot be taken, nor unreasonably regulated, without just compensation - The proper method for government to set aside native communities is to acquire such lands by negotiation or condemnation. Thus the cost of preservation is shared by all citizens, in lieu of just those who presently own land containing native plant comr&mities. Very truly yours, By, , -0. fl�dA G. William Myers, Jr., P.E. • Vice President and Chief Operating Officer 53 800K. 19 F.aGt. BooK .79 P,gU 161 Bob Burnett of Lost Tree Village Development Corp. did not want to repeat their objections to what has already been addressed, but did wish to hit on one point. They own land that is characterized as upland and wetland, all on the same contigu- ous parcel. They already have a control against development of the wetland, and the additional setting aside of upland on the same parcel continues to reduce the developable amount of land. He felt that is inconsistent. He realized there is not a simple solution, but would ask the Board to consider not adopting this requirement. Chairman Eggert advised that Robert Swift wrote the follow- ing letter suggesting a few alternatives, and we have a letter from Attorney Darrell Fennell, both of which are hereby made a part of the record: 54 - M M M ROBERT B. SWIFT Real Estate c— is 00, January 17, 199 � ��F,p�,p Carolyn Egert Chairwoman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32963 Dear Carolyn: I am writing to express a concern regarding the proposal to impose a 25% land set aside under the revised CLUP. I understand that this element is being strongly advocated by the DCA, however I hope the commissioners will assert their right to govern the affairs of Indian River with a careful eye towards the protection of private property rights. While few could argue against the desirability of preserving unique habitat, the current proposal - as I understand it - is essentially an advesarial condemnation of one-quarter of an owner's property without compensation. Please consider the economic impact on the landowner. You know that at least one-third of any parcel is taken out of development due to allowances for road and utility rights-of-way, storm water management and retention, and wetlands preservation. Removing an additional 25% reduces the developable acreage to less than one- half of the original parcel. The real economic impact is even greater since the set aside areas are carved from only developable, upland property. The -.landowner has only three options: forego development and Moose)completely the economic benefits of his land ownership; in net density on the remaning property; or raise prices to realize a comparable return. And, the county already has one of the highest costs of housing in the state. There are fair and effective means of identifying and preserving unique habitat should +Iio commissioners determine to set aside land for conservation puposes only. A few approaches that should be considered are: Establish a trust fund from general revenues for land identification and purchase; Bond programs for immediate purchases that are repaid through a similar trust fund; Incentives for voluntary set asides through tax abatements or other relief; Aggressively pursue outside funding through state or private programs such as CARL, the Nature Conservancy or other foundations. Such acqusition strategies would have the additional benefit of assembling preservation parcels of significant size rather than scattered bits and pieces that yield no real conservation benefit. DCA's mandate is bad policy. I hope the commissioners will find the proper balance between conservation of habitat and the protection of private property rights. Sincerely, 55 FES-", I L BOOK FAuE163 r. LAW OFFICES OF GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL, APPLEBY, 13ARKETT & O'NEILL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION JOHN R. GOULD BYRON T. COOKSEY DARRELL FENNELL FRANK M. APPLEBY LAWRENCE A. BARKETT EUGENE J. O'NEILL * + MICHAEL J. HANLEY CHRISTOPHER H. MARINE February 8, 1990 .,__ _. Eggert, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 979 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32963 TELEPHONE 140 7) 231-1100 FAX (407) 231-2020 'ADMITTED IN MASSACHUSETTS FLORIDA AND DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA -FLORIDA BAR BOARD CERTIFIED CIVIL TRIAL LAWYER OUR FILE NO. DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Public Works --Cbminunity Dev.�^h �cp�,i)1-reed Utilities Finance Other. RE: Adoption of Comprehensive Plan for Indian River County Dear Chairman Eggert and Members of the Board: Please be advised that I am the attorney for S. Thomas Hamilton, Jr., Personal Representative of the Estate of Carson Platt, deceased. Accordingly, this letter is written on behalf of Mr. Hamilton as Personal Representative and on behalf of the heirs and beneficiaries of the estate. The Carson Platt Estate includes approximately 7,000 acres of property, most of which lies west of I-95 and most of which is undeveloped (other than for cattle ranching) at the present time. Enclosed for your information and reference is a copy of a sketch which has been colored and coded and which indicates the location of the lands owned by the Platt Estate. The purpose of this letter is to express grave concerns about certain provisions and elements of the Comprehensive Plan and the accompanying Future Land Use Map which I am advised is under consideration for adoption on Tuesday, February 13, 1990. It is my understanding that the proposed Comprehensive Plan and the proposed Future Land Use Map submitted by the County for review in August of 1989 has now been substantialiv revised, re -written and modified. Using a t broad sroke brush, it is obvious that a generally well - conceived Plan as originally submitted by the County has been amended, tightened and constricted to the point that reasonable, prudent development (whether residential or agricultural) would in many instances be unfeasible if not impossible. M 56 L�J I am informed that many of the modifications are being proposed in response to the Objecti-ons-, Recommendations and Comments issued by the Department of Community Affairs under report dated December 11, 1989. In that regard, although I realize that the State cannot and should not be totally ignored, I trust that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, acting as informed, conscientious and practical representatives of the citizens of Indian River County, will exercise their independent judgment and adopt a Plan that has elements and provisions which take into account the local situation and the economic and individual rights of local property owners and which would not, in essence, have the practical and economical impact of a ;"taking" of undeveloped lands. I have compared the proposed Future Land Use Map submitted by the County in August of 1989 to the current Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.34 dated January 1990) with particular attention to the property West of I-95 and the Platt Estate properties and properties surrounding same. Under the Future Land Use Map as originally proposed, the Platt Estate properties would have been partially in an agricultural zoned area with a one unit per ten acre density and partially in an R-1 zone area with a one unit per five acre density. Under the revised Future Land Use Map presently under consideration, a part of said properties would be in AG -3 zoning with a one unit to five acre density, a part would fall in AG -2 zoning with a one unit to ten acre density, and the majority of the Estate properties would fall under AG -1 zoning with a one unit per forty acre density. To be more specific and to highlight specific observations and concerns with particular reference to the Platt Estate properties (and I also suggest that my comments would apply to other properties), I make the following points: 1. I note that the Platt Estate properties lying immediately West of I-95 and North of State Road 512 (up to the Brevard County line), together with the property not owned by the Platt Estate and lying West of I-95, is classified in part as AG -2 with a one unit to ten acres density factor and the major part is classified as AG -1 with a density factor of one unit per forty acres. This classification is made despite the fact that the property is bounded by I-95, a major thoroughfare,— is --served by State Road 512, and lies in close proximity to the Town of Fellsmere. It would appear to me that property in such a location would be extraordinarily well suited: for a low density residential -golf club type development and, in fact, the Estate has entered into two contracts with two different purchasers (one contract is now pending and one was terminated for other reasons) where the proposed use of the property is low density, residential, golf course type communities. Because of the access to the property via I-95 and via SR 512, and the natural beauty of the land, it was felt that this type of development would be looked upon with great favor and would be an asset to the community and consistent with good planning. 2. I ask you to take note that the remainder of the Platt Estate properties West of I-95 (not generally described in Paragraph No. 1 above), are located within the platted subdivision of Fellsmere Farms Company Subdivision. The plat for Fellsmere Farms Company divides the property into 10 acre tracts. Accordingly, the property has been subdivided and platted and each individual 10 acre tract is owned by the Estate. With particular reference to the AG -1 classification of the properties lying West of Road 507 (Babcock Street), the density factor of one unit per 40 acres would appear to FEB13199® 57 8ork FEB I � 1990 v � BOOK F"uE 1. me to be inappropriate, if not unlawful. Additionally, Babcock Street is a significant street and to restrict properties bordering on Babcock Street to a one unit per forty acres AG -1 zoning classification would appear to impose an unreasonable and impractical classification. 3. It is my understanding that the major reason for the revisions in the Future Land Use Map and the classifications thereon was to make the Land Use Map and the potential developed -out density as reflected thereon consistent with the projected population of Indian River County as reflected in other elements of the Plan. Apparently, this required the one unit per forty acre classification and possibly required the inclusion of property into an agricultural category that would be more reasonably and properly "planned" in another category. I question this approach to planning and the necessity or logic being applied. 4. Although the Future Land Use Element under Objective 6 entitled "Agricultural Protection"---indicates--the-desire and goal to protect, promote and conserve agriculture, it is our opinion that Objective 6.12 under the Conservation Element, which essentially requires 25% of uplands to be preserved and undeveloped, would be directly contrary to the;stated goals of promoting agricultural development and opportunity to develop a citrus grove. From a very real and practical viewpoint, there is virtually no undeveloped land in Indian River County suitable for agricultural purposes which does not already have substantial environmentally sensitive lands and wetlands which are required to be preserved under the authority of various Federal, State and local bodies. Typically, lands environmentally sensitive and wetlands will eliminate 10 to 25% (and in some cases a great deal more) of the gross property proposed for citrus development. Application of the 25% of remaining uplands pursuant to Conservation Objective 6.12 provides a very real obstacle to the ability to develop citrus groves. Relating these general comments specifically to the Platt Estate properties, a contract is presently being consummated which would call for a citrus development on most of the land (designated as parcel 111" on the attached sketch), an approximate 1800 acre tract lying West of Road 507. We know that we are faced with environmental issues and application of Conservation Objective 6.12 will reduce the developable acreage to a point that it may not be economically feasible for the project to go forward. The provisions for an alternative impact fee affords no relief and in fact requires a landowner to pay the county for the privilege of exercising ownership rights to the landowner's own (not the County's) property. This appears to me to be contrary to basic American private property rights. 5. The points, comments and concerns expressed in Paragraph 4 above concerning Conservation Objective 6.12 as it relates to agricultural lands are also applicable, from a legal and property rights viewpoint, to non-agricultural developments. The thoughts and comments which I have expressed above are to some extent general but also are specific to the Carson Platt Estate properties. Please be advised that Darrell McQueen, of McQueen & Associates, and Bruce Barkett, of Collins, Brown & Caldwell, plan to appear and address the Board of County Commissioners at -the--meeting- on Tuesday. They have been authorized and engaged to speak on behalf of 58 the Platt Estate as they represent contract purchasers from the Estate, and they may also be speaking on behalf of their clients. Your consideration to the comments and thoughts expressed in this letter, as well as your consideration to the presentation by Mr. Barkett and Mr. McQueen, will be greatly appreciated. Before I close, I do want to make the very positive point that Indian River County has an excellent planning department and I commend Bob Keating and his entire staff for the professional and competent work that they perform on an "every day" basis. In a conversation that I recently had with Bob, he observed that "if everybody was happy with what his department was doing then he probably wasn't doing his job" and I suspect that this is true. The planning staff is to be commended for exercising their best efforts to conform to the Objectives, Recommendations and Comments of the Department of Community Affairs. Perhaps a primary function of the planning department is to recommend a plan that would conform to these objections, recommendations and comments. However, I would suggest that the County Commissioners, while certainly not ignoring the good advice and counsel of its planning department, quite properly should exercise their own judgment and have their own input to protect and promote the best interests of Indian River County and its citizens and residents as opposed to leaving the entire planning process to the Department of Community Affairs or the Regional Planning Council. This letter constitutes "written objections during the local government review and adoption proceedings". The affected persons identified herein have objections to the proposed Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the matters, issues and comments hereinbefore expressed. Additionally, we adopt by reference the objections and contents of the letter addressed to you dated February 8, 1990 from Bruce Barkett of the firm of Collins, Brown & Caldwell. Would you kindly include this letter as a part of the record of the County Commissioner's hearing relating to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. ely yours, Darrell Fennell Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding the 25% requirement, and there were none. MOTION WAS MADE -by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, to exempt the AG from Alternate Policy 6.12; set 20o as the set-aside for Residential, Commercial and Industrial; in Paragraph 3 insert the word "permit" instead of "consider" in the phrase "consider off=site preservation; and. then in the last paragraph replace "Agricultural operations" with 59 BOOK U` FEB 10-11 1990 L Q a 1990 flfl y _ "Residential, Commercial and Industrial" giving the options set out to those 3 types of use. COMMISSIONER BOWMAN offered the following amendment to the Motion - instead of eliminating the AG operations paragraph, that be held in animated suspension until there are futher studies re mapping, etc. Further discussion ensued, and Commissioner Bowman restated and clarified her amendment. She noted that the Motion made by Commissioner Scurlock is to hold the native plant community acreage in Res.idential development to 20o and the same with Commercial and Industrial. She is saying that instead of eliminating the AG 20%, include it, but say that the total cumulative native plant acreage will be determined after further study. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT DIED FOR LACK OF A SECOND. Commissioner Bird noted that he agreed with a majority of Commissioner Scurlock's Motion, especially re exempting AG. He did not have a philosophical problem with trying to preserve 20% of the native plant community in undeveloped property, but he did have a problem with the mechanism we are using to acquire those lands. He felt we all, those here now and those yet to come here, should somehow share in a formula to purchase and maintain those properties if we feel strongly that those properties will enhance the environment of the county. He liked Mr. McQueen's point about capping it at 100 of the overall project. Chairman Eggert asked if Commissioner Scurlock would con- sider including a cap in his Motion not to exceed 10% of the Motion. Commissioner Bowman felt the smaller percentage should be limited to a smaller tract. 60 _I Discussion continued about the difference between taking 250 of 100 acres or 250 of 1,000 acres. Mr. McQueen gave the example of two acreages of the same size, i.e., 100 acres. He noted that if one of those parcels is fully vegetated, than at the 20% you would be taking 20 acres of that land. If the other one is 50% vegetated, you would be taking 10 acres of that land. But, by putting a cap such that the 200 of vegetative cover you set aside does not exceed 100 of the total parcel, you would take part of the sting off of a parcel that has complete natural vegetation on it. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK agreed to modify his Motion to include language that it will not exceed 100 of the total acreage, and this modification was SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman. Commissioner Wheeler commented that possibly he did not understand the ecology of upland as well as he should, but he was opposed to the vehicle being proposed for their preservation as he believed it is a taking. Commissioner Scurlock did not agree that it is a taking. You can't build on it, but it is still there for the enjoyment of the people who are going to reside there. He felt it is the same as a landscape requirement. Commissioner Bird did not like having this fall under the care of a property owners association, especially since he believed a great percentage of county residents live where there is no such association. Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that we are not talking about developing this property but about leaving it in a natural state. Commissioner Wheeler felt that maybe we ought to map and inventory the uplands that we need to acquire; see if the public is in agreement; and then do a bond issue and buy them. 61 r -q r La p A7 1990 -ED 1 3 1990 BOOK I Chairman Eggert believed there are some extremely large tracts that it is important to buy, but she also felt it is important to have relatively smaller tracts around the county preserved also. Commissioner Bowman noted that it is also a matter of aesthetics when you talk about the small parcels. Commissioner Wheeler felt strongly that this is almost a matter of the basic rights we have in this country, and Commis- sioner Bird could not believe that a majority of the other 67 counties are going to put something like this in their Compre- hensive Plans. He stated that if he had his first choice, he would eliminate Policy 6.12 completely. If we have to have something along those lines, then he would rather have something that says if we think setting aside 20% of the upland community is a worthwhile thing, we will work towards doing that and we will develop impact fees and other mechanisms in order to acquire these properties and set them aside for this pupose. Director Keating pointed out that a policy that says if we want something, we will do it, essentially doesn't say anything. He felt a good point was made by Peter Spyke who said that Palm Beach County now has only 30 left of the upland communities they originally had, and unless that is what we want, there is no reason to believe we will be any different if we don't put in some of these requirements. Considerably more discussion ensued, and Chairman Eggert noted that we have a Motion on the floor to eliminate AG - change "consider" to "permit - to reduce everything to 20% instead of 25% - to put a cap of 100 of the total property - and to change the last paragraph that begins "Agricultural operations" to Residential, Commercial and Industrial. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and defeated 3 to 2 with Commissioners Bird, Bowman, and Wheeler voting in opposition. 62 Discussion then continued in regard to eliminating Alternative Policy 6.12. Commissioner Bowman stated that she would like to see some way set up to buy these parcels. Commissioner Bird agreed and reiterated that he would like to eliminate Policy 6.12 and work towards a mechanism to acquire these properties and put them into public ownership. Director Keating noted that we can establish the parameters right here, and he felt what it comes down to is who does the Board want to pay - do they want it bonded so that everyone will pay through the General Fund or would they prefer to do it through impact fees just on the new people coming in. Commissioner Bird felt that we should look for a fair and equitable formula based on a combination of those who are here now and those coming in the future, plus grant funds, etc., and then each year set aside a certain amount in the budget. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the impact fees can't make up for any backlog; so, the first job would be to inventory the entire county and that would require substantial expenditure in some budget and a major effort. Discussion continued regarding various funding alternatives. Commissioner Bird noted that he would like to try a Motion to eliminate Policy 6.12 and asked if we could just eliminate that or should we just substitute something in its place. Director Keating advised that to make this policy work at all, it needs to be specific, i.e., that we are going to out out in "X" amount of time and acquire "X" amount of acreage with "X" funds. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we can't do that because it would require a referendum if you are going to use General Obligation Bonds. Commissioner Bird believed it has been pointed out clearly today that there are a lot of mechanisms already in place to . 63 �sBOOK Fr - Fib I e MUrg� BOOK i f',�GE I accomplish this purpose other than extracting these lands from property owners. Director Keating believed it was indicated today by some of the development interests that on non -AG lands, it isn't that much of an impact to require the buffer areas, setback areas, etc., be kept in native vegetation. Commissioner Scurlock believed that all the up scale devel- opments agree it is not a hardship to provide that 200. Environmental Planner DeBlois pointed out that another concern is that our present Tree Protection Ordinance does not protect the understory, and this could contribute to buffer and afford protection of that understory. Commissioner Scurlock understood Commissioner Bird's posi- tion and he also understood property rights and had a concern about them, but he felt rather than have a bond referendum, which may or may not pass, and taking 2 years to develop maps and an inventory, that we would be better off fooling with the percent- ages and reducing those to percentages we feel comfortable could contribute benefits specifically to the land. He felt these areas would provide an asset to that particular property. Commissioner Bird still would rather eliminate Policy 6.12 and if the state disagrees, then we will react to it at that time and put the percentage in rather than putting it in -now and being stuck with it. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird to eliminate Policy 6.12 relating to the preservation of 250 of the native plant community and SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler. Commissioner Wheeler brought up the average percentage we require now to be set aside for open space for commercial, residential, industrial, and felt if it could be made very clear that part of that could be used, it would help. 64 Chairman Eggert and Commissioner Scurlock noted that the Plan says that, and Commissioner Scurlock stressed that was the point he was trying to make. Commissioner Bird did not think you could count your reten- tion area, etc., as part of this, and Director Keating noted that in some cases you might be able to. It depends on how you work it. In most cases it will just be saying you have to keep the understory and ground cover the way it is instead of sodding it. Commissioner Scurlock noted that all your buffer areas between a road, etc., can be included. Commissioner Bird thought the goal was to keep this stuff in a cluster and not string it out. Discussion continued, and Director Keating agreed that would be the best, and explained the adjustments that could be made in the percentages required if you keep it contiguous rather than string it out. Commissioner Bird noted, that in other words, he is saying that it is not that different than what we are requiring now. Director Keating confirmed that we do have requirements for open space, setbacks, etc., and he did feel Commissioner Scurlock is right when he says that it is better to negotiate from a lower position than from nothing at all. COMMISSIONER BIRD WITHDREW HIS MOTION. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, to insert 15% for each of the Residential, Commercial and Industrial - eliminate Agriculture - and all the other provisions of his original Motion would stand, including the 10o cap. The MOTION WAS VOTED ON AND CARRIED 4 to 1 with Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition. FL- 6 1 '3 1990 65 ,-4'7� BOOK I F:� �c. t 4 EB 10 `NG BOOK 79 FAGF 17a Ralph Sexton informed the Board that Howard County in the State of Maryland has an arrangement with farmers whereby the county buys what is called their Development Rights. If the County buys those rights, the farmer can keep on farming, but he cannot develop the land. Mr. Sexton felt this could be done without making anyone made, and it would give the farmer the money he needs at the time he needs it. Director Keating advised that Policy 6.2 under Future Land Use has that provision. LAND USE Director Keating wished to walk the Board briefly through the proposed Land Use Map. 66 `7- r• �!: 71r:7 C__C� 4 -4 We: Jan.1990 rn Figure 2.34a FUTURE LAND .USE MAP 'e., ffi Tore LAND USE DENSITY Began C-1 0 C-2 1:40 '0 F'M V. r AG -1 1:40 C3 us W4 'K AG -2 1:10 AG -3 1:5 C= 3:1 L-1 ............. M-1 M-2 10:1 HEC Source: Indian River County Planning Dept. PUBLIC Date: Jan. 1990 COMAND Res followino oace LJ FLB 106, 1990 BOOK �F" "E 175 Director Keating referred to the Urban Service Area line for the County and stressed that the Future Land Use Map is really an urban service area driven map. The whole Land Use Plan was prepared with 2 basic concepts in mind - providing higher intensity development in those areas which are served with the necessary facilities to accommodate growth, and taking into consideration other constraints in that area, such as flood plains and other characteristics which make development less suitable. We put those two together, and that is how densities were determined in the urban service area. Outside of the Urban Service Area is essentially the rural area, and that is where density is substantially less. At the workshop meeting, densities were further reduced in the rural area, and Director Keating stressed that densities should be substantially lower outside of the urban service area because the State does not want urban sprawl. Commissioner Scurlock noted that after the last special meeting when we talked about a density of 1 unit per 40 acres, he did some research. He went to Brevard County and learned that they went to 1 upa. He did not feel that Brevard County can be that different than Indian River County. He wished to know how that is consistent with urban sprawl and wanted to know how Brevard County was able to accomplish this. Director Keating advised that DCA acknowledged that Brevard was the first county in the state to go through this process. They were guinea pigs, and the DCA says that what came out of this is a decision that is no longer being applied to other local governments. He noted that Charlotte County recommended 1 upa throughout the county; that was challenged by DCA and it was found that did denote urban sprawl. Since the Brevard compliance agreement was approved, the Governor's Task Force on Urban Sprawl has released their report which calls for lower densities in the rural areas. Director Keating noted that the DCA objections to us called for 1 unit for 40 acres. 68 M Commissioner Scurlock commented that 1/40 doesn't say low density to him; it says no density. He asked what is wrong with keeping or reducing our densities to the east of 1-95 and cre- ating some additional service areas around the major nodes along 1-95, including the Oslo area, at 1 upa within a 3 mile radius of those intersections. He asked if that concept has ever been proposed. Director Keating stated that we looked at a lot of alterna- tives but not that specific concept. He thought one of the better concepts, particularly if you are going with a node approach, or some kind of an approach of establishing new communities, is to pattern it after some of the recommendations in the Governor's Task Force report and some of the state technical publications on this that say you don't have to have one urban service area countywide. You can establish individual communities, but those need to be higher or medium density areas that provide the whole range of uses - not just residential, but employment and recreational opportunities, plus affordable housing. Commissioner Scurlock noted that is what he is suggesting. He believed Oslo will be another interchange to 1-95 in the future, and the 512 interchange, which probably will have some trickle- down effect from Brevard County of light industrial, already has transportation and we are planning North County utilities. He felt those will be two magnet areas and should be designated as areas of development with the infrastructure to be planned for and developed within a reasonable time. Commissioner Bird felt we are fortunate that we have that huge St. John's area that can be zero density. He noted that the AG community wants 1 upa. That doesn't mean they are going to develop a subdivision tomorrow, but it does give them some value to their land that they can take to the bank. He felt properties east of the marsh area, or some portion of that area, should be considered at 1 upa. t^q JC A 7 6d 69 VL D I J A90 BOOK .79 Director Keating emphasized if you are designating it at that density, you should expect development to come in at that. Commissioner Wheeler noted that it is currently 1 units to 5 acres, and he would like to see it stay at 1 unit to 5 acres. It hasn't developed quickly at that density, but it does add value to the property. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone wished to be heard in regard to the density question. John Morrison came before the Board representing The Civic Association and distributed the following graph addressing densities suggested on the CLUP and relating them to specific locations. He explained that it starts with the proposed increase of density per acre and the -total square miles of total acreage involved. Then removing 25% of that total acreage, you arrive at buildable acreage and then applying the dwelling units that would result from the increase in density, and then the population figures: 70 u THE ACCOMPANYING MAP IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE FE D 13 1990 L, r q ` 71 BOOK. r BOOK 79 FA G E :1 1 Mr. Morrison stressed that there are some dismaying aspects of this situation because it "down grades" (increases density) in areas where the character already has been established at RR -1, or 1 units for 2j acres, and there are also large areas which are in LD -1 proposed now as LD -2, which would go from 3 to 6 upa. It happens that within that LD -1 area there are several very suc- cessful subdivisions which have been done at densities of anywhere from 1 unit to half an acre on up, and what happens to the character of those neighborhoods when you introduce a lesser density to that property. Mr. Morrison referred to the following letter from Lomax Gwathmey, Vice President of The Civic Association: THE CIVIC ASSOCIATION THE P. O. Box 3381 CIVIC Of Vero Beach FL ASSTI. 32964-3381 Vero Beach and Indian River County 'Since 1969. preserving. fostering andpr omoting the beauty, natural leeoumea and good government of Vem Beach and Indian River County." February 12, 1990 Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Re: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Ladies & Gentlemen: In reviewing the increase in densities proposed for the new C.L.U.P., we have discovered what we believe to be not in the best interest of the county, primarily along the western edge of the populated areas. In general, we think the densities should be reduced in these areas. Specifically, the increases from LD -1 to LD -2 are considered unnecessary and unwise. We recommend all LD -2 proposed changes in designations west of 27th Avenue be eliminated. The acreage encompassed is 5,400 acres with a potential population increase of 43,020. Further, we recommend the proposed change of agricultural to LD -1, encompassing 2,880 acres with a potential population increase of 15,120 also be eliminated. The proposed changes of RR -1 to LD -1 and RR -1 to RR -2 encompass. 5,880 acres with a potential population increase of 13,275. Further, the homeowners in the present RR -1 district have built or purchased there because they want the character of a rural residential a=ea. It is certainly questionable that they are aware of the proposed downzoning by increased density that would effectively denigrate their areas. For the Board of Directors, L max Gwathmey, vice Pres dent 72 Mr. Morrison stressed that The Civic Association does not concur with Tallahassee's thinking that it is necessary to impact people and increase those densities. The character of this county is low density, and he did not feel we have relinquished our right of self-determination. Mr. Morrison agreed that growth management is essential in this state, but the implementation taking place is a denigration of our lifestyle. He did not think their intent was to remove our self-determination when we are doing it in a constructive fashion, and he felt what has happened in Dade County is what would result from the recommendations made by DCA. He also was highly indignant about the proposal for more mobile homes, especially since they are very vulnerable in hurricanes and very dangerous if they catch on fire, added to the fact that they do not pay adequately for the services they demand. Mr. Morrison attacked the whole concept of DCA's implementation. Mrs. Jeannette Lier, pioneer county citrus grower, wished to have exactly what native vegetation and native plants consist of spelled out. Chairman Eggert felt it is defined in some of our background material, and we have lists.of specific plants. Planner DeBlois confirmed that we do list nuisance exotic plants, and the remainder would fall into the native categories. Mrs. Lier contended that what is a native plant is what was growing here when she was a child and that is not necessarily what is growing here now. Chairman Eggert stated that we will make this more specific in our Land Use Development regulations, which are in the process of being done and must be passed by September 1st. Mrs. Lier next referred to Policy 4.6 under the Solid Waste Sub -Element, which states that by September 1990, the county will adopt an ordinance prohibiting open burning by requiring the use of air curtain incinerators when recycling is not feasible. She pointed out that every year, they must pull at least 200/300 1 1990 73 BOOK "Gf. ,�• I r EEE 18 1990 BOOK A Fay 181 trees from their citrus groves and dispose of them, and this year it will be considerably more than that. Commissioner Bird believed Mrs. Lier is saying they just want to be able to pile those dead trees on site and burn them. Planner DeBlois advised that policy is tied into Urban Development, and it specifically excludes AG, but Mrs. Lier stated that she was told that it did not. Chairman Eggert directed that it be clarified in the Plan that AG is excluded. David Risinger, representing the Chamber of Commerce, came before the Board to go through the executive summary of the report submitted by the Council of 100. He realized it is too late for this time, but uggested that some of the ideas and philosophies in this report should be the basis of future changes; . Mr. Risinger read the following introduction and statements: 100.00 INTRODUCTION Indian River County will never be a strong regional industrial center. With its pristine natural beauty, strong tourism and retirement sectors, and world famous agricultural products, Indian River County appears to have a well balanced and stable local economy. Upon closer examination however, Indian River County's unemployment remains higher than the state or national average. Eight to ten percent of our county's population live below the poverty line and 25% of our adults have not finished high school. We are also a county where the government sector employs more people and commands more in payroll earnings than the entire manufacturing sector. 200.00 ISSUE STATEMENT The purpose of this paper is to focus attention upon the need to promote local policies and regulations which will encourage industrial development in Indian River County. This desired industrial sector should be compatible with; and respectful of, the strong quality of life we all value, while helping to diversify our local culture and economy, provide jobs, and contribute to our local tax base. Indian River County should seek to capitalize on industry's shift towards locating in areas where the quality of life is a leading locational criteria. 300.00 APPROACH AND INTENT In September 1989, the New Industry Technical Sub -Committee was created by the Indian River County Council of 100. Simply put, their charge was to identify opportunities and constraints to future industrial development in Indian River County. Meetings were held with local businessmen, bankers, industrial park developers, county staff and concerned 74 L-1 �J citizens. The Sukr-Committee's initial focus was to review the county's comprehensive plan for the purpose of identifying potential opportunities and constraints to future industrial growth and to suggest text changes consistent with the overall objectives of the growth management plan. These observations and recommendations are respectfully submitted for your review and consideration on behalf of the Indian River Chamber of Commerce, the Council of 100 and the members and participants of the New Industry Technical Sub - Committee.. The comments contained herein are presented in sequence, by element, as found in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. Mr. Risinger then went through the executive summary element by element. Under the Land Use Element, he advised that they suggest Policy 1.22 and 1.23 be deleted. They feel the distance between commercial nodes, as set out in Policy 1.22 should be considered on a case by case basis and also that the 70% developed rule for expansion of existing nodes under Policy 1.23 is an unnecessary restriction and that also should be considered on a case by case basis. Re the Governor's Task Force recommen- dations for containing Urban Growth Patterns, the first recommen- dation speaks to the creation of urban service areas as well as urban expansion areas, which are those areas in which future development can occur, and they would encourage that the Land Use Element consider future opportunities for the creation of compact mixed use urban villages out in the western part of the county. They see the need for industrial opportunities within the I-95 corridor being critical to the creation of a planned industrial park district to allow us to get the industrial growth off of the U.S.I corridor where much of it is currently designated. In terms of allowing industrial development to occur along the 1-95 corridor, they are suggesting special policy zones. In the Water and Sewer element, they felt there was not enough recognition of industrial needs. They also felt more planning should be done for non-residential producers of hazardous waste. In the Traffic Element, under revised Policy 9.2, it appears the County is going to promote rural R/W sections for future transportation corridors where possibly in order to FED 13 1990 75 1 L_ F, ab I .� ,1990 900K I� F',1.E j achieve significant open space. Their concern with that is the amount of R/W being taken. Regarding methodology for determining LOS standards, they believe the DOT's methodology promotes more opportunities for mitigating traffic impacts, and regarding the Thoroughfare Plan, they would like to have closer intercounty coordination, especially on the N/S continuous flow of traffic. They also feel more attention needs to be given the airport facility in Vero Beach rather than supporting the regional facility in Fort Pierce. They have a problem about rail facilities into the west of the county and feel there should be more recognition of the importance of rail facilities for future industrial development. In the Housing Element, they request that affordable housing be recognized as a critical component of future industrial development as well as farmworker housing. Mr. Risinger noted that he has already addressed the 25% upland retention rule, and emphasized that as relates to the 10 mile ridge and future industrial development, they do not want development along that corridor precluded forever and would I;ike to see that addressed somehow in the Plan. They liked the economic goals, but felt there was not enough substantive action included. They feel there is a need for more intergovernmental coordination and have suggested the hiring of a development coordinator in the county to help the public understand the myriad rules and regulations. Under Capital Improvements, they have suggested a policy statement which recognized the potential contribution that can be made in special taxing districts for future infrastructure. With concurrency, with the Urban Service Area, the lack of state and federal funds, the public/private partnership to create infra- structure is going to be a critical part of any future development, whether it be industrial or residential. They understand there are no community development districts in place, and they would like to see that section expanded upon. 76 0 M M �I Commissioner Scurlock believed that if you look at Policy 5.3 in terms of utilities expansion, that provides for adequate service to any development in our county. He felt it is a very stringent requirement on the county to provide water and sewer service when needed. Attorney Kneller next took the floor representing Norpak Corp., owner of 8,000 acres in northeast Indian River County. He felt the Board must remember this is a Local Government Compre- hensive Planning Act and large land owners are unique in that they have the opportunity to hire private planners and consult- ants and come in and plan their land properly. They have even built belt lines around cities and often donate millions of dollars for sewer lines and c'apacities. There are a lot of large tracts in this county, and they all deserve a separate look. The DCA is advocating a population based plan, and Attorney Kneller contended that will drive up the price of every lot in Indian River County. He informed the Board that Norpak Corporation objects to the 1 unit to 5 acre AG designation on their property east of 1-95 and to the 1 to 40 designation west of 1-95. This is a large tract of land that needs to be planned as a large tract of land and a planned.community. They also object to lack of commercial and industrial uses. Attorney Kneller felt that by just having these nodes, the County is cutting their own throats and these opportunities are lost. He continued that the main reason he is here today is regarding the property surrounding the Sebastian River. This has been designated Conservation, and it is their position that this is a "taking" and a denial of their constitutional rights of equal protection. Attorney Kneller stated that federal case law and federal statutes, particularly 42 U.S.Code, Section 1983, requires him to make a public warning. They read the newspapers and know that the property around the Sebastian River will be acquired. The public wants that land. In fact, Land Use Element Policy 1.6 states the county's intent to acquire that property. L_ 77 -ROOK A F_ OOK Attorney Kneller wished to warn the County now that if that Conservation designation's purpose is to devalue the property around that Sebastian River, the County will be held liable, and since the Commissioners have notice, they face potential personal liability. Norpak objects to the Conservation designation and objects to any density less than 1 upa. Attorney Kneller had one further objection. The changes to the Future Land Use Element, Objective 2, says that by 1991 all new residential development greater than .2 upa, or 1 unit for 5 acres commercial/industrial development, shall occur within the urban service areas which contain the infrastructure and serv- ices. Public and private ventures will not always be within the urban service area. It is the ability of large owners to put in the infrastructure and enter into agreements with municipali- ties, and donate millions of dollars, and do what constitutes wise planning. Attorney Kneller concluded that Norpak requests that the AG designation west of 1-95 be at 1 upa and east of 1-95 anywhere from 1 upa to 5 upa; that the Conservation designation be stricken from the Sebastian River; and thatmorecommercial and industrial opportunites be provided on their parcel so it can be properly planned. Attorney Darrell Fennell came before the Board representing the Carson Platt Estate and referred to the comments in his letter which was earlier made a part of the record. Attorney Fennell commented that it would appear there is a thought process here that would concur with what many of the landowners seem to feel would be reasonable, or 1 upa. It is certain that agricultural property will remain agricultural to a large extent, and reducing it to 1 upa will not cause it to develop all of a sudden. One unit per 40 acres, in essence, is saying you can't use the property, and he believed the Board appears to agree and be leaning in that direction. 78 M M N&U, .......... 41, 3', Rktu,,!;LAU RIVERSHO, ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M ol 1g9®BOOK NAI -18' Mr. Nyquist explained that his 14 acre parcel is currently zoned IL for the first 300' off Old Dixie, and the balance is RM -6. The proposed Land Use change would designate it L-2 whereby the whole parcel would be residential. He is here today to ask for some relief from that designation. The south boundary of his property has existing warehousing, with Old Dixie to the east, the FEC railroad, and heavy commercial zoned property, and he would like to maintain some type of buffering between the residential and heavy commercial. When he purchased this property in 1983, the entire acreage was zoned Industrial, and in 1985, the use was changed and it was zoned to keep a 300' strip of IL along Old Dixie to buffer the residential from the heavy commercial. Mr. Nyquist believed there is very little property fronting on Old Dixie that has no type of industrial or commercial use. Commissioner Bird asked why we are indicating a change on this property, and Director Keating believed the Chamber of Commerce noted that industrial isn't too good along this corri- dor. Also, we have major problems with the roadway up here. This is one of those issues we have talked about for years; staff took a closer look; and this is one of the few cases where we have eliminated some commercial in the Plan. Actually, it is not too good no matter which way you go. In further discussion, it was noted that this parcel is in a county enclave almost in the middle of Sebastian. Mr. Nyquist stressed that it is right on the railroad tracks and is not really desirable for residential. Commissioner Bird asked if we couldn't leave the 300' IL adjacent to the railroad and Old Dixie, and then have the resi- dential to the west. Director Keating noted that essentially is the way we have it now with the MXD and then the way it is zoned. Issues were brought up before that this isn't the best way to have industrial uses, and staff made the recommendation to eliminate the IL. 80 Commissioner Bird felt you could argue either way, and staff still recommended residential. David Risinger next appeared speaking in regard to the Paul Freeman property and advised that both he and Mr. Freeman will speak briefly on two specific sites. He presented the following map. I& . a.. I ._. - 1DU/40ac. 1 . A G : 2 ...�..,.y .—' W' and Se!er4 1st ST SW�._�•S'..:: - _Wi L- qpqA_ •_ -�•: - ...� — _ ! ...•........�� .� •a 5th ST � • 9th ST SW Pr s�17th ST St� av ,25therST . � j � .. . _ _. ._ ��.... r. •— ...aC :.�aicut� .--��'rYo(�Caii►e�rsa4 cc�0NT' FEB 13 1990 L- t --i " I"'1 81 BOOK ( FA;c.1� ) r FEB I 'iAo BOOK 79 9 F,. ,E 189 Mr. Risinger advised that Mr. Freeman has an 80 acre tract immediately west of 1-95 and immediately south of Oslo Road. There is a small wedge shaped piece of property owned by the DOT in between Mr. Freeman's property and the western R/W for 1-95 This property presents a unique land designation problem in that it obviously serves a higher and better use than 1 unit for 10 acres as presently designated. The intersection of 1-95 and Oslo Road is designated for a future interchange, and he understands the dilemma in designating MXD at this interchange without the interchange being physically in place, but would contend given the build up of anti sprawl policies, that such areas where future infrastruccture is at least identified in the Comprehen- sive Plan should be designated as special policy zones. Mr. Risinger read his draft of a proposed policy statement into the record, as follows: PROPOSED TEXT CHANGE: SPECIAL POLICY ZONES POLICY 1.31: The county has established special policy zones where the provision of infrastructure as identified in the comprehensive plan may justify land uses more consistent with that location. These special policy zones include future interchanges with I-95 as shown on the land -use map. Mr. Risinger felt the above is an important part of establishing this site and others like it as having a higher and better potential use without actually having to identify it now in the Comprehensive Plan. Paul Freeman next addressed the Board in regard to his 20 acre parcel at the northeast corner of 8th Street and King's Highway down the street from the new Glendale Elementary School. Though he has not developed in Indian River County, he does extensive development in Lee County and is familiar with going through the DRI process. Mr. Freeman noted that one of the county's objective supposedly is to prevent urban sprawl and keep your services affordable to the people, and Indian River County also wants.to keep a low rise, low density community, which he 82 _I understands to be encouraging single family detached. Mr. Freeman noted that some of these objectives tie together and some don't. He did know that the RPC understand economics have a market, and a plan needs to be both workable and commercially and socially feasible. He is interested in affordable housing, but it is not low income housing. When you try to mix the cost of the land and the cost of the units that are on an existing sewer line and an existing water line, it wouldn't be developable at less than 3 upa. He would envision a smaller lot single family detached requiring a density of somewhere in the 4/42 range, not 6. He noted that ten acres even at 6 upa will not justify running a sewer line a mile. What they would like to see on their property is somewhere about 4/42 upa. There may be some existing development at 3 upa that is affordable, but not when you go through the costs and requirements of building today, plus impact fees, etc. Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing J.V. Caine, Dale Sorensen, and Edgar Schlitt, on this issue. He advised that he wanted to share his podium with Darrell McQueen, with the Board's permission. Attorney Barkett noted that the Board has already discussed the concept of nodes and urban sprawl. He advised that the DCA put out a technical memo, Vol. 4, #4, which just deals with urban sprawl, and it establishes some specific techniques for discour- aging urban sprawl. Under the title "Mixed Use and Clustering Requirements," the DCA says: "One of the most important and critical techniques for discouraging urban sprawl is strong mixed use policies which require residential and non-residential uses to be located in reasonably close proximity to each other. Such policies should promote an attractive functionally and physically integrated mix of commercial, office, residential, retail, including affordable housing and recreational land uses. Development designed in this manner can even occur away from existing urban areas and—not represent urban sprawl if it consists of a complimentary mix of residential and non-residential land uses at medium to high dens i t ei s; it�`i t promotes_ 1ghTeveTs�oli nterna cT`apture,i f it does not rely on rural arterials for local traffic movements; and if it encourages pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The traditional neighborhood development district code is an example�ollow this concept can be impTementea,_and the tecFnique can be—u`sed F I" 83 R0 0 K J r 'QC BOOK i II'll effectively in conjunction with transfer of development rights programs 7-I Fie mixed-use area cTusters ar`e cTearTy-deTned`as receiving zones and the-surro`unUF rura-T-areas are des'ig'nated as sendin zones." ---- "— Attorney Barkett believed that is the concept the Board discussed earlier, but pointed ou-t that if these are the receiving zones and the core areas of the mixed use clusters, the 1 unit to 40 acres will not work because there are no densities to transfer into the receiving zones. He noted that Mr. McQueen will now elaborate on what the nodal concept they propose would involve, as well as 1 upa for the areas west of 1-95. Darrell McQueen came before the Board and referred to the Brevard County Land Use Plan. He advised that the DCA recom- mended 1 unit to 40 acres for the south end of Brevard County west of 1-95. Brevard County was proposing the same densities for their new Plan as proposed on their 81/82 Land Use Map, and the DCA found them not in compliance, not particularly because of the density, but for other things. The Ag community up there got together with the Commission and went to Tallahassee to the Governor's office and came out with the following densities. For example, they were proposing 1 unit per 21 acres, and they came out with 1 upa for part; the largest area, they came out with 1 unit per 5 acres, which was a decrease from the 1 to 21 acres that they were proposing. Mr. McQueen believed the AG people and the leaders of this community are prepared to go to Tallahassee with the Commission and work towards a meeting with the Governor to that end, and they would ask that the Board modify the Plan to include all of the AG zoning as 1 unit to 5 acres. Mr. McQueen then handed out the following maps: 84 1 I UNA ff�m I�m 00 L" C6 — -_A mmmm IMMUNE An ----as- .2. a,. . ilmrm r WIN MW M M No XMI MML_ 37th L -2 . . . . . . '4" _ST . Ow. .low.". 26th ST ".. la , so 1•+aSKr�' m OR Not m L-2 Ile „'...,.....:• ...... I AST R- 12il SC=R= NI L-2 INS SM 008s. o A-w-L-crte4th ST LW r m- smilm mm jL a . Ar % L5 2.1 -c Pth ST Sit. ' A 2 x's % I, X'd A W-AY ow -m pr I.TlLh §.r_SIV % % 7-- %.m 7- 0 L-2 OW 00�_ ' X4 53rd ST --MMN i -SP PL 37th L -2 . . . . . . '4" _ST . Ow. .low.". 26th ST ".. la , so 1•+aSKr�' m OR Not m L-2 Ile „'...,.....:• ...... I AST R- 12il SC=R= NI L-2 INS SM 008s. o A-w-L-crte4th ST LW r m- smilm mm jL a . Ar % L5 2.1 -c Pth ST Sit. ' A 2 x's % I, X'd A W-AY ow -m pr I.TlLh §.r_SIV % % 7-- 1 1 ..;•tea,—.– ...�... ..w.. -r �f r/ra.4EVARD CO'v NTY �A 77. .- I.., m 1 A C.R. 510 1-� . -- -A G 1 0 -.I cz C.R. 510 R i 0 -.I cz r � � Mr. McQueen explained that they would propose 1 upa by the 1-95 corridor at CR 512 for a 2 mile radius or an area of 8290 acres. In the area of SR60 and 1-95, they would propose 1 upa within a 3 mile radius, or about 18,660 acres.- This basically is their request in the Land Use portion of the map, plus establishing the 1 unit to 5 acres for all the AG zoning. Attorney Barkett brought up the possibility of negotia- tions with the DCA after this occurs or going to administrative hearings. He noted that the hearing is just like a trial, and the important thing is that it occurs here in the county, and the county is presumed correct. It is up to the DCA to prove the Plan is not in compliance, and Statute 168.3184(10) also says that the standard is a "fairly debatable standard," and Attorney Barkett stated that if it is a fairly debatable issue, the county wins. Commissioner Scurlock felt the concept presented by Mr. McQueen gives us some options. Attorney George "Joe" Collins informed the Board that he is here on behalf of Fellsmere Farms, and he felt all his points have been made by those who have spoken already. Attorney Steve Henderson advised the Board that the 770 acre Blue Cypress Lake Ranch owned by his client, H. R. Holman, apparently has been included in the Conservation area and given zero density. Chairman Eggert believed that has been taken out of the zero density area, but Mr. Holman commented that it doesn't seem that way on the map. Director Keating explained that the area that has been included is just that within the Blue Cypress Improvement District. We just followed the line of the 100 lot subdivision out there. Commissioner Bird assured Mr. Holman that it was not the Board's intention to include his ranch in the zero upa intended for the St. John's marsh area. W'13' s7 FEB Ri�r� �0 E., `1 boox 7 9 Attorney Henderson wished to be assured that if the map is wrong, it will be adjusted, and this was confirmed. Attorney Henderson then spoke on behalf of Tashkede Prop- erties and voiced the same concern about 1 unit to 40 acres being too much of a burden. He requested that it at least be left at 1 unit to 5 acres. Attorney Robert Nall appeared representing Gene and Jimmy Morris owners of property in the Rural portion (which Chairman Eggert noted was in our flood plain problem area) and also Frank Kelly who owns 24 acres on Atlantic Blvd. Pine Tree Park is right across from the 30 acre parcel owned by the Morris brothers on 8th Street and Kings Highway, and it is L-2. They have owned that land since the 1960's. The land to the east is L-1, 3 upa, and the subdivision immediately across the street is 6 upa. Then, up by Mr. Kelly's property, you are into M-1 when you get across the canal. They would like to have the Commission lighten up on the density and would be satisfied with 2 upa. They are "R" right now, which is 1 upa. Commissioner Bird noted that L-1 gives you up to 3 upa, and Attorney Nall stated they certainly would like 3 upa. His clients do not intend to develop this property, but would like to get something less restrictive. Robert Schlitt informed the Board that he owns a piece of property on 66th Avenue between 4th & 8th Streets that is currently AG, and it will go from 1 unit to 5 acres to 1 upa. Mr. Schlitt wished to know if that Land Use is adopted and you want to change your zoning to the new Land Use, do you have to put in an application or does it happen automatically. Director Keating advised Mr. Schlitt that he would have to apply. Mr. Schlitt noted that it will cost him $650 to do that. His intention is just to divide his property from 5 acres down to 21 acres, and he wondered if the fee could be reduced. 88 C Chairman Eggert pointed out that he is not required to change his zoning if it is less than designated, and it was pointed out that the fees are set by ordinance. Mr. Schlitt further noted that after doing that, he will have to go through the Subdivision route because this has been split once before. That is about another $2,000 in fees, and all he wants to do is sell one lot. Also, to do this, he will lose approximately one acre of his land, plus all the fees. Director Keating confirmed that there already has been one split of this property; so, this would be under the subdivision requirement and also apparently there is a R/W deficiency and there will be a R/W requirement of probably 301. Mr. Schlitt continued to stress that to sell one piece of his property will require about $1,500 in fees, and Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the option is not to be able to sub- divide it. Jim Young, of Kimley Horne S Associates,`came before the Board representing E. Lapperman who owns about 17 acres of land south and east of the eastern end of Gifford Dock Road at the south end of Grand Harbor. When he purchased this land, it was zoned RM -6. The prior Land -Use Map had an environmentally sensitive rating on it at 1 upa. The proposed Land Use Map which went to DCA set this at 1 unit per 20 acres, and he understands the proposed Land Use Map gives this a C-2 designation of 1 unit per 40 acres. Additionally, by Policy 5.5, the Conservation Element of the Plan does indicate that by 1991 there will be an attempt to establish a mitigation bank and by 1992 also transfer density rights to non-contiguous properties. Mr. Lapperman's land is all in a conservation state, and they would like to request the Board to keep the 1 upa designation on this property at least until the county has time to implement the policies of the mitigation bank and the density transfers to non-contiguous properties. VED" U 89 heard in regard to the Land Use Element and closed the public hearing on that portion. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he seemed to feel comfort- able .with 1 unit per 5 acres and then going with the node concept presented by Mr. McQueen. He felt the specific language has to be developed and the Planners will have to come up with that, but he suggested a Motion to go along with the node concept presented on the charts submitted by Darrell McQueen. i.e, having 1 upa in the designated 2 and 3 mile radii shown and then 5 upa outside of those nodal areas. Director Keating objected. He stressed that will be considered Urban Sprawl. He emphasized that if the Board must include this, it must be very specific about the projection. If the Board does this, he believed there is no question that we will be found not in compliance. Commissioner Bird felt this all goes back to the unique geography of Indian River County with the 10 mile ridge and the high and dry property out there. That will develop in the next 10 years, and he stressed that is where the development is occurring from here to Jacksonville and from here south. More discussion followed about the land around the 1-95 corridor, and Director Keating commented that if you are saying some of the land in our Urban Sprawl area isn't going to develop, that it is going to stay AG, we should identify it that way - whatever is valid from that regard. Then he felt if the Board is going to deal with the area around I-95/SR60 and at 1-95/512, you draw the line tight. You don't allow Urban Sprawl at 1 upa-to go for a 3 mile radius. Commissioner Bird continued to stress that if we are looking 20 years in the future, we need to recognize there is going to be some low density residential combined with some commercial and industrial development along the 1-95 corridor. 90 BOOK !F=. 9 I'A.'JE 19 7 The Chairman determined that no one further wished to be heard in regard to the Land Use Element and closed the public hearing on that portion. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he seemed to feel comfort- able .with 1 unit per 5 acres and then going with the node concept presented by Mr. McQueen. He felt the specific language has to be developed and the Planners will have to come up with that, but he suggested a Motion to go along with the node concept presented on the charts submitted by Darrell McQueen. i.e, having 1 upa in the designated 2 and 3 mile radii shown and then 5 upa outside of those nodal areas. Director Keating objected. He stressed that will be considered Urban Sprawl. He emphasized that if the Board must include this, it must be very specific about the projection. If the Board does this, he believed there is no question that we will be found not in compliance. Commissioner Bird felt this all goes back to the unique geography of Indian River County with the 10 mile ridge and the high and dry property out there. That will develop in the next 10 years, and he stressed that is where the development is occurring from here to Jacksonville and from here south. More discussion followed about the land around the 1-95 corridor, and Director Keating commented that if you are saying some of the land in our Urban Sprawl area isn't going to develop, that it is going to stay AG, we should identify it that way - whatever is valid from that regard. Then he felt if the Board is going to deal with the area around I-95/SR60 and at 1-95/512, you draw the line tight. You don't allow Urban Sprawl at 1 upa-to go for a 3 mile radius. Commissioner Bird continued to stress that if we are looking 20 years in the future, we need to recognize there is going to be some low density residential combined with some commercial and industrial development along the 1-95 corridor. 90 Argument continued about the DCA actually wanting high density, and we don't want that. Chairman Eggert expressed some concern about just drawing a strip down 1-95. We have a chance in 5 years to revisit this, and also if anything comes up in the meantime. She did think however, that we should be doing something around these nodes. Commissioner Bird agreed that he could go along with the node concept. Further discussion followed about just what area was needed around the nodes and whether it should be in a circle, square or rectangle and what part to the east of 1-95. The Board did not know how to decide this today. Director Keating pointed out that you can amend this in 6 months, and if the Board allows staff to do the provision of these nodal areas - write it up - draw it up specifically - meet with people - this can be a change that we are envisioning right now. Chairman Eggert asked then do you call it a special policy area in the meantime so that you are saying we recognize that we want to do something here and we are in the process of doing it? Director Keating advised that we can put in a policy saying that we are going to study and we are actually going to come back with a Comprehensive Plan amendment to do this to these areas when we identify the specifics involved. Board members agreed that might be better than just panicking. Commissioner Scurlock stated that other idea he is still interested in is giving the rest of it the 1 unit per 5 acres; although, he knew that sends us off the Richter Scale. He would like to try another Motion that we designate the larger green area as 1/5 and that we direct staff to put appropriate language in here in the interim while they are developing a node concept for the 512, Route 60 and Oslo/1-95 intersections. 91 B0OK FEB 13 1990 B00� 79 F:GE 1 0 After more discussion, Commissioner Bird noted that, in other words, you are going to the 1/5 but then looking at some- thing to allow some kind of a nodal thing to allow 1/1 closer to those intersections, and that was confirmed. Chairman Eggert asked what the darkest green is now and was told it is 1/5. She noted that we also have AG at 1/10 acres up by Fellsmere, and asked if the Board members wished to bring that to 1/5 too? Commissioner Scurlock did not think it mattered; so, why not do that too, and Commissioner Wheeler felt 1/5 should be for all Of it. Chairman Eggert believed that she is hearing that we have a Motion to bring AG to 1/5. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed to bring the AG to 1 unit per 5 acres as discussed. Chairman Eggert noted that next she is hearing that we have a Motion to put in a special policy statement and develop the nodal concept around 512, 60 and Oslo at 1-95. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously directed staff to put in a special policy statement as discussed and develop the nodal concept around CR 512, SR60 and Oslo where they intersect with 1-95. The Chairman asked that the Board next address the reduction of densities suggested by the Civic Association as set out on the following graph which was submitted earlier, along with the proposed map which is on file: 92 1 fJ 1 .." K�61 M G1 OF ,FEB 13 t3ool; 7 Planner Loeper believed what we are talking about is the general area between King's Highway on the west; 43rd Avenue on the east; 8th Street on the North; and 13th St. SW on the south. Chairman Eggert commented that the Civic Association is suggesting that the Green Area, which has been moved from LD -1 to LD -2, be brought back to LD -1. Commissioner Scurlock believed part of that request is based on the existing subdivision being shaded a higher density, and it is colored what it is so that it is in conformity. Commissioner Bird realized the requests by the Civic Associ- ation are for downzoning to lesser densities than those shown on our existing map, but, on the other hand, some of the people here today are saying they want it higher -than what shows on the existing map. Discussion ensued regarding the Kelly and Morris properties which Attorney Nall is representing. The Morris property is right across the street from the Freeman request - right across 58th Avenue on 8th Street. Director Keating noted that it is a little to the west, and stated that certainly reducing this from 6 to 3 would be no problem from the flood plain standpoint. Staff suggests keeping this the same and leaving the pink here because of Pine Tree Park Subdivision. In both of these, staff's rationale was to increase densities within the Urban Service Area where services are available, and there are major conflicts of suitability. Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, staff wouldn't mind taking it to LD -1 except for the part that is existing, and this was confirmed by Director Keating. Chairman Eggert had a question regarding the fact that one of the requests goes into the "R" along 8th Street. Director Keating advised that the ones in the "R" are in a flood plain, and with lower densities, they may be easier to work with. 94 M Chairman Eggert noted that he, therefore, is recommending against any change in the "R," and she asked how everybody feels about that. Commissioner Scurlock did not have any problem with it. There has been some suggestion that there are some areas in there that are higher than the others, but until we get more specific information, he did not want to increase density in there. Chairman Eggert noted that then the Nall. request for Morris and Kelly will be held for further analysis. Attorney Nall pointed out that if you go by the 100 year flood plain, you need to go all the way back to 43rd Avenue, and Commissioner Scurlock confirmed that we are - we are taking the brown area behind the property Mr. Nall is talking about and thinking about reducing it to LD -1. The only thing we would leave higher is the existing subdivision. Attorney Nall noted then you are rejecting taking anything on this plateau of "R" to LD -1, and Chairman Eggert clarified that is the intent at this time. We want more information in terms of drainage and the flood plain; then, if there is specific property that is higher - so be it. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to leave "R" just the way it is there in the area of 58th Ave. until we can get more specific information about drainage, the flood plain, etc. Chairman Eggert then asked about 8th Street and 58th Avenue across the way. Commissioner Scurlock noted that portion which was just demonstrated on the map is south of Steven's Park, and LD -1 is what he would like to see that go to. He did not know the legal description. FEB 1 6 �� 9 5 �d'�I� ��� F' ,•i 4 Chairman Eggert noted that it is just north of 58th Avenue and 8th Street - the Freeman property. The Board generally indicated that should be left at LD -1. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed the above described area should be left at LD -1. Commissioner Scurlock referred to the section below the LD -1 where there is no request for a change other than from the Civic Association and noted that he is looking to extend that LD -1 down further to the south. Chairman Eggert referred to the area between 43rd Avenue and 58th Avenue with the exception of Pine Tree Park, and asked if he wished to extend the LD -1 south clear to 13th St. SW. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wheeler, that we leave Stevens Park, which is existing, as it is; then take the rest and extend LD -1 consistently down to 13th Street SW. Chairman Eggert reiterated that this is between 43rd and 58th Avenues. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Chairman Eggert noted that the Civic Association refers to some AGs that were raised to LD -1 in the Orange. Commissioner Bird thought that the Orange down along 1-95 was their main area of concern because it amounted to about 15,000 units. Commissioner Scurlock commented that about all he is inter- ested in doing right now is just that one strip we did, and that 96 � s r was specifically because the flood plain in there is still a question. He felt some of it may go the other way - there may be some higher land than we have identified, and on the other hand, he thought there is some that is wet. Commissioner Bird and other members agreed that we need to study that area and can come back to it another time. Anders Nyquist Property Chairman Eggert beleved that we want to buffer Old Dixie and south of 512. Commissioner Scurlock had mixed emotions. He noted that staff is recommending residential, and he believed what they are saying is that it is not good for either. Commissioner Bird agreed that is why he is inclined to leave it the way it was on this little map. Director Keating asked if the Board is talking about the whole strip up there or just the Nyquist property, and Planner Loeper pointed out that basically that strip is the entire length of the county. Commissioner Bird clarified that it would be just in that particular enclave, which is all that we have jurisdiction over. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bird, the Board unanimously agreed to leave the Nyquist property in the enclave as it is currently designated. Lapperman Land Chairman Eggert noted that the Lapperman land is in Conservation now, and he asked that it stay at 1 upa until the mitigating bank and rights for density transfer can be taken up. Director Keating advised that what we have got here is 1 unit to 40 acres if he wants to build in there and 1 unit to 1 acres if he wants to transfer the density. What we should do is F� � L�� 97 BOOK BOOK f'�Gr pu•t in a policy that the Conservation areas will be more specifically defined when an environmental survey is done. He was not sure that particular property was all estuarine wetlands. Commissioner Bird asked what this is now under the present plan, and Director Keating believed it is Conservation, and it is 1 upa. Chairman Eggert believed staff wants to change it to 1 unit to 40 acres and then do an analysis or do they want to leave it 1 to 1 and do an analysis. Director Keating explained that staff wants to change it to the Conservation that is east of 1-95, which is 1 unit per 40 acres if you want to go try to get the dredge and fill permits and build in it, but have it the same as it is now densitywise (1 upa) if you transfer it out. He noted they must think that it is all wetlands because they are talking about the density transfer provision. We are saying that we need to put in a policy, just in case he has some uplands on the property, that those uplands should not be designated Conservation and that he may actually have the ability to transfer from the wetlands to the uplands on that tract at the rate of 1 upa. Commissioner Scurlock asked if we, therefore, don't have to take any action and can just leave it the way it is? Director Keating noted we want to add that policy, but further noted that Environmental Planner Roland DeBlois tells him this may be all wetlands, and then staff recommends no action. Discussion next went to the Coraci property and their concern about the Conservation area by the Sebastian River. Chairman Eggert noted that Coraci objects -to 1 unit to 5 acres east of 1-95 and to the 1 to 40 to the west. They want 1 to 1 or better yet 5 to 1. Director Keating advised that is essentially the same as the property we were just talking about - it does have 1 unit to 1 acre if you are transferring it to adjacent uplands. 98 M M _I Commissioner Scurlock felt we should leave the Conservation area alone. As to the density, in terms of the AG, that would be basically in line with what we have done elsewhere at 1 to 5. Chairman Eggert felt what he is saying is that we have taken care of part of this by changing AG to 1 to 5. Commissioner Bird asked if we have a Conservation area up there on the present Comp Plan, and Director Keating confirmed that we do, and we have expanded it. Commissioner Scurlock asked why staff expanded the Conserva- tion area. Director Keating felt we know a little bit more about it since there are various studies going on by the CARL Program, which have identified more conservation area. We have been working with them and know a little bit more about the area. Commissioner Scurlock asked what data staff used to make the determination - he felt that should be on the record. Planner DeBlois advised that the Fish & Game Commission did an extensive study, and the Conservation area in that particular location goes beyond just the wetlands. It includes wetlands such as the feeder streams into the Sebastian River, but it also includes some of the xeric scrub community in that area. Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, there was technical data presented on which staff based their modification. Commissioner Bird noted that our option is either to leave it the way it is now or go with the expanded area staff is recommending. Commissioner Bowman felt the Florida Native Areas Inventory also covers a lot of that area. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com- missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously agreed to go with staff's recommendation. 99 LOOK 1990, BOOK 79 F� � � _ �� � a Chairman Eggert announced that there would be a five-minute break, and then the Board would proceed to review the goals and objectives of each element of the Comprehensive Plan. The Board of County Commissioners reconvened at 2:10 P.M. with all members present except Commissioner Wheeler, who left the meeting at 2:05 o'clock P.M. Chairman Eggert informed those present that she now will go through the Comprehensive Plan element by Element and read each goal and objective, and if there are any comments or questions regarding any objective or policy, we will discuss them on an as -needed basis Chairman Eggert then proceeded to read aloud the goals and objectives of each element, first taking up the Housing Element which has quite a big change in Objective 1: 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 AFFORDABILITY By 1990, Indian River County shall secure the means to reduce the cost of housing development and construction to ensure that affordable housing is available to the 60% of county households in the very low, low, and moderate income groups. Commissioner Scurlock noted that it says the county "shall secure," and he asked about saying "attempt to secure" instead as this is something that may not be achievable contingent on construction costs, etc. Director Keating pointed out that an objective is just something you are trying to get to. 100 OBJECTIVE 2 BALANCED HOUSING MARKET Indian River County shall have a balanced housing market which is responsive to the housing and economic needs of all income groups and groups with special needs. This shall be achieved by ensuring the availability of sites through the land use and zoning mechanisms, to accommodate a mixture of housing types based on the historic demand over the preceding 5 year period. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 IMPROVED PROPERTY MAINTENANCE Indian River County shall reduce the number of dwelling units with housing code violations through increased maintenance programs. By 1995, the number of code violations shall be reduced from 340 to 200. - 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. Commissioner Scurlock noted that POLICY 4.3 refers to developing and adopting an ordinance which provides a mechanism for the amortization of impact fees for newly constructed housing units which meet criteria of affordability. He would just note that includes the transportation impact fee and any other impact fee that might be adopted from time to time by the Board. If you are just talking about spreading the cost for a period of time you can do that. Director Keating agreed and assured him there will be no waiving of these fees. Chairman Eggert noted that we established the Housing Trust Fund i.n POLICY 4.4, and she read POLICY 4.5 which states that the County shall request that the Florida Legislature adopt legisla- tion which will permit the County to enact a surtax on documen- tary stamps to be dedicated to local housing assistance related needs. Commissioner Scurlock wondered if we got any input from the Board of Realtors on that Policy, and it was noted that we did not and possibly they may not even know it is there. I " �' r Ut E i' 101 BOOK OBJECTIVE 5 BLIGHT REMOVAL BOOK 9 FACE 200 Indian River County will reduce the estimated 800-1000 sub -- standard housing units by 50% by 1995. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS Indian River County will continue to ensure that sites are available for group homes and care facilities in residential areas to accommodate an additional 300 residents by 1995. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 7 FARMIIVORKER HOUSING Indian River County shall maintain the number of existing farmworker housing units and increase the quality of the units. POLICY 7.3: The county shall require permanent housing for farmworker households be located in areas which contain infra- structure necessary for safe and sanitary habitation and in proximity of other public services and facilities. Seasonal workers housing may be provided as an accessory on-site use in agricultural areas. This housing will be required to provide on-site infrastructure as required. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 HISTORIC HOUSING Indian River County will increase the percentage of significant older buildings in excellent or good condition from 72% to 90o by 1995. Chairman Eggert believed we talked about dwelling units, not buildings, and Director Keating advised that staff can make that change. That is really what the intent is. OBJECTIVE 9 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1991, Indian River County will have interlocal agreements with the municipalities to establish housing assistance and housing programs for affordable housing for the 10% of the population which is in need of housing assistance. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 10 RELOCATION HOUSING Indian River County will ensure that relocation housing is available to persons displaced by public action or activities. POLICY 10.1: The County Housing Authority shall have responsibility to ensure that persons displaced by demoli- tion of substandard housing are relocated to housing which meets the Standard Housing Code. POLICY 10.2: The Board of County Commissioners shall provide funding to the Housing Authority on an emergency basis to ensure that displaced households are guaranteed adequate housing. 102 Commissioner Scurlock asked if that means it is repaid or that it is a loan or subsidizing because if we are subsidizing, he will vote against it as he always has. Director Keating explained that what we are looking at is getting the mechanism in place to ensure the funding occurs, and whether it is through a loan or grant would be determined at that time. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that he does not want us to end up funding locally what the federal government and other agencies won't do to solve housing needs statewide. Director Keating stressed this is just for displaced people who are in an emergency situation; it isn't overall funding. Discussion followed as to the possibility of a natural disaster where many people might be displaced. Director Keating suggested adding the qualifier that we have In the Objective that says if they are displaced "by public action or activity." Chairman Eggert felt the way this is worded it says we are going to give them the money; it doesn't say we are going to loan them the money. Director Keating believed it could be a loan. He did not think it requires the County to give. able. Commissioner Bird felt it just says we will make it avail- Commissioner Scurlock wanted to be sure this doesn't apply to those displaced by hurricanes, etc., and Director Keating felt the words "displaced by public action or activity" will take care of that. Chairman Eggert advised that we would next take up the Drainage Element. Patricia McKay, speaking on behalf of 1000 Friends of Florida, requested that she first be allowed to make a few brief comments Ms. McKay advised that they have evaluated the County's proposed Comprehensive Plan for one issue, and sent the �� �s (g 103 BOOK /9 FILO -I Boor 79 F'a;:c 211 County a letter dated January 17th which included their observations. The issue they addressed was how well the Plan provided for protection of the Indian River Lagoon. She informed the Board that staff brought them up to date on several things and showed them other portions of the Plan that related to their concerns, and she was happy to say that as a result of this discussion, it seems that most, if not all, of the concerns they raised were addressed. Ms. Mckay thanked the Board for the opportunity to address them and commended them on the work they have done. Bud Kleckner had a general comment in regard to the Drainage Element. He stressed the need for a great deal of coordination between the County and the various municipalities in the development of their Comprehensive Plans because while he felt comfortable with a lot of county policies, he was very uncomfortable with some of the policies in the plans developed by the municipalities. In example, in regard to the County's water quality objective and the policies under it, he would encourage that policy be followed closely and quickly because the river is really in trouble. 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 All new construction and improvements will be protected from the 25 year/24 hour storm event. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 EXISTING DRAINAGE SYSTEM By 1995, existing drainage systems in the county will on average accommodate the 5 year/24 hour storm event. This will maximize the use of existing facilities. - NO COMMENT 104 OBJECTIVE 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS As part of the Capital Improvements Element, the county will have an adopted 20 -Year Drainage Improvement Program, which guides all drainage improvements in the county. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1991, the County will have formal, established cooperative relationships with federal, state, and local agencies having stormwater jurisdiction within Indian River County. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 5 PRESERVATION OF FLOODPLAINS AND FLOODWAYS By 1994, the county will have a comprehensive floodplain management plan. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 RECHARGE OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER By September 1990, the county as part of its land development regulations will have requirements that stormwater management systems be designed to provide recharge to the surficial aquifer when soil conditions are conducive to recharge. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 7 WATER QUALITY PROTECTION AND IMPROVEMENT By 2010, waterways outfalling in the Indian River Lagoon and other receiving waters will meet Class II state water quality standards. Director Keating advised that the only change to the Drainage Element is on Policy 7.6, which is now as follows: POLICY 7.6: Indian River County shall reduce the quantity of harmful dissolved solids, nutrients, heavy metals, chlorides, and other pollutants in stormwater runoff entering the Indian River Lagoon by incorporating Surface Water Improvement Management (SWIM) Plan policies for the Indian River Lagoon in its land development regulations and coordinating with the SJRWMD. The County will coordinate with the SJRWMD on the SWIM Plan by: Applying for SWIM funds for implementation of programs designed to meet the goals and objectives of the SWIM Plan; Submitting regular reports to the SJRWMD on progress of the programs; and Providing local information to the SJRWMD. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 LAND USE All land uses and land use densities will comply with the future land use plan map. This map is based on drainage suitability and discouragement of urban sprawl. - NO COMMENT 105 - 800X 79 t ��� BOOK Director Keating wished to point out that Public Works Director Davis worked real hard on this. He believed that this is a much better Drainage Element than we had to begin with and he wished to commend Jim Davis. Chairman Eggert at this point advised that she would like to address Commissioner Scurlock's earlier comment about bonding before he has to leave the meeting. She cited POLICY 1.8 of the CIE Element, as follows: The county shall utilize bond funding for capital projects which have a 20 year or more projected life span when the cost of a project is preferred to be spread out over several years in order that future residents share in the construction costs. Chairman Eggert commented that when she read this, she also felt as if we were required to bond when we do have the option of our 14 Sales Tax that we can use. Commissioner Scurlock brought this up, and she didn't know the best way to change that Policy. Commissioner Scurlock thought that the real key is that we have a formally established Finance Advisory Committee that takes each specific issue that faces the County in terms of funding and devises an appropriate package. They have been into recommending pay as you go, and we have been provided the resource of the 1t Sales Tax. He felt the Committee has been consistent in recom- mending to have your term long enough but not to the point where your debt service ends up being all interest and no principal. He would just like to make sure that in that Policy we recognize we do have a formal advisory committee that is making recommenda- tions on a case by case basis and that we are not locked into any specific 20 year funding. Chairman Eggert noted that it is the life span of the capital project that is 20 years or more and asked if we can say something like "when we have a 20 year or more life span projected capital project, the county will investigate various methods of financing." 106 Commissioner Bird agreed that we do not want to lock ourselves into bond financing. Director Keating did not feel this does lock us in and suggested wording "that the county upon the advice and recommendation of the Finance Advisory Committee will determine when it is more appropriate to use the 14 Local Option Tax or other funding sources to finance capital improvement projects. Commissioner Bird suggested we just say "will explore and make recommendations for various funding alternatives for capital improvement projects." He did not want to lock us into either bonding or the 1t Sales Tax. Director Keating confirmed that staff will put that into words. COMMISSIONER SCURLOCK LEFT THE MEETING AT 2:40 o'clock P.M. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Goal Land development in Indian River County will occur in an orderly and controlled manner which ensures balanced growth that maximizes 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 1 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. Director Keating advised of changes in the following: POLICY 1.1: Indian River County hereby adopts the Future Land Ose Goals, objectives, policies and maps 2.10, 2.14, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.21, 2.23, 2.25, 2.26, 2.33, 2.33a, and 2.34, as the basis for directing all land development regulations in the County. POLICY_ 1.22: Nodes shall not be created or expanded to within 1 1/2 miles of an existing node. 107 ,Jr A BOOK 79 F'.ur POLICY 1.26: The County shall also designate Neighborhood Commercial Nodes, not to exceed 5 acres, for limited retail and convenience uses. New Neighborhood Nodes shall be no cicnser than 1 mile to existing commercial nodes. Neighborhood Commercial Nodes are not shown on the Future Land Use Map. The existence of a neighborhood node shall not prevent the expansion of an existing non -neighborhood node. - NO COMMENT ON THE ABOVE POLICIES Commissioner Bird wished to know if Policy 1.23, which states that "No Node should be considered for expansion unless 700 of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for development..." is something new*. Director Keating advised that we had that policy, but agreed to add the phrase "or otherwise warranted by the proposed development," as that leaves some flexibility. Director Keating wished to have authorization to include in Objective 1 the policy that we referenced before that conserva- tion areas will be more specifically determined by environmental surveys. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, Commissioners Scurlock and Wheeler having left the meeting, the Board unanimously (3-0) agreed to include the above in Objective 1. OBJECTIVE 2 URBAN SERVICE AREAS By 1991, all new residential development greater than .2 units/acre, commercial and industrial development shall occur within the Urban Service Areas which contain the infrastructure and services needed to accommodate such development. Attorney Douglas Kneller, representing Norpak Corporation, asked what happens if a corporation or large land owner comes in and puts in the infrastructure, perhaps a 4 million dollar waste facility, drills wells, etc. For the county, that has increased their general bonding capacity. He felt no county or municipal- ity would pass up something like that, but pursuant to this Plan, 108 they couldn't develop because it isn't within the Urban Service Area. Director Keating felt saying that large projects are exempt from the Plan, if that is what Mr. Kneller is saying, is not a recommendation here. Chairman Eggert noted if the project was that big, it would need a DRI anyway. Commissioner Bird asked if planned development can occur outside the Urban Service Area if they provide their own infra- structure, and Attorney Kneller poinred out that it could not at greater than .2 upa, and any planned development would be greater than that. Attorney Vitunac informed Attorney Kneller that our policies are that the corporation or owner would have to put in their water and sewer and deed it to us anyway; so, that is not a big bonus to us. That is the way we do it already. Director Keating pointed out that the Board must determine if their objective is in -fill development or encouraging more sprawl development because even planned communities are sprawl. Commissioner Bird stressed that his objective is to recog- nize the prime areas in the -county that are suitable and logical for development, and they may not necessarily be contiguous to the heavy density areas that are developing right now. We might have to "hop -scotch" over some of the Rural Ag areas to get to the 10 Mile Ridge, which he felt is a prime area for development in this county, certainly in the next 20 years. Chairman Eggert believed we can go in and modify our Plan to accommodate that. David Risinger felt Attorney Kneller has hit on a critical point - whether you can come in with a DRI and pay all those costs and under this still have a prayer of being approved. He informed the Board that he hJs developed some suggested language for Policy 2.2 and Policy 2.6, which is as follows: s, 109 � ° '4J 11 I6JU 800K POLICY 2.2: Urban Service Areas include areas which contain services deemed necessary to suport development in an urban or suburban setting at levels identified in this and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. At a minimum those areas shall be considered suitable for development which have in plaee can provide central water and sewer, improved roadways, solid waste collection, drainage, police protection, fire protection, educational and recreational facilities concurrent with impacts created by that development at the established level of service standards. POLICY 2.6: Indian River County shall require all development except agricultural uses, residential uses with less than 2 units/acre, and recreation -open space uses to be located within Urban Service Areas, or Urban Expansion Areas where such Attorney Kneller felt there is no reason for the .2/units acre there. Director Keating observed that it is nice to talk about marginal cost pricing, but he wished to know exactly what that is and how you determine it. He felt basically the policy the Board directed staff to write re the concept of the nodes is essentially what they are talking about. Mr. Risinger submitted that we have been talking about untested theory all afternoon, and all he is suggesting is that before the Plan is adopted, we allow the door to remain open for inland development outside the Urban Service Area. Director Keating felt that is another small part of the Governor's Task Force wording that is being taken out of context; they are saying development in the "inland part of the state." Commissioner Bird noted that in Objective 2 we refer to .2 units/acre and then Policy 2.6 refers to 2 units/acre, which is a big difference. Director Keating advised that it should be .2 in Policy 2.6 and not 2, and that will be corrected. It was noted that .2 actually is 1 unit to 5 acres. Planner Sasan Rohani stressed that none of these lines are cast in stone. If someone came in with a DRI, at that time you could look at them, and if it makes sense, then you can move your 110 Urban Service Area to include that, too. At this point it seems this is the best line based on the density that we have, but 5 years down the road, we may look at it differently and then you can move the line back and forward. Attorney Kneller agreed that Mr. Rohani has a good point, but noted that not all large developments are required to go under a DRI. He had one further point, which is that the 1/1 transfer of development rights from the Conservation area just doesn't work because the .2 ratio is prohibiting you from trans- ferring those rights. Attorney Kneller stated that Norpak Corporation objects to Objective 2 and recommends that it be stricken. Chairman Eggert believed if we have a situation like that come up, then we can do exactly what we have been doing over the last few years and take care of it in our regular Comp Plan amendment time. Commissioner Bird noted that you would have to do two things if you are going to comply with this. First, you are going to have to change the Urban Services Area boundary to encompass the property that is requesting the change in the Comp Plan, and then you are going to have to change the Land Use Plan. Commissioner Bird stressed that if you think you want to encourage high quality, low density, golf course community development, which preserves a great amount of green space, and gives you a great reuse capacity for effluent, there is hardly anywhere in the urban service areas currently where you will see that occur. You would have to amass too many properties to put together enough acreage. He believed that unless you move that line in the next 20 years, you are going to prohibit that kind of development. Director Keating felt if we do what they are suggesting, which is to say that large developments can go wherever they want and at whatever density they want as long as they provide the infrastructure, we don't have a Plan any more. He would suggest the Board let staff go back and work on what staff was directed 1 r 1 1 1 BOOK Em 1 113 ���� BOOK �� Pr1GE to work on, and if it is consistent with what the Governor's Task Force is recommending, it will have residential and non- residential, affordable housing, etc., and they also talk about medium and higher density in these areas. Commissioner Bird wished to know if the Plan is saying that if a large development came in and wanted to do a golf course project, that they also have to accommodate housing for all the help. Director Keating stated they would not if they have the proper zoning. If they are in the Urban Service Area, they don't have to worry about affordable housing or non-residential uses, etc. If they are outside of it now, they are not allowed. The Governor's Task Force says if you are going to have these - build a village and make it so it is almost self-contained and with affordable housing so people who work there can live there. That is why this is much more complicated than a few minor changes to policies.. Mr. Risinger noted that technically local government is not obligated to fund infrastructure beyond the Urban Service Area line, the concept being to focus funds on in -fill development. He wasn't convinced that the county will want to tie development west to changes in their Urban Service Area, and he felt the Urban Expansion Area is how you can have your golf course development without having to pay for the infrastructure. Chairman Eggert asked if a village came in, would we have to change the Urban Service Area, and Director Keating advised that if we write the new policy that we talked about for the nodes, we wouldn't have it related to the Urban Service Area per se. We will write another policy that supersedes Objective 2, and it will be applicable to the Rural area. Chairman Eggert felt staff is saying that they will come back in 6 months with the nodal concept and that will also modify Objective 2, and she felt that probably is the best way to proceed. 112 Darrell McQueen commented that he keeps hearing from staff that in that concept they are not allowed to put in the upscale golf course developments we are talking about. Chairman Eggert believed what we are talking about is moving residential out around those nodes, which she felt could take a golf course community because the commercial/industrial is already there -in the node. She asked Director Keating if she is misunderstanding this. Director Keating explained that staff will have hearings and will work with everyone and develop this, and he felt by this time we probably will be working on a compliance agreement with the state. Mr.. McQueen believed staff is saying the residential does not go until the other is there, and you can't control that. If this Commission wants to see the high density crammed on this land as you see in other counties, then he felt they need to turn staff loose, and if not, then staff needs to be given direction to develop a node that will allow the upscale development. Director Keating stated that if the Board wants large golf course communities, let's change it to 1 upa throughout the whole county and we will go fight,DCA. If the Board wants the nodes, it is essentially the same thing; we are still sprawling out. Commissioner Bird stressed that we are talking about the major key intersections in this county, and Chairman Eggert noted that what the Board went with, when all members were present, was the way it was set out on the chart submitted by Mr. McQueen with the nodes at the intersections and the radius around them. Director Keating confirmed that staff will work with that policy and then come back and get the Board's feedback on it. Chairman Eggert believed Director Keating is suggesting that in the meantime, until we can get back around with what staff has been directed to do at the intersections, we leave Objective 2 be, and she asked if that is all right with the other Board members. e 113 BOOK M Pr F FF_ YY BOOK 79 F9GF 221 Commissioner Bowman indicated her agreement, and Commis- sioner Bird agreed also. He stressed that he will not sign off on it in final form at this time because he believed those kind of developments are what we want to see in this county west of -95 in the next 20 years. OBJECTIVE 3 LEVELS OF SERVICE All future development will be consistent with the levels of service established in this plan for public services and infrastructure. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 EFFICIENT MIX OF USES TO REDUCE TRAFFIC DEMAND Indian River County will reduce the number and length of trips on county roadways by implementing a land use pattern which places activity centers such as commercial and employment centers near residential areas. - 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. Director Keating referred to POLICY 5.8 and asked if the Board wanted anything in the 1 unit per 5 acres density now to be a planned development, and after some discussion, it was agreed to delete POLICY 5.8 which states that "Planned development shall be required for any development requiring the subdivision or reconfiguration of land in the AG -3 district." OBJECTIVE 6 AGRICULTURAL PROTECTION Indian River County will ensure that adequate land will be designated for agricultural uses and protected from encroachment by other uses. Commissioner Bird noted that you have a tremendous amount of AG east of 1-95 within your Urban Service Area, and if you are not going to allow development to occur outside the Urban Service Area, you will force the relocation of that AG because that is 114 i� r the only land that will be available to put in subdivisions or golf courses, etc. Director Keating explained that this just references the AG designated land on the Plan, not the Agriculturally zoned land in the Urban Service Area. OBJECTIVE 7 PROTECTION OF NATURAL RESOURCES Indian River County will have a land use pattern which complements the natural features of the land including soils and topography, and ensures the protection of natural features, resources and systems. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 PROTECTION OF HISTORIC RESOURCES Indian River County will provide for the preservation and protection of historic and archaelogically significant sites, and structures. - NO COMMENT 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. Chairman Eggert advised that Policy 9.6 was changed and read it as follows: POLICY 9.6: By 1990, Indian River County shall, as part of its land development regulation update pursuant to 5.163.3202(1), F.S., review its sign code regulation standards for the type, location, size, number, and maintenance of signs. Commissioner Bird referred to POLICY 9.4 which states that the county shall plan landscaped entrances to serve as gateways to the county at principal arterial roadway entrances, and believed if we are going to have that policy, we better plan on funding Road 6 Bridge even more heavily in the future. Mr. Risinger referred to the following Policy: POLICY 9.2: Indian River County shall plan and develop scenic parkways, prepare landscape plans for existing and future rights-of-way for urban arterial and collector roadways, and require, through its subdivision ordinance, minimum landscape requirements for local streets and subdivision collectors. The county shall continue to maintain rural rights-of-way because of their contribution to open space throughout the county. A 115 f=9 , Boor. iU ; f c`i 199 0 �_ �� i; Y� �J ®�o� BooK: Fa;c 2 Mr. Risinger had problems with the amounts of land we are going to consume in rural right-of-way sections. Director Keating explained that we are trying to get several uses out of the same requirement. Basically, the idea is to make the open space policy identify that we want to use the open space when we have rural right-of-ways. Public Works Director Davis further explained that it is very hard to work in this community west of 43rd Avenue in a R/W acquisition program and plan for an urban section and still handle the stormwater management requirements; so, you either confine the R/W and purchase off-site land for drainage or you go with the rural cross section and you have a lower cost to build the mile of road. It is a trade off. Mr. Risinger agreed but asked if there is away we can play with the design speeds on these roads so we can get the center line radius down. Director Davis advised that we have reduced the radius and still met the rural design standards. 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. - NO COMMENT Chairman Eggert advised that POLICY 10.5 has a change and read it, as follows: POLICY 10.5: By 1990, Indian River County shall initiate action to rezone —property to conform with the land use designations identified on the future land use map #2.34. Prior to initiating this comprehensive rezoning process, the county will prepare an administrative procedure for reviewing claims of vested rights. Through this procedure, landowners will have the ability to demonstrate that they have a vested right to retain the existing density/intensity applicable to their property. As an interim measure, all development shall be consistent with existing zoning and development regulations, however, in those cases where such regulations may be in conflict with this plan, the provisions of the plan shall apply. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 11 COORDINATED PLANNING Indian River County will coordinate with the resource planning and management activities of the state and ensure that all future 116 development will be consistent with approved management plans in- cluding the Hutchinson Island Management Plan. - NO COMMENT 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. - NO COMMENT 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. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 15 PROTECTION OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON (New) Indian River County shall maintain the environmental and economic value of water based resources including the Indian River Lagoon through land uses which complement and enhance these natural systems and resources. By 1995, the lagoon will have the state class 11 water quality standard. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 16 COASTAL POPULATION CONTROL The county recognizes the importance of hurricane evacuation of offshore barrier islands. The county will continue to maintain an average residential density of less than 2 units/acre in unincorporated portions of the island. - NO COMMENT 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. Commissioner Bird wondered if Policy 1.1 and Policy 1.6, which are as follows, are consistent. POLICY 1.1: New development within the unincorporated portion of Tnil an'River County shall be approved only when capacity is available to provide needed sanitary sewer service. 117 '- ��- boor. d J PAI;G 4Z Fl - 1990 BOOK 19 FAr,E POLICY 1.6: The county shall continue to allow the use of septic tanks in rural areas for single family units and for small retail establishments utilizing tanks for domestic waste disposal only, where approved by regulatory agencies. Director Keating believed when we say "new development," we are referring to subdivisions or site plans, and POLICY 1.6 recognizes that we are going to continue to allow the use of septic tanks on single family lots in platted subdivisions. Commissioner Bird asked how this would work if he wanted to develop a subdivision, and he was a mile from the sewer line. Would he be able to develop it and use septic tanks? Director Keating advised that it depends; it is all worked out through a rather complicated matrix. If you are inside the service area and have a subdivision within 1/2 mile of the system, you would have to bring the water and sewer to you. Commissioner Bird noted that only a very small percentage of the unincorporated area within the Urban Service Area has sewer capacity at this time. Planner Rohani pointed out that if they met the requirements for single family, we will let them build with septic tanks. Commissioner Bird felt that Policy 1.1 is too strong and that it needs to be modified to allow more flexibility. He stressed that it says "shall be approved only when capacity is available to provide sanitary sewer service." It was pointed out that "sanitary sewer service" could mean a septic tank. Commissioner Bird felt the words " or septic tank" should be added to Policy 1.1, but Director Keating pointed out that if the new development is within a certain distance of a system as specified in the connection matrix, it has to connect. Commissioner Bird gave the example of the entire Kings Highway corridor where there are no sewer lines and asked if you can build there. 118 - M M Planner Rohani stated that you can with a density of 2 upa or less. Planner DeBlois suggested that Policy 1.1 might say "excepting the provisions of Policy 1.6." Commissioner Bird continued to express his concern about consolidating the density and becoming another Fort Lauderdale as it seems that is the way we are being led. Discussion continued at length regarding spreading out, urban sprawl, low density, etc., and Chairman Eggert asked if everyone was content that Policy 1.1 reading the way it does still allows for Policy 1.6. It was generally felt those two can live together. OBJECTIVE 2 CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES By 1995, 40% 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 asked if that objective is realistic, and Planner Rohani advised that it is based on the information the Utilities Department provided. 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 Bird had questions about POLICY 3.1: POLICY 3.1: The county through the County Public Health Unit, 13TVl976n of Environmental Health shall initiate an annual permitting program for evaluation of all package treatment plants and septic tanks, the results of this evaluation shall be used for prioritization of further expansion of sanitary sewer service. 6 1 1 9 BOOa I ..1 Boa 79 PAGE 2r1 Commissioner Bird referred to the permitting program "for all package treatment plants and septic tanks" and hoped that we are not getting back to the debate we had some months ago re- garding requiring some kind of annual inspection and pump out. He wished to know just what was meant by permitting because if it includes some type of very expensive maintenance system, he has a problem with that. Planner Rohani noted that if the septic tanks are not maintained, it could have an adverse effect on the environment and the shallow aquifer; so, there should be some mechanism to ask the public to maintain them properly. Director Keating did not believe this requires pump out. Attorney Vitunac advised that the financing for the new septage and sludge facilities will require that we know who has a septic tank, and there will be an annual permit paid by those who have one to help finance the facility to take their septage; so, there will be more than just an information permit. Commissioner Bird believed when we talked about this before, the debate was about mandatory pump out, and that is what he had been concerned about. OBJECTIVE 4 WATER CONSERVATION By 1995, the county will reuse a minimum of 9% 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 treatment systems (single family units are exempted), in order to maximize the use of existing county facilities and discourage urban sprawl. - NO COMMENT 120 OBJECTIVE 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will establish a regular coordination mecha- nism with other local governments and agencies for an effective system of wastewater management. Chairman Eggert advised that an addition has been made to Policy 7.6, and that policy is now as follows: POLICY 7.6: As part of its standard franchise agreement, the county will continue to receive a monthly and annual report from private franchised sewer providers to ensure maintenance of the level of service standard established in policy 1.3 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -element. Upon receipt of the report, the County will inspect the franchised plant and issue a report which will indicate the plant's available capacity. No development will be approved by the County where that development's demand would exceed the available capacity. - NO COMMENT 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. Commissioner Bird noted that 1991 is next year, and are we saying that you can't put in a subdivision with shallow wells next year? Director Keating explained that is qualified by the fact that it is not specific that it has to be a centralized or public potable water system, and also this is just saying we are going to be redoing our land development regulations to be more specific. A similar connection matrix is also applicable to this-. Commissioner Bird wished to know if, within the Urban Service Area, he had 10 acres that he wanted to cut up into ten 1 acre country estates, could he have a well and septic tank on. each lot, and Planner Rohani confirmed that he could. 121 BOOK .) FEB1 I OBJECTIVE 2 CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES BOOK 79 FAE ?9 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. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 POTABLE WATER AND GROUNDWATER QUALITY By 1992, the county as part of the permitting process, will have a set of adopted requirements governing the use of potable water and groundwater, to ensure the compliance with federal and state laws and regulations. - 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. Chairman Eggert read the following policies which have changes, emphasizing that we are•just "investigating" this: POLICY 4.9: By 1992, the county shall investigate the feasibil- ty—oT requiring all potable water customers to install dual meter set-ups, one for indoor use and the other for outdoor use. POLICY 4.10: By 1`992, the county shall investigate the feasibil- ity of setting"up a charge system which is equitable for the average water user but provides for an exponentially increasing unit rate for the high volume users which are using more than three times of the Level of Service standard established in policy 1.3. - ,NO COMMENT ON THE ABOVE POLICIES 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 potable water treatment systems franchised by the county, in order to maximize the use of existing county facilities and discourage urban sprawl. Chairman Eggert read the following policy in which there were some changes: POLICY 6.3: By 1991, the county shall amend local ordinances to require Mat issuance of permits for replacement or expansion of existing on-site water treatment systems be conditioned upon compliance with the most updated revision of the DER, HRS and SJRWMD regulatory requirements and Federal and State water qual- ity standards as identified on page 19 - 21 of the sub -element. - NO COMMENT 122 OBJECTIVE 7 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will establ-ish a regular coordination mecha- nism with other local governments and agencies for an effective system of potable water provision. Chairman Eggert read the following policy, which has been added to: POLICY 7.5: As part of its standard franchise agreement, the county will continue to receive a monthly and annual report from franchised potable water providers to ensure maintenance of the Level of Service standard established in Policy 1.3 of the Potable water sub -element. Upon receipt of the report, the County will inspect the franchised plant and issue a report which will indicate the plant's available capacity. No development will be approved by the County where the development's demand would exceed the available capacity. - NO COMMENT 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 manage- ment 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 development. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 SPECIAL WASTE AND HAZARDOUS WASTE By 1992, the county will have appropriate equipment and sufficient capacity for the management of special wastes and hazardous waste. There will be a 50% decreas in the number of cases of improperly managed and illegally disposed of hazardous waste in the county. Chairman Eggert read the following policy which has been added to: POLICY 2.10: By 1991, the county Public Health Unit shall perform regular inspections of private licensed waste handlers to ensure that bio -hazardous waste, generated by medical , establishments and handled by private firms, is properly managed. When improper management of bio -hazardous waste is found during an inspection, the private waste handler (the violator) will be prosecuted and fined by the Environmental Control Board. The county shall continue to inspect the bio -hazardous waste which enters the landfill. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS By 1995, the county w 7T have completed improvements to the solid waste facility as outlined in Table 3.C.12 of the Solid Waste �L'a ���U_ 123 aOGr B Ftq;r. alC1 Fir - 79r Sub -Element, to maximize the use of existing facilities and discourage urban sprawl. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 RECYCLING AND WASTE VOLUME REDUCTION By 1994, the county through the recycling program will have reduced the volume of solid waste to be buried in the landfill by 30%. Director Keating informed the Board that he would like to have authorization to clarify in Policy 4.6 that AG is exempt from the restrictions on open burning. This was suggested by Mrs. Lier earlier. Also, under the specific criteria there, they have been working with the Health Department, and it may not be the Planning Department issuing the permit any more. If they can have that authorization, they know the Board's intent. Bud Kleckner, member of the P&Z Commission, first wished to discuss Policies 4.4 and 4.6, which are as follows: POLICY 4.4: To decrease open burning, by 1995 the county shall acquire a larger Air Curtain Destructor for the county landfill, which can handle a large volume of construction debris and other wood materials. POLICY 4.6: By September 1990, the county in coordination with the Department of Environmental Health and the Division of Forestry will draft and adopt an ordinance prohibiting open burning by requiring the use of air curtain incinerators when recycling is not feasible. The coordination in this ordinance will be as follows: Planning Department will issue permit; Health Department will -enforce requirements; and Division of Forestry will police and control open burning. Mr. Kleckner noted that Policy 4.4 has a 1995 date, and he felt that date should be moved up. In regard to Policy 4.6, he was very concerned about the fact that we are urbanizing AG areas, and if we say we are going to exempt AG, are we going to exempt it all over or just in the green AG areas. He advised that he has been receiving many comments about the smoke, particularly in the northern part of the barrier island. He felt 4.6 is a good policy and suggested that possibly after the words 124 "open burning," we could insert "in urbanized areas." Mr. Kleckner further noted that another point that come up with AG and residential so close together is that AG needs to spray and some would even like to use aircraft for that purpose. He believed that spraying and open burning are two issues that need some addressing. Chairman Eggert noted that she has some problem with citrus up there not being able to burn the trees they have culled out, but Commissioner Bowman believed that Henry Fischer had to buy a $32,000 air curtain incinerator for his development, and she believed the citrus people need to do the same thing. Commissioner Bird pointed out that this problem was addressed earlier when Mrs. Lier was here, and it was agreed to exempt AG when a 5 member Board was present. Director Keating advised that we have a comparable policy in the Conservation Element that has been there and already does exempt AG. He would suggest that we put that in here and make it consistent, and we can still look at other available options. Commissioner Bowman noted that on a national level we asking for a Clean Air Act and talking about the ozone layer, and all that particulate going up in there doesn't just go away; so, she really felt when you are exempting AG, you are doing us all a disservice. Director Keating wasn't even sure the air curtain inciner- ator doesn't produce as much of that; it just burns it quicker and more efficiently. The Board gave staff the ability to exempt AG and change the Policy accordingly as discussed. OBJECTIVE 5 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will establish a regular coordination mecha- nism with other local governments and agencies for an effective system of Solid Waste Management`. Chairman Eggert read the following Policy, which has some changes: A a � 125 BOOK P' �E • �E 6 C'J B00� i F,{GE23J POLICY 5.1: The county shall continue to follow existing interlo'caT agreements with other local governments in providing landfill capacity for solid waste disposal, for administering a countywide recycling program, and for studying and implementing new technologies. On-going studies shall identify the following: New technology for recycling; New methods for safe solid waste disposal; Assessing the feasibility of implementing these new technologies in Indian River County; Cost/benefit analyses for promising technologies., The county staff will continue to participate in the monthly meeting of the Quad -county council of governments in studying the formation of a Quad -county Resource Recovery Unit/Electrical Generator Facility. The county is providing information and staff time. - NO COMMENT NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT Goal 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. Chairman Eggert read the following policies, which have additions: POLICY 1.4: The county through its permitting processes shall ensure that drainage detention structures for developments and single family units meet the level of service standards specified in the drainage sub -element and are located in appropriate places to store and treat stormwater and gradually release water into aquifer recharge areas as identified in the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. POLICY 1.8: Consistent with the findings of the feasibility stay referenced in policy 4.11 of the Potable water sub -element, the county shall discourage flood irrigation with water from the Floridan aquifer by providing incentives for low volume irriga- tion systems. - NO COMMENT ON ABOVE POLICIES OBJECTIVE 2 PRESERVING THE QUANTITY OF THE SHALLOW AQUIFER By 1995, the county will have no significant loss in the amount of the groundwater in the shallow aquifer. 126 Commissioner Bird referred to Policy 2.1: POLICY 2.1: The county shall study the feasibility of requiring all development on the Coastal Ridge and 10 Mile Ridge, to leave at least 50% of total gross project area as pervious open space. Commissioner Bird wished to make the point that if we want to create open space on the Coastal Ridge and the 10 Mile Ridge and have that as a great recharge area, then we should do something to accommodate golf course development. OBJECTIVE 3 PRESERVING THE QUANTITY OF THE FLORIDAN AQUIFER By 1995, the county will have no significant loss in the amount of the groundwater in the Floridan aquifer. Chairman read the following policies, which had some changes: POLICY 3.2: The county shall encourage the use of low volume irrigation systems to prevent overpumping from the Floridan aquifer by providing incentives based on the findings of the feasibility study referenced in Policy 4.11 of the Potable Water Sub -element. POLICY 3.4: The county shall renew its annual contract with the SJRWMD to identify and plug or valve free flowing artesian wells. The county's land development regulations will require property owners to plug or valve free flowing artesian wells on their property. Commissioner Bird referred to Policy 3.1: POLICY 3.1: The county shall protect and preserve open space in tFie west portion of the county, which has been identified as the natural groundwater aquifer recharge area for the Floridan aquifer, by designating these areas as an agricultural with a very low residential as shown on the future land use map. Commissioner Bird wished to know if saying that the western part of the county has been identified as the recharge area for the Floridan aquifer is an accurate statement, and staff advised that it is the very northwest portion. OBJECTIVE 4 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION By 1992, the county will have a regular coordination melchanism with other local governments and agencies for identification and 7-, 127 BOOK, 121 `990 BOOK �� 35 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 Chairman Eggert noted that'the DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT already has been addressed. 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. OBJECTIVE 1 CORRECTION OF DEFICIENCIES The county acknowledges and it is documented in the Analysis section of this element that there is only one existing roadway deficiency, however, technically this is not a deficiency under concurrency rules since this roadway improvement is in the first three years of FDOT's 5 -year Transportation Improvement Plan. By 1994, the existing roadway capacity deficiency will be corrected. Director Keating wished to point out that we are changing LOS standards consistent with the new DOT capacity tables in the '85 Highway Capacity Manual, and we are just dealing in peak season numbers; we are talking peak hour/peak season/peak direction. That is the major change under Objective 1. Chairman Eggert noted that under Policy 1.4, we have just added one table number: POLICY 1.4: The county hereby adopts the transportation capital improvements program (TCIP) incorporated within this element (Ref.: Tables 4.7.1, 4.7.2 and 4.7.3). This TCIP shall be reviewed and updated on an annual basis. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The county traffic circulation system will operate at or above the minimum service levels specified in Policy 1.1, and traffic system improvements (identified in Tables 4.7.1, 4.7.2, 4.7.3) needed to ensure operation of roadways at or above the adopted level of service standard will be provided. - NO COMMENT 128 OBJECTIVE 3 TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM REVIEW The county will have a transportation system review and evaluation 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 as referenced in Figure 4.13.2 (Thoroughfare Plan Map) of the Traffic Circulation Element. - NO COMMENT 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. - NO COMMENT 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 transportation activities and with the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan. Chairman Eggert noted that the words "with the Hutchinson Island Resource Management Plan" have been added. Director Keating commented that under POLICY 4.6 the county will prepare really Right -of -Way reservation maps and hopefully that will resolve issues we have with R/W acquisition. This may be a costly endeavor, but we are spreading it over a number of years. 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. 1 2 9 �� � 600K F'"E.2- n r r -L BOOK i9F"wE..03 d OBJECTIVE 1 ADEQUATE TRANSIT SERVICES The county will ensure that the availability of transit services in Indian River County will not be decreased. Commissioner Bird did not know why we even have to have this element in our plan, and Director Keating agreed it is not too applicable to our county, but the Growth Management Act requires any local governments over 50,000 to do a mass transit and ports and aviation element. He noted that we are not making any major policy statements. The Board reviewed the following policies, with Commissioner Bird emphasizing that POLICY 1.2 calls for higher densities along major transportation corridors, and if 1-95 isn't a major transportation corridor in this county, he doesn't know what is. POLICY 1.1: The county will not set level -of -service standards f'or mass transit, since the county has no mass transit system and therefore cannot establish criteria regarding headways, route spacing, service areas, facility capacity, and other mass transit standards. POLICY 1.2: The county will, through the future land use element, provide higher densities along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit provision. POLICY 1.3: The county, after its designation as urban and estiETishment of a metropolitan planning organization, will prepare a feasibility study for establishing a mass transit system. Upon establishment of a mass transit system, the comprehensive plan will be amended to establish a mass transit level -of -service standard. POLICY 1.4: The county, upon establishment of a metropolitan pTanni norganization, will study methods for protecting rights-of-way and corridors for future mass transit roadways and high speed rail. - NO FURTHER COMMENT ON THE ABOVE POLICIES 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 OBJECTIVE 3 RIGHT-OF-WAY PROTECTION By 2010 the county will provide for protection of future mass transit rights-of-way and exclusive mass transit corridors within the urban area and consistent with the Traffic Circulation Element. 130 r _I POLICY 3.1: The county, upon establishment of a metropolitan planning organization will study methods of protecting rights-of-way and corridors for future mass transit roadways and high speed rail. - NO COMMENT 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. Commissioner Bird wished to know why we make so much ref- erence to supporting St. Lucie County Airport, and Director Keating advised that it is because they are the regional facility. He did not think we are looking at becoming a major airport facility here. OBJECTIVE 2 CONSISTENCY The county will ensure that any airport expansion is consistent with the policies of other elements of the comprehensive plan. Chairman Eggert read the following policy, which has some changes: POLICY 2.2: The county will develop, adopt and enforce an airport zoning component of its land development regulations, prohibiting encroachment of incompatible uses, such as tall structures in airport clear zones and height restriction zones, and residential uses inside the 65 Idn noise contour zones associated with public use airports in the county._ NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 TRAFFIC The county will ensure that all county roadways providing direct or indirect access to airport facilities maintain a minimum service level of "D" on a peak hour/peak season/peak direction basis. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 COORDINATION The County will ensure that any airport expansion plans are coordinated with appropriate jurisdictions and/or agencies. NO COMMENT `SI 131 PGCIKF,,�.r ,, S 4 Chairman Eggert noted that the HOUSING ELEMENT was taken up at the beginning of this review. CONSERVATION_ ELEMENT Goal 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. OBJECTIVE 2 SURFACE WATER QUALITY By 1995, water quality throughout the Indian River Lagoon and the St. Sebastian River shall meet State Class 11 and Class 111 water quality standards, respectively, and the County will protect and appropriately use these and other surface waters to maximize their natural functions and values. Chairman Eggert believed staff needs to check this whole element in regard to referring to "St. Sebastian River." OBJECTIVE 3 GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY Groundwater quality in Indian River County will be protected against degradation, and there will be minimal loss of the poten- tial 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. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 6 UPLAND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES Sufficient upland vegetative communities to maintain viable populations of all native plant and animal species, and represen- tative stands of each habitat type in Indian River County, will be preserved. - NO COMMENT 132 Commissioner Bowman referred to Policy 6.3, as follows: POLICY 6.3: By 1992, the county shall acquire and/or assist state and federal agencies in the acquisition of coastal/tropical hammocks for the protection of the vegetative community. The following sites shall be considered: a. coastal/tropical hammocks and other complementary native plant communities adjacent to the (IFAS) Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory, north of Oslo Road, east of U.S.#1. b. coastal/tropical hammocks adjacent to northern Jungle Trail, in coordination with the proposed Pelican Island National Wildlife Refuge expansion, and c. coastal/tropical hammocks on Orchid Island north of Wabasso Beach and east of S.R. A1A, in conjunction with the proposed CARL Wabasso Beach/Sea Turtle National Wildlife Refuge project. Commissioner Bowman felt we should add sand ridge to the above list as "d." Planner DeBlois felt that was covered under the previous POLICY 6.2 with reference to xeric scrub, but Commissioner Bowman pointed out that says "preserved;" it doesn't say "acquired." It was agreed to add sand ridge as "d." Bud Kleckner noted that POLICY 6.10 states that "By 1995 the county shall establish a GIS computer mapping inventory of vegetative communities...." He stressed that this is urgently needed now, and he felt this date should be moved up. OBJECTIVE 7 WILDLIFE AND MARINE HABITAT There will be no reduction in the critical habitat of endangered or threatened plant and animal species occurring in Indian River County, and the county shall conserve, appropriately use and protect non -threatened, non -endangered fisheries, wildlife, wildlife habitat and marine habitat (i.e. seagrass beds) through the implementation of land development regulations and policies. For the purpose of this objective, "critical habitat" is defined as the minimum required sum of environmental conditions in a specific area necessary to sustain a given species. The protec- tion of critical habitat shall be measured and evaluated on a site development basis, in addition to county land acquisition efforts as described in Policy 5.5 and the policies of Objective 6 of this element. - NO COMMENT 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 E0 133 BOOK i<�` F'":c FED 13- 1990 soon 79 Faic be'preserved; and adverse impacts on natural resources from recreational activities will be minimized. "Sufficiency" shall be measured based on population ratio/supply standards as specified and set forth in the Recreation and Open Space Element. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 9 COMMERCIAL USES OF NATURAL RESOURCES Sufficient opportunities will be provided for the commercial user 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. Commissioner Bird referred to the statement in POLICY 10.6, which provides that: "..the establishment of bulkheads or other rigid shore protection structures along the St. Sebastian River or the Indian River Lagoon shall be prohibited, except when such bulkheads or rigid structures connect two adjacent pre-existing bulkheads......." Commissioner Bird believed if we are going to save Jungle Trail, we will need rip -rap, and he didn't know if that would be precluded by this policy. Staff assured him the use of rip -rap would not be pro- hibited. 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. - NO COMMENT 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 September 1990 will have a comprehen- sive management program to protect, conserve and/or enhance 134 coastal wetlands, living marine resources (e.g. manatees, sea turtles, etc.), wildlife habitat (e.g. seagrass beds, etc.) and undeveloped coastal barriers. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 2 ESTUARINE WATER QUALITY By 1995, Indian River County will improve overall estuarine water quality to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation guidelines Class II waters - shellfish propagation and harvesting. - 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. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 BEACHES AND DUNES Indian River County will have an established comprehensive beach and dune management regulatory program by September 1990, 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 wished to know if POLICY 4.1, which designates the 1981 DNR Coastal Construction Control Line as the "County Dune Stabilization Setback Line" and prohibits construc- tion eastward of that line, except for such things as erosion control projects, dune walkovers, lifeguard towers, navigational markers, and emergency vehicles, is more restrictive than the state policy. Director Keating noted that we do this now, and we are stricter than the state. What we have done is adopt the old C.C.C.L. line as the dunes stabilization setback line, and we are prohibiting construction seaward of that. We leave it up to the state to regulate development in the area between the old C.C.C.L, and the new C.C.C.L. OBJECTIVE 5 LIMITING PUBLIC EXPENDITURE IN THE COASTAL HIGH- RA77KRI5770RE---- -- — -- By September 1990, the county will eliminate public expenditure and subsidy in the Coastal High -Hazard Zone with the exception of natural resource management. 13 5 B00� 10 �',v E 24' FE 3 1 199 � ` 990 BOOK �� rt9ur. Planner Mark Crosley wished to make an addition to the following Policy: POLICY 5.2: In the Coastal High -Hazard Zone, the county shall not subsidize public facilities which are not directly related to public access or resource management. Planner Crosley wished to add "and shall adopt Objective 2 and its associated policies of the Capital Improvements. This would be a cross reference to clarify things a little better. OBJECTIVE 6 REDUCTION OF HURRICANE EVACUATION TIMES TO REDUCE By 1995, Indian River County will have reduced estimated evacu- ation time for a category 3 storm event to 12 hours or less. Commissioner Bird noted that Policy 6.7 states that "the County shall not permit increased zoning densities in the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone," and he wished to know where the map of this zone is located. Director Keating advised that the Hurricane Vulnerability Zone extends from the Atlantic Ocean over to U.S.1, and further noted that we just are not going to increase the densities that are already there. OBJECTIVE 7 POST -DISASTER REDEVELOPMENT By 1993, the county will have a post -disaster recovery and re -development plan which minimizes or eliminates the future risk to human life and public and private property from natural disasters. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 8 BEACH ACCESS Environmentally safe public access will be provided to Indian River County beaches and shorelines. The county shall have no net loss of existing public access facilities. - 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 136 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. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 11 LIMIT DENSITIES IN THE COASTAL HIGH -HAZARD ZONE Indian River County shall limit residential densities on the unincorporated barrier island to less than 3 units per acre, and direct development and population concentrations away from known or predicted coastal high -hazard areas. Director Keating referred the Board to POLICY 11.5, as follows: POLICY 11.5: The county shall prohibit the platting of lots in ttFie'C_oastal High Hazard Zone which would require the location of structures seaward of the FDNR C.C.C.L. (Lots of record before February 13, 1990 shall be exempt from this requirement.) Director Keating explained that there is nothing in here to prohibit anyone from building on an existing lot totally seaward of the C.C.C.L. We are just saying no new lots should be created in this zone. The intent is to try to limit the amount of con- struction that you are putting in the Coastal High Hazard area. Darrell McQueen advised that he has a bit of a problem with that requirement. He noted that at Ocean Oaks they platted lots that are almost entirely beyond the new line. This requirement will impact anything on the barrier island that is still in the county. The Polo Club would be impacted with this. They are talking about going to the state and platting back of the line, but getting permission to put swimming pools seaward of the line. He noted that the state does permit lots to go beyond that C.C.C.L. line because they have no input into the platting process. He continued to discuss the history of the C.C.C.L. and county and town ordinances, and Mr. McQueen believed if the state could have stopped construction beyond that line without it being a "taking," they would have. He was opposed to establishing this criteria, and he felt this should be left up to the state. �1Boor I J _ i4lu 1 3 7 BOOK IY F,1,E Commissioner Bowman did not feel we can depend on the DNR for anything these days. Attorney Vitunac commented that in this criteria, you are giving grandfathered rights to lots that are platted, and the taking issue would come in when you have empty lots that can't be used for anything except aesthetic easements unless they are part of a larger parcel to the west of the line. Director Keating pointed out that we are not saying anything about construction, only about plat creation, but Mr. McQueen noted that you can only build on a platted lot. Director Keating noted that you can build on a metes and bounds parcel, but Mr. McQueen argued that you can't put 10 units one one. Commissioner Bird believed there are pretty high dunes in that area. Mr. McQueen brought up the COBRA system and what it cost the property owners on the north barrier island to be excluded from that system. He confirmed that the dune elevation runs very high in that area and noted that the DNR in their permitting will not allow you to excavate that dune, and you don't need to. The floors are built up usually 4/5' above existing dune elevations; so, the only impact you could have from any flood would have been where the pilings themselves go and the fill material itself that is placed under the construction. He informed the Board that right now the DNR are not refusing permits, but on one permit north of the Polo Club, they have moved the house and the whole project halfway between the new and old line right next to a house that is built exactly on the old line. Polo probably will not try to plat beyond that line, but Mr. McQueen felt it would be an imposition not to allow a private property owner to plat beyond the line. Director Keating noted that we could take out this one policy. Staff put this in because the Coastal High Hazard Zone has been identified as an area where it is dangerous to live. 138 r � � Attorney Vitunac noted that if you can build on metes and bounds, there might be some argument about unequal protection for a platted lot. Planner Crosley pointed out that this doesn't say there won't be lots east of that line, but just that the lot can't be created entirely east of it so that you would have to build a structure east of the line. Commissioner Bird suggested that we could say lots can't be platted "entirely" east of that line, but Mr. McQueen noted that you still have to transfer that ownership, and if you don't plat the land, you can't transfer the title. Commissioner Bird felt Policy 11.5 creates too many problems and suggested we just eliminate it. It was generally agreed to eliminate Policy 11.5. Discussion ensued about 3 upa in the Coastal High Hazard Area, and Mr. McQueen voiced his opinion that 3 upa is adequate. 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. Director Keating informed the Board that we have changed the levels -of -service set out in the policies under Objective 1 substantially. We have reduced them. One objection by the DCA was that we only used resident population, and they said we had to use functional, which is both resident and seasonal popula- tion. When we applied those new total resident and seasonal population numbers to the service levels we had, it came out that ° �y BOOK -a7 1 3 9 F C r gyp ' 1990 Boi31; 79 r, E 247 we would have to be creating a lot more park land; so, we reduced this, and essentially he felt that we have accomplished the same thing. OBJECTIVE 2 By 1995, the county will have 177 acres of community park in the south district. - NO COMMENT Chairman Eggert felt we have to work on doing something about the landfill and the stump dump, and Director Keating agreed that hopefully that is a way we are going to be able to meet our L.O.S. standards when some additional numbers kick in 1995, by using the Oslo transfer station and also the old stump dump and possibly some other utility areas. OBJECTIVE 3 By 2000, the county will have developed at least 60 percent of its currently undeveloped existing park acreage. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 By 1995, the county's recreation system will meet demand through the coordination of public and private resources. David Risinger wished to discuss Policy 4.2 (a): POLICY 4.2: a. The county shall encourage private groups to p`rovi a recreation services and facilities to county residents by taking the following actions: By September 1990, revise land development regulations to require that recreation facilities be provided within planned residential developments; and Incorporate within the proposed recreation impact fee ordinance a provision for reducing fees for residential developments which provide recreation facilities open to the public. Mr. Risinger felt the county should delete the reference to impact fee credits for private facilities open to the public. He also suggested that we delete the words "open to the public." 140 I -A r■� r Chairman Eggert felt that is not what the county is about, and Attorney Vitunac believed you have to have a public aspect in there or you can't give a credit. Commissioner Bird noted that if they provide the facilities on site for their residents, it replaces the need for some other facilities, but Attorney Vitunac pointed out that is required already. Mr. Risinger believed Port St. Lucie and Palm Bay in Brevard County are struggling with this now, and he believed their consultants are recommending up to a 20o impact fee credit for privately provided facilities based on L.O.S. standards. He advised that Boca Raton allows up to 100% credit for privately provided facilities. Mr. Risinger thought if the county is going to try to promote such privately developed and privately main- tained facilities, then the county needs to allow the private developer some incentive in the impact fee ordinance to get some credit for those facilities. He would encourage that this be looked at more closely in the impact fee ordinance. Public Works Director Davis advised that the way it is structured in the initial draft, we divide recreation into 3 parts - resource base oceanfront (which would be beach facilities) - resource base non -oceanfront (which would be access to the river) and user base recreation, like a tennis court, etc. If a developer provided user base, they could qualify for some credit for that user base segment. These mitigate the impact of that new resident needing that facility, but they are not miti- gating the impact of that new resident wanting to go to the beach. There will be some partial credit opportunities. Chairman Eggert believed that we then should wipe out "open to the public." Director Keating agreed that we can eliminate "open to the public," and that doesn't preclude us from doing that either way in the impact fee ordinance. _ 141 BOOK1990 c. BOOK 79 ri � r 2 -7 Peter Robinson pointed out that under the present ordinance, if it is less than 10 acres in PRD, you don't have to provide recreational facilities. He felt Policy 4.2 (a) would discourage the small developer, and wished to know if this is saying it will not be required in all PRDs. Commissioner Bird suggested saying "within certain planned residential developments," and this was agreed on. OBJECTIVE 5 ACCESS By 1995, the county will have increased accessability throughout its park system, and will have eliminated any existing constraints in the county's parks. - NO COMMENT 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. Commissioner Bird pointed out that Policy 6.4 says "The county shall acquire one additional beach access on the south barrier island by 1995." We already own 300' there that we are not using, and he asked if we could say "develop" instead of "acquire" as he felt it would be difficult to acquire another piece. It was agreed to change acquire to develop. 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 1995, the county will have at least 10 percent more publicly - owner 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 142 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. Peter Robinson noted that under Funding, the county is saying you are going to establish a recreation impact fee and then you turn around and say you are going to establish user fees. As a land owner, he believed he could support user fees, but then you turnaround again and say you are going to develop a method to subsidize the recreation fee. Director Davis explained what we are looking at is impact fees for capital facilities and user fees to offset operating costs. Mr. Robinson stressed that his point is that it seems to him the only way you can subsidize recreation user fees is out of the General Fund which comes from ad valorem taxes; so, the land owner who now puts up the impact fee for the capital facility is also going to have to subsidize the user. Commissioner Bird noted that user fees can't support the whole program, and Director Keating further explained that the user fees aren't meant to exclude people who can't afford to go, and this provides the opportunity that, if necessary, we can subsidize. He did not think the General Fund is the only way we can do it; it could be through an MSTU and possibly some other funding mechanisms. 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. POLICY 12.1: The county shall support cultural activities by: Using the county's grant eligibility requirements to acquire funds for cultural events; 143 BOOK i" � F'", `r.250 BOOS Providing staff assistance for cultural events: Co -sponsoring cultural events; Promoting private arts organizations; and Continuing financial support through tourist tax revenue for the Indian River Arts Council, the designated Local Arts Agency. Chairman Eggert referred to the last provision, and noted that there is some debate about the Indian River Arts Council being the designated Local Arts Agency. She asked Commissioner Wheeler, who chairs the Tourist Tax Committee, if other cultural organizations can apply, and he said yes. She, therefore, wondered if this should just read "Continuing financial support through tourist tax revenue for private arts and cultural organizations." Director Keating felt that would be fine. Commissioner Bird left the meeting at this point to make a telephone call, and the meeting recessed until he returned a few minutes later and there was once again a quorum. 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. - NO COMMENT 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 144 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. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 4 ADEQUATE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM The county will maintain adopted level of service standards for roadways. Level of service "C" shall be maintained for rural principal arterials and rural freeways during peak hour, peak season, and peak direction conditions. During peak hour, peak season and peak direction conditions, level of service "D" or better shall be maintained on all other freeway, arterial and collector roadways. Also, the county 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 1991, 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 CIE 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. 145 9U BOOK if F,�i;c 252 � 990 - Boor. 19 fAGL 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. Chairman Eggert noted that in earlier discussion, it was agreed to reword POLICY 1.8 in regard to the provision about "utilizing bond funding." OBJECTIVE 2 DEVELOPMENT IN HIGH HAZARD COASTAL AREAS By 1990, the county will have eliminated all public expenditures that subsidize development in high hazard coastal areas. - NO COMMENT OBJECTIVE 3 MAINTENANCE OF ESTABLISHED LEVELS -OF -SERVICE By 1990, 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. Director Keating noted that Policy 4..2 will also change re the bonding provision. OBJECTIVE 5 LOCAL GOVERNMENT'S ABILITY TO PROVIDE REQUIRED SEI=ES—Ats 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. 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. 146 M M M OBJECTIVE 1 COORDINATION AMONG ALL LOCAL PLANS The county will continue to utilize existing coordination mecha- nisms 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. Planner Rohani advised the Board that there has been a change in Policy 1.10 and a last paragraph added in regard to coordinating with all drainage districts based on the policies we have in the Drainage Sub Element. The new paragraph in POLICY 1.10 is as follows: The county will continue to coordinate with the municipalities in the county and the 298 drainage districts by implementing policies 4.1, 4.3 and 4.6 of the drainage sub -element. Planner Rohan! advised that staff, with the Board's permis- sion, will be updating Policy 1.6 in regard to coordination of plan elements with plans of other governmental entities, and Chairman Eggert believed that we will assume that anything that requires a change will be done with the Board's permission. Commissioner Bowman referred to Policy 1.13 which states that "The county, through coordination with municipalities shall ensure that future annexation will not create enclave areas." She wished to know why a municipality can annex something when the residents of that area are opposed. Attorney Vitunac stated that they can't. It either requires 1000 of the property owners to voluntarily join or a referendum with separate majorities in the unincorporated area and the city; so, it wouldn't happen. Director Keating noted some residents in an annexed area may not be amenable to it. Attorney Vitunac agreed, but stressed that the majority has to. He also advised that the legislature can come and do whatever it wants - that's how Rivers Edge happened - there was a Special Act de -annexing it. L_ �- , 147 BOOK. ��PA.i.E a 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 OBJECTIVE 3 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS By 1001, 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 Chairman Eggert noted that we have already been through the objectives of the Capital Improvements Element, and she wished to know if there is anything else that is a change from what was there before. Director Keating advised that there are only some minor changes in the concurrency management system part, but if you are talking about any new, new changes - no. Chairman Eggert talked about the Concurrency Management Plan on Page 266, and Director Keating noted there are changes on Page 270 and they are not underlined. He advised that C.I.E. is a different animal; all the others are support documents. So much in the CIE Element has to be adopted, we had to put this in. Our policy was for all the changes within the elements, we didn't go in and do the underline and strike -through. What you will see is under the Transportation Facilities criteria, we have put in all the criteria that are referenced in the recent rule change that lets us take any traffic improvement that is within the first 3 years of a 5 year CIP and consider that capacity in place. This is a beneficial change, and that is the only substantive change. ADOPTED MAP SERIES Chairman Eggert noted that staff will have to make the changes on the Land Use Maps as discussed today. 148 y� sooK 7 [--E215 OBJECTIVE 2 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 OBJECTIVE 3 IMPACT OF DEVELOPMENT IN OTHER JURISDICTIONS By 1001, 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 Chairman Eggert noted that we have already been through the objectives of the Capital Improvements Element, and she wished to know if there is anything else that is a change from what was there before. Director Keating advised that there are only some minor changes in the concurrency management system part, but if you are talking about any new, new changes - no. Chairman Eggert talked about the Concurrency Management Plan on Page 266, and Director Keating noted there are changes on Page 270 and they are not underlined. He advised that C.I.E. is a different animal; all the others are support documents. So much in the CIE Element has to be adopted, we had to put this in. Our policy was for all the changes within the elements, we didn't go in and do the underline and strike -through. What you will see is under the Transportation Facilities criteria, we have put in all the criteria that are referenced in the recent rule change that lets us take any traffic improvement that is within the first 3 years of a 5 year CIP and consider that capacity in place. This is a beneficial change, and that is the only substantive change. ADOPTED MAP SERIES Chairman Eggert noted that staff will have to make the changes on the Land Use Maps as discussed today. 148 r � � Commissioner Bird pointed out that the Beach Access Location Map needs some revision because a lot of those properties have now been consolidated into Treasure Shores Park. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, Commissioners Scurlock and Wheeler having left the meeting, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted Ordinance 90-3 approving the Comprehensive Plan as amended today. ORDINANCE NO. 90- 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONTAINING THE FOLLOWING ELEMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE; TRAFFIC CIRCULATION; MASS TRANSIT; PORTS, AVIATION AND RELATED FACILITIES; HOUSING; SANITARY SEWERS; POTABLE WATER; SOLID WASTE; DRAINAGE; AQUIFER RECHARGE; COASTAL MANAGEMENT; CONSERVATION; RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE; INTER- GOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; ECONOMIC -DEVELOPMENT; ADOPTING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR LEGAL STATUS, CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PRO- VISIONS, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, by Chapter 163, part 2, Florida Statutes, the State of Florida has required Indian River County to adopt by ordinance and implement a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held public hearings on July 25, 26, 27, and August 10, 1989 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan to the Board 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 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 announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a second public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan, and 149 BOOK f'' E5 6 BOOK A Frj.r t 3 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on August 31, 1989, for the State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4); .6nd WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Rec- ommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the Florida Depart- ment of Community Affairs on December 14, 1989; and WHEREAS, Indian River County proposed revisions to its transmitted Comprehensive Plan in response to the ORC report pursuant to F.S. 163.3184 (7); and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held the Comprehensive Plan Adoption Public Hearing on February 13, 1990, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c) ; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commis- sioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Adoption and Transmittal The proposed Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted with changes, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs. SECTION 2. Adopted Portion of the Comprehensive Plan The following portions of the 1990 Indian River County, Comprehensive Plan are hereby designated as an "adopted portion of the plan" pursant to FAC 9J -5.005(c). All other portions of the plan not listed below are considered "support documents". ° Goals, Objectives, and Policies of all elements ° Capital improvements element including: Requirements for capital improvements implementa- tion Procedures for monitoring and evaluation of the Indian River County Plan Concurrency Management system ° Required maps showing future conditions: Land Use Maps: Figures 2.10, 2.14, 2.16, 2.17, 2.18, 2.21, 2.23, 2.25, 2.26, 2.33, 2.33a, and 2.34 Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Maps: Figures 6.1, 6.3.1, 6.3.2, 6.5.1 and 6.5.2 150 z Recreational Facilities Maps: Figures 10.1, 10.2, 10.3, and 10.7 Traffic circulation Maps: Figures 4.13, 4.13.2, and 4.13.3 Conservation element Maps: Figures 8.1, 8.9, 8.10, 8.11, 8.12, 8.14, and 8.25 Coastal Management element Maps: Figures 9.1, 9.6, 9.7, 9.8, 9.21, 9.23, 9.35, and 9.37 SECTION 3. Legal_Status of the Comprehensive Plan Upon adoption of the 1990 Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, (pursuant to Florida Statutes 163.3194, all development undertaken by, and all actions taken in regard to development orders by Indian River County government agencies shall be consis- tent with the adopted comprehensive plan. All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. By September 1, 1990, the county shall adopt new and/or amended land development regulations consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan. During the interim period when the provisions of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan and the existing land development regulations are inconsistent, or if there are not adequate land development regulations to implement the intent of the comprehen- sive plan, the adopted 1990 Comprehensive Plan shall govern any action taken in regard to an application for a development order. SECTION 4. CODIFICATION _The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the Copnty Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to rrsec- n "article", articlenor other appropriate word, and the sections of this o'dinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intent ons. SECTION 5. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING_ PROVISIONS A1 previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of Cou ty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. All Special Acts of the legisla- ture a plying only to the unincorporated_._porton__._of Indian River County and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. S CTION 6. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commis ioners that if any provision of this Ordinance and there- fore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall' not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTION 7. Effective Date This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant to F.S. 163.3194 BOOK I F1;E3 151 I, Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 13th day of February , 1990. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 7th day of February, 1990, for a public hearing to be held on the 13th day of February, 1990, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner Bowman , and adopted by the following vote : Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye- --Commissioners Gary C. Wheeler AT) sen - Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman AYe M Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Jr. ATsen- M Acknowledgement by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 20th day of February, 1990. Acknowledgement from the Department of State received on this23rd day of February, 1990, at 11:30 A_M_/p.M, and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By Carolyn Eggert airman ATTEST BY: ce+q✓ IEFEY K BARYON, Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. L • William G. Collins II, Assistant County Attorney Robert M. Keati , Director, Community7Development There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:50 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 152 �� _./J Z eT P -1 Chairman.