HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/11/1990BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 11, 1990
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
9:00 A. M.
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS
a- Chairman Eggert req.the addn.as Item L approval to advertise
immediately for a TEFRA hearing regarding issuance of Single Family
Mortgage Revenue Bonds by the Escambia Housing Authority,(public
hearing to be Dec.28th:@10 AM.
b. Conm'r. Scurlock asked that report from Seb.Riverfront Study Committee
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS be added under his matters &
if time Comm'r.Bird will give
None a P&R report.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting 11/6/90
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on•'file in the office of Clerk to
the Board - Report of Convictions, Month of Nov., 1990
B. Release of County Utility Liens
( memorandum dated December 3, 1990 )
C. Request by Office of the Governor to approve the
Governor's appointment of Carolyn S. Stuckey and the
re -appointment of Margaret A. Rocke to the Board of
the Indian River County Housing Authority.
( letter dated November 29, 1990 )
D. Flag Agreement
( memorandum dated November 30, 1990 )
E. Vero Beach High School Girls Golf Team Playing
Privileges
( memorandum dated November 30, 1990 )
F. IRC Bid #91-28 / 1991 Van
( memorandum dated December 3, 1990 )
DEC 111990 BOOK
DEC 111990 400K FA.f;.E
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd):.
G. IRC Bid No 90-24 / Hedden Place Waterline
( memorandum dated December 5, 1990 )
H. Supplemental Recommendation IRC Bid #91-26 /
Anti-Scalant, Approved at County Commission
meeting 12/4/90
( memorandum dated Dec. 5, 1990 )
I. IRC Bid #91-35 / Pest Control Services
(memorandum dated Nov. 30, 1990)
J. Public Notice of a Public Hearing to be held on
January 14, 1990 for input from agency employees
and the community as part of the Sheriff's
Program for Accreditation
( letter dated Dec. 5, 1990)
K. Request for BCC Letter to FDNR to Request Recon-
sideration of St. Sebastian River Manatee Pro-
tection Zones During 'FDNR Rule Hearings
(memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. (1) - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ADOPTING PART 1 OF
NEW CHAPTER 310 REGULATING THE
DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS.
(2) - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN
MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES IN A NEW
CHAPTER 306; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL,
SEVERABILITY AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(3) - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING
PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION OF FINES
FOR PARKING VIOLATION AS PROVIDED FOR
IN SECTION 316.1967(6) OF THE FLORIDA
STATUTES.
(4) - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, DIRECTING THE CLERK
OF THE COURT TO REPORT OUTSTANDING
PARKING TICKETS FOR HANDICAPPED
PARKING VIOLATIONS.
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
( memorandum dated Dec. 4, 1990 )
(1) REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE
REMEDIAL ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/DCA
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
(memorandum dated Dec. 5, 1990)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd)
B. PUBLIC HEARING (cont'd)
2. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS (cont'd)
(2) BRUCE BARKETT REQUEST TO
CREATE A MIXED USE FLOATING LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES
HAVING AN AGRICULTURAL
DESIGNATION
( memorandum dated Nov. 19, 1990 )
(3) DIAMOND WEDGE, INC. REQUEST
TO AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA WEST OF 1-95
AND SOUTH OF S. R.60
(memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990)
(4) CORACI - REQUEST TO CREATE A
NEW CONSERVATION LAND USE
DESIGNATION (C-3) TO REPLACE THE
C-2 LAND USE DESIGNATION
SURROUNDING THE ST. SEBASTIAN
RIVER AND AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE AND CONSERVATION
ELEMENTS
(memorandum dated Dec. 4, 1990)
(5) WINDSOR POLO REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE
14+/- ACRES
(memorandum dated Nov. 29, 1990)
(6) DEAN VEGOSEN TRUSTEE FOR OSLO
PLAZA ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE
4.83 ACRES
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
(7) BETTY F. MCRAE, ET.
AL.,
REQUEST TO AMEND
THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN +/-
6.8
ACRES / REZONE +/- 4.3 ACRES
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
(8) GRAHAM W. STIKELETHER,
JR.
REQUEST TO AMEND
THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE
+/-
0.32 ACRES
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
J License Agreement between the County and the
IRC
Farm Bureau
(memorandum dated Dec. 4, 1990)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
DEC 111990 Boor 8 210 F,'„rI
DEC 111990 BOOK 8 2 FA'AIP66`
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd) :
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. R -O -W Acquisition / 41st
St. / Wastewood
Recyclers
(memorandum dated Nov.
30, 1990)
2. Oslo Rd. & 27th Ave. R -O
-W Acquisition -
Oslo Plaza Associates
( memorandum dated Dec.
4, 1990 )
H. UTILITIES
1. 9th Ave. Water Main Installation Final
Payment
( memorandum dated Dec.
4, 1990 )
2. Ocean Bluff Subdivision Water Main Exten-
sion, Change Order No. 2 to the Summerplace
Contract ( Phase 11)
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
3. South County Reverse Osmosis Plant Expansion
(memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990)
4. Sewer Force Main on Oslo Rd. from U.S #1
West to Timber Ridge Tennis Ranch
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
5. Third Modification to Work Authorization
No. 1 with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. for Survey-
ing Services
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
6. Change Order No. 2 for the No. County WWTP
Contract No. 1
( memorandum dated Dec. 3, 1990 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT-
Permission to bring Jarvis rezoning (6th Ave. 6
8th St.) back to Board for reconsideration
( memorandum dated Nov. 27, 1990 )
B. VICE CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd):
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
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.
C E C 111990
Tuesday, December 11, 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,
December 11, 1990, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K.
Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia
Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition to the Consent Agenda
as Item L approval to advertise immediately for a TEFRA hearing
regarding issuance of Single Family Mortgage Revenue Bonds by the
Escambia Housing Authority, the public hearing to be Dec. 28th at
10 A.M.
Commissioner Scurlock asked that a report from the Sebastian
Riverfront Study Committee be added under his matters, and Com-
missioner Bird advised that if we have time, he will give a PSR
report.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above
described matters to today's Agenda.
I
FF'_ I
®EC1 1 ' 1990 2 PAGE 121
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or correc-
tions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 6, 1990.
There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of November 6, 1990,
as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
Chairman Eggert asked that Item J be removed from the
Consent Agenda for discussion, and Commissioner Bowman requested
the removal of Item K.
A. Reports
The following was received and placed on file in the Office
of Clerk to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of November, 1990
B. Release of County Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA:
2
TO: The Honorable Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
DATE: December 3, 1990
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 12/11/90
RELEASE OF COUNTY UTILITY LIENS
I have prepared the following routine lien releases and
request that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute
them:
Release of
2 Water Assessment Liens
SUMMERPLACE in the name of PASTOR
Release of
Water Assessment Lien
SUMMERPLACE
in the name of L1UCC1
Release of
4 Water Assessment Liens
SUMMERPLACE in the name of KELLEHER
Release of
Water Assessment Lien
SUMMERPLACE
in the name of ETZEL
Release of
Water Assessment Lien
SUMMERPLACE
in the name of HART
Release of
Water Assessment Lien
SUMMERPLACE in the name of LINZ
Release of
Sewer Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE
in the name of WALLACE
Release of
Sewer Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE
in the name of MERRILL
Release of
Sewer Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE
in the name of BARHAM
Release of
Sewer Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE
in the name of RANDOLPH
Release of
Sewer Assessment Lien
ROCKRIDGE
in the name of WILSON
Information for the above documents is on file in the County
Attorney's Office.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized the
Chairman to execute the above listed Releases of
Water and Sewer Assessment Liens.
COPIES OF SAID INSTRUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD.
DEC 111990 3
Boor 21W I'A"U "
(Q d C"')BOOK 62 PP:U 1G'�tt
C. Approve Governor's Appt. S_Re_appt. to Housinq Authority Board
The Board reviewed letter from the Office of the Governor:
BOB MARnNEz
GOVERNOR
STATE OF FLORIDA
Off ve of the Oviije rniar
TILE CAPITOL
TAUAIIASSEE, FLORIDA 32399.0001
November 29, 1990
Mr. James E. Chandler
Administrator
County Administration Building
1840 - 25 Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Dear Mr. Chandler:
Governor Martinez has appointed Carolyn S. Stuckey and
reappointed Margaret A. Rocke to the Board of Commissioners,
Indian River County Housing Authority. According to Section
421.27 Florida Statutes, County Commission approval is
required.
Please place this matter on the agenda for the next County
Commission meeting and contact our office with the results.
Enclosed isa copy of the questionnaires for your review.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
���%�✓�
S er Whetstone
Direc or of Appointments
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Governor's appointment of Carolyn S. Stuckey and
reappointment of Margaret A. Rocke to the Board of
Commissioners of the Indian River County Housing
Authority.
D._Agreement re Flag Golf Card Program
The Board reviewed memo from Director of Golf, Bobs
Komarinetz:
4
TO: Members of the Board of DATE: November 30, 1990 FILE:
County Commissioners
FROM: Bob
Dire
UBJECT: Flag Agreement
EFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AM ANALYSIS
Flag Golf Card is a discount program offered to golf courses during
the off season months of the year, (May 1, 1991 thru November 30, 1991). .
Staff has requested that the Sandridge Golf Club be included in the
Flag Program for 1991.
Sandridge Golf Club has been involved with this program in the past
but did not participate in 1990. Staff feels that not participating
cost the golf course revenue and disappointed many regular customers
who purchased the Flag Card.
Staff recommends the approval of the Flag Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner -Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
Flag Card Agreement as recommended by staff.
FLAGSHIP HEADQUARTERS
CHARLES CROSSWHITE, President DIRECTORS
JOE GERLAK, Vice President FRANK CLARK
CHARLES CROSSWHITE, JR., Secretary/Treasurer JOHNNY LaPONZINA
CARLISLE NEITHOLD
JERRY SEHI_KE
MELVIN WEAVER
MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING
Data December 11, 1990
The undersigned Golf Course agrees to accept FLAG Cards at
reduced rates from 1 May 1991 to November 30th, 1991. It is
further- agreed that FLAG rates will not exceed those charged other
d1.SCOUnt Golf Cards nor will restrictions be greater than those
imposed on other Cards such as hours of play, days, etc.
Play will be permitted any day Monday through Friday and after -
,:tip: Noon k4eek:-ends arid Holidays: all subject to the availability of
=-tmirt•ina times.
FLAG membors must comply with all Rules and Regulations of the
Post Course.
EC 111990 5
600K PAGE 12'
A
DEC 111990, eooK ? FacE . 5
RZ r9ARV.S : NDI'E: Resident I.D. Card Holders which are considered our -
members are charged ata rate less than other discouncards_
- _ is a copy of our rate . schedule for 1990-1991. _
e
epresentatives)
SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB
(601f CQUrse)
Caroly K. Egger Chairman
Board o' County Commissioners
FORT LAUDERDALE AREA GOLF, INC.
P.O. Drawer 1099 • Deerfield Beach, Florida 33443-1099
1400 Country Club Drive • Boca Raton, FL 73428 FAX (407) 482-8248 • PH# (305) 426-0880
E. V.B.High School Girls Golf Team Playing Privileges
The Board reviewed memo from Golf Director_ Komarinetz:
TO: Members of the Board of DATE: November 30, 1990 FILE:
County Commissioners
7MU: Mr. James E. Chandler BJ ECT:Vero Beach High School
County Administrator Girls Golf Team Playing
Privileges
FROM: Bob Kanarineu REFERENCES:
Director of _
• 1• • i0 k a Wtti
Last year the Board of County Commissioners approved the Vero Beach
High School Girls Golf Team use of the Sandridge Golf Club for their
practice sessions and matches for 1990. Enclosed is a letter fran
Golf Coach Doug Baker requesting again the use of the Sandridge
facilities for 1991.
Staff recamnends the Board of County Commissioners approve the Vero
Beach Girls Golf Team the use of the facilities at Sandridge Golf -
Club for 1991.
6
- W W
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the
use of the facilities at Sandridge Golf Club for the
Vero Beach Girls Golf Team for 1991.
F. Bid #91-28 - 1991 Van (SWDD)
The Board reviewed memo from Interim Purchasing Manager
George Wolf and SWDD Manager Ron Brooks:
DATE: December 3, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMSSIONERS
THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Serve
14�#
FROM: George Wolf, C.P.M., Interim Purchasing Manager
Division of Purchasing V�
SUBJ: IRC BID #91-28/1991 Van
On request from the Solid Waste Disposal District the subject bid was
properly advertised and Twenty-Three(23) Invitations to Bid were sent out.
November 7, 1990 a single bid was received from Steve Hull Chevrolet in
Jacksonville, Florida for this commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the single bid received and detennined that this re-
pondent fully complied with the customized specifications for this ve-
hicle in order to meet the operational requirements of Solid Waste.
Two of the four respondents we telephoned indicated that they either
do not handle this equipment or they would not customize it. -
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Solid Waste Capital Automo-
tive Account. Funds available $30,000.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is therefore staffs recommendation to award a Fixed Contract with
additions, deletions, and extended warranty as per attached now in
the amount of $24,195.96 to Steve Hull Chevrolet based on their subject
bid in the amount of $23,055.69, as there would be no advantage in
calling for a re -bid at this time.
SEC 111990 ��c
r 6 1*"l
BOOK 62 FA'UE 1� 1
DATE: NOVEMBER 15, 1990 _
TO: PURCHASING DEPARTMENT
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECT - -
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DI CTO
t
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAG
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
SUBJECT: 1991 VAN - BID NO. 91-28
The subject bid package has been reviewed and District staff con-
curs with your determination that Steve Hull Chevrolet is a re-
sponsive bidder. It is requested that the bid be awarded to _
Steve Hull Chevrolet as follows:
Award contract for equipment specified with the Supreme Van Body
and retractable lift gate rather than the "flip up" lift gate for
a price of $22,995.21 as indicated in the attached letter dated
November 8, 1990. The contract and price should be adjusted to
provide the following modifications: —
Van with Supreme Body $22,995.21
1. Hydraulic Hoist installed by manufacturer in
Jacksonville $ -164.00
2. Add Oil Cooler KC4 $ 114.75
3. Extended Warranty
Nondeductible 60 Month/75,000 Miles $ 1.250.00
TOTAL SALE PRICE $24.195.96
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#91-28 for a 1991 Van (Customized) to the single
bidder Steve Hull Chevrolet in the amount of
$24,195.96 as recommended by staff and per the
following Bid Tabulation:
8
G. Bid #91-24 - Hedden Place Waterline
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THIRD: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVAS
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID #91-24
HEDDEN PLACE WATERLINE
BACKGROUND:
On request from the Utilities Department the subject bid was.properly
advertised and Twenty-two (22) Invitations To Bid were sent out. On
October 31, 1990 bids were received with Five (5) vendors submitting
proposals for the commodity.
n
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Ted Myers Contracting was the low bidder and met all
requirements.
EC 111990 9 �ooK ,� f,A; r :�C
-.00 : �b
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Dote ,11/7/90
Z840suhso"4vemBead Ran&==
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION - --
ME U74000
_WveR
t t iSubmitted
By Gevnge H. wolf, Interim
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 91-28 Date Of Opening 11/7/90
Recommended Award
ARID-
Bid Title 1991 Chevy Ban
1. Steve BAI. Chevrolet
523.055.69
4.
J
8725 Arlington Expswy
(Reco®ended award per
4850 Orange Ave '
memo in the amount o
Jacksonville, Fl. 32239
$24,195.96)
Ft Pierce, F1 34947
2. Heintzleman Truck
N/B
5.
Charlie's Dodge of Ft Pierce N/B
2424 John Young Pkwy
4815 S U.S. 91
Orlando, F1. 32804
Ft Pierce, F1 34982
3. Steel-Bilt, Inc.
N/B
6.
Don Reid Ford
N/B
1025 Blanton St
1875S Orlando Dr
Titusville, F1. 32796
Maitland n 32751
G. Bid #91-24 - Hedden Place Waterline
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Dean:
DATE: DECEMBER 5, 1990
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THIRD: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVAS
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID #91-24
HEDDEN PLACE WATERLINE
BACKGROUND:
On request from the Utilities Department the subject bid was.properly
advertised and Twenty-two (22) Invitations To Bid were sent out. On
October 31, 1990 bids were received with Five (5) vendors submitting
proposals for the commodity.
n
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to
specifications. Ted Myers Contracting was the low bidder and met all
requirements.
EC 111990 9 �ooK ,� f,A; r :�C
-.00 : �b
BOOK. 82 PAGE 1'2!
FUN— DING_
Monies for this project will come from Budget Impact Fee Funds.
Funds available $45,195.00.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends the award of a Fixed Contract of
low bidder, Ted Myers Contracting, for the subject project,
the
D
authorization for their Chairman to execute the attached contract
upon receipt of the proper bond and insurance.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#91-24 - Hedden Place Waterline - to the low bidder,
Ted Myers Contracting and approved the award of a Fixed
Contract in the amount of $30,145.90 to same as recom-
mended by staff and per the following Bi.d Tabulation:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Date 10/31/90
-
2840 25th Sued, vera Beach. Flaridc 36860
PURCHASING DEPT.
' IV
BID TABULATION
T��'"'"�` "�'�`�"
Z�, I
Z.�
Submitted By Dortanick L Mascola
11- T.rmw 1 = .lo11
Z'41— *
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No. 91-24 Date Of Openingl0/31/90
Recommended Award
Bid Tale Redden Place
1. Ted Myers Contracting
$30,145.90
_ 4, - JoBear ~ ...a $43,959.60
6290 Old Dixie Hwy
1950 Dani Drive, N.E.
Winter Beach, F1 32971
Palm Bay, Fl 32905
2. Driveways,. Inc
$31,544.60
5. Utility Systems of America $58,694.60
3300 Bobbi La
1725 S Nova Rd B-4
Titusville, F1 32780
S Daytona, F1 32119
3. Belvedere Construction
$41,374.00
7200 Westport Place
W.P.B., Fl 33413
10 ,
H. Supplemental Recommendation _Bid _#9126/Anti Scalant_(Approved
nnl
The Board reviewed memo from the Interim Purchasing Manager:
PURCHASING MEMORANDUM
DATE: December 5, 1996
T0: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS - ---
THRU: James E Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny", Director General Services
FROM: George H. Wolf, Interim Purchasing Managerg'4
SUBJ: Supplemental Recommendation IRC Bid #91-26/Anti-Scalant, approved by
County Commission Meeting, Agenda Item 7A, Pgs 18, 12/4/90.
RECOMMENDATION:
The attached copy of the original recommendation, indicat6d an award for a Fixed
Contract in the.amount of $4,100.00. However, it should have been an Open End
Contract to Ham Systems, Inc, at a unit cost of $410.00 for 500 pound•drums for
a period of (1) one year.
Also, authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew the contract subject to satis-
factory performance, zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, and determination
that renewal is in the best interest of the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted staff
recommendation as set out above.
I. Bid #91-35 - Pest Control Services
The Board reviewed memo from the Interim Purchasing Manager:
�0 1.1 1990 1 1 BOOK V)wd �r!J, �''J
DEC I I IS90
82' °3'1
GOOK .d f'r��E �*.�.�
DATE: November 30, 1990
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY C)VVISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: George H. Wolf, Interim Purchasing Manager k
Division of Purchasing
SUBJ:. IRC Bid #91-35/Pest Control Services
BACKGROUND:
On request from the Department the subject bid was properly
advertised and Fifteen (15) Invitations to Bid were sent out. On
November 28, 1990 bids were received with Five (5) vendors submitting
proposals for the commodity.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the submittal to ascertain adherence to speci-
fications. Massey Services was the lowest bidder, and met all
requirements. -
FUNDING:
Monies for this project will come from Buildings & Grounds Accounts for
pest control services. Funds available $9,900.00.
Staff recomiends the Award of An Open End Contract for $3,480.00 to the
lowest bidder, Massey Services, for the first year, based on monthly
unit charges for the eight (8) designated County buildings. Also, author-
ize the Purchasing Manager to renew the Contract. subject to satisfactory
performance, vendor acceptance, and determination that renewal is in the
best interest of the County. The initial Contract period shall begin on
the date of award.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded Bid
#91-35 for Pest Control Services to the low bidder,
Massey Services in the amount of $3,480 as recommended
by staff and per the following Bid Tabulation:
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
12
L�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
184025thSftd.VemBt=A.Flars"32960
_yjV Com,
%`f'� I
T..e,.e...: 1=31 WAG= 'k
R"=+'
Recommended Award .Massey Services �LORIV
S......n T- =.1011
3,480.00
Date=12/5/90
PURCHASING DEPT.
BID TABULATION -
Submitted By George H Wolf
PURCHASING MANAGER
Bid No.91-35 Date Of OFening 11/28/90
Bid Title Pest Control Services
1. Massey Services
$3,480.00 (Annual)
4. Indian River Management
$7,056.00 (Annual)
433 3hornhill Dr SW
P.O. Box 1449
Pt St Inde, Fl 34984
Wabasso, Fl 32970
2. Collins Pest Control
$4,176.00 (Annual)
5. Horticultural Managwent
$8,600.00 (Annual.)
645 3rd Place
(On Bid Form, bidder stated monthly
P.O. Box 2337
Vero Beach, F1 32962
tannual, for a total
ananamal. total of $4,176.00.)
Vero Beach, F1 32961-2337
3. Nozzle Nolen
$6,876.00 (Annual)
364 Old Dixie Hwy SW
Vero Beach, F1 32962
'
J. Approve advertising Public Hearing re Sheriff's Accreditation
Program
Chairman Eggert referred the Board to the following letter
from Sheriff Dobeck with attached Notice:
abr-riff
P. O. SOX 606
PHONE 369.6700
R.T."TW DOBECK - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 322961-0608
December 5, 1990
Carolyn TL Eggert, Chairman
IndIan River County Commission
1840 25th Street -
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Ms. Eggert:
The Indian River County Sheriff's Office has been preparing for and on-site
inspection by a national accreditation team. Part of the inspection process
requires a public hearing. This hearing Is to allow the public an opportunity to -
ask questions or offer comments about the department pertaining to the
accreditation process. The hearing will be held January 14, 1991 at 7:00 p.m.
Accreditation standards also require a public notice of the hearing be announced - --�
at a meeting of the Indian River County Commission. A copy of the public notice
Is enclosed, please place it on the December 11„ 1990 agenda. Please make an
additional announcement at the January 8, 1991 meeting.
Since ly,
R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff
Indian River County
DEC 111990 13 BOOK "
I
iirm_ WIMAJ
-PUBLIC NOTICE -
The Indian River County Sheriff's Office is scheduled for an on-site
assessment as part of a program to achieve nationwide accreditation. _
Administered by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforcement
Agencies Inc., the program requires agencies to meet state-of-the-art t
standards in four basic areas; policy and procedures, administration,
operations, and support services. -
As a part of the on-site assessment, agency employees and members of
the community are invited to offer comments at a public information
session on January 14, 1991, 7:00 pm - 9:00 pm. The session will be
conducted in the auditorium of .the Sheriff's Administration Building,
4055 41st Avenue, Vero Beach, FL.
Agency employees and the public are also invited to offer comments by
calling 778-0730 on January 14 and 15 between the hours of 1:00 and
4:00 pm. Comments will be taken by the Assessment Team.
Telephone comments as well as appearances at the public information
session are limited to 10 minutes and must address the agency's ability
to comply with the Commission's standards. A copy of the standards are
available at the reception desk at the Sheriff's Administration
Building, 4055 41st Avenue, Vero Beach, FL. Local contact is Captain
Gary Getchell, 569-6700.
Anyone wishing to submit.written comments about the Indian River County
Sheriff's Office's ability to comply with the standards for
accreditation may send them to the Commission on Accreditation for Law
Enforcement Agencies, Inc., 4242E Chain Bridge Road, Fairfax, Virginia
22030.
Chairman Eggert read the above memo aloud and announced that
the hearing will be held January 14, 1991, at 7:00 P.M. in the
auditorium of the Sheriff's Administration Building.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the Notice indicated that the
meeting is limited in scope as to what is going to be discussed,
i.e., the specific standards. He noted that he frankly was
opposed to this whole process in the beginning; he questioned the
predicted cost of $23,000, and he now understands that the cost
has been substantially more than that. He also has problems with
policemen dictating standards for policemen that the County has
to fund; he feared the price tag for this program will be
staggering and hoped there will be some debate.
14
Commissioner Wheeler noted that although he was one of the
supporters of accreditation in the beginning, he concurred with
Commissioner Scurlock's remarks because he now understands that
the program was not done in the way it was described and a lot of
personnel was used full time. It is very hard to measure those
costs in salaries and time lost from other duties. Last year we
experienced salary increases, and now he is hearing numbers as
high as a million dollars a year for implementing this program.
He believed it is overall a good program, but with cutbacks all
over the state, sometimes services increase to the point where we
can't afford to pay for them.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to express his problem with
the fact that although the Commission has not been involved in
this process at all, we will have to pay for it. He did not
think we have had any workshops or any dialogue about this at
all; he was not for this in the beginning and he remains uncon-
vinced. He also understood that there are some other agencies
that now aren't quite as happy with the process as might have
been suggested earlier.
Commissioner Wheeler asked Capt. Gary Getchell about the
financial aspects involved and if he could put a price on the
cost to implement the total program.
Capt. Getchell advised that the actual program itself is in
place and everything is ready to go, but as far as the actual
dollar figure, he does not have that in front of him now.
Commissioner Scurlock asked what the purpose of the public
hearing is if the program already has been implemented, and Capt.
Getchell advised that the public hearing is something the Commis-
sion itself conducts not the Department.
Chairman Eggert requested that Capt. Getchell clarify just
what Commission he is referring to as it is not the County
Commission, and Capt. Getchell advised that the hearing is
conducted by the Commission on Accreditation for Law Enforce-
ment.
The local police have nothing to
do with it other than
OJEC
111990
15
F A ��
DEC 11.1990
being required to submit a public notice and provide a place for
the hearing to be held.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if during that hearing there is
a place for the public to express concern about the financial
impacts the program may cause.
Capt. Getchell stated that anyone can stand up and speak as
to the specific standards, but as far as what the Commission will
allow themselves to hear, that will be up to them at that time.
Chairman Eggert felt this is not an open hearing then. She
noted that as far as this Commission is concerned, all we know is
that to this date, the cost has been more than $23,000, and she
felt it is important for us to know what the cost will be when
this is fully implemented.
Commissioner Scurlock again asked Capt. Getchell for a total
overall figure on what it has cost to date to put this program
together, and Capt. Getchell advised that there is such a figure,
but he does not have it in front of him.
Chairman Eggert asked that Capt. Getchell please put that
figure in front of the County Commission, and he stated that he
would take this back to Sheriff Dobeck.
K. Request FDNR to Reconsider St. Sebastian River Manatee
Protection Zones_ during_Hearings
The Board reviewed memo from Roland DeBlols, Chief of
Environmental Planning:
16
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ng, P
Community Developm6ft Director
FROM: Roland DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: December 3, 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST FOR BCC LETTER TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
NATURAL RESOURCES (FDNR) TO REQUEST RECONSIDERATION
OF ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER MANATEE PROTECTION ZONES DURING
FDNR RULE HEARINGS
It is requested that the data herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of c
December 11, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In a letter dated August 15, 1990, Beth Beeler of the FDNR Division
of Marine Resources requested that county staff provide the State
with draft legal descriptions and maps to aid in the State's
preparation of materials for rulemaking on Indian River County
manatee protection zones. Rulemaking public hearings pertaining to
Indian River County are expected to occur in January or February
1991.
Subsequently, staff submitted draft legal descriptions and
accompanying maps to FDNR on October 18, 1990. As explained in a
cover letter, the submitted information did not include the St.
Sebastian River protection zone descriptions, in that such
information had already been submitted to FDNR for earlier
rulemaking hearings that had been held regarding Brevard County and
the St. Sebastian River. On June 26, 1990, the Governor and
Cabinet voted to establish a slow speed zone throughout the Indian
River County portion of the St. Sebastian River, contrary to the
Board of County Commissioner's recommendation of the establishment
of a 20 mph travel corridor in the river's northern portion.
Mr. Richard Giteles of the Sebastian Inlet Tax District reviewed a
copy of the October 18, 1990 cover letter from county staff to FDNR
and expressed concern that the letter might be misconstrued by FDNR
to indicate that the Board of County Commissioners had changed its
stance of support of a 20 mph travel corridor in the St. Sebastian
River (between the US#1 bridge and FEC railroad tracks)
According to Mr. Giteles, as expressed in a letter to Commissioner
Bird on November 2, 1990, the FDNR may consider re -addressing the
St. Sebastian River manatee protection zones, particularly if there
is local support for a re -consideration as part of upcoming Indian
River County rulemaking hearings.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In response to concerns raised by Mr. Giteles, county staff
contacted FDNR staff to determine if the St. Sebastian River
manatee protection zones are to be re -addressed during the overall
Indian River County rulemaking hearings to be held early next year.
17 Wo
C E C 111990
EC 1 1 19.9
BOOK 8
The FDNR staff explained that they would consider re -visiting the
issue, but only if it was requested by the County.
In that the interim protection zones for the St. Sebastian River as
adopted by the State on June 26, 1990 did not include the County's
recommended 20 mph travel corridor , a re -visit to the matter would
afford an opportunity for additional local participation and input.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
planning staff to draft a letter, for the Commission Chairman's
signature, to be sent to FDNR to request that St. Sebastian River
manatee protection zones be re -visited as part of the upcoming
Indian River County rulemaking hearing process. _
Commissioner Bowman stated,that she saw no necessity for
reconsideration. This was put to bed by the Governor and Cabinet
in September.
Commissioner Scurlock asked where the request for reconsid-
eration came from, and Commissioner Bowman felt that it is one
man's private agenda.
Community Development Director Keating gave a background of
the situation, noting that the DNR considered the St. Sebastian
River during the Brevard County hearing and at that time made the
entire river slow speed. This request is that we send a letter
clarifying that Indian River County would like the Governor and
Cabinet to adopt the interim Manatee Protection Plan as the
County approved it with a 20 mph travel corridor from the
railroad bridge out to the channel in the Indian River.
Commissioner Bowman contended that the rules have been set
for Brevard County; that the flat being talked about (the
traveled way) is all in Brevard County; and that already has been
decided and the s/ig ns are up and it is being enforced.
Chief Planner DeBlois felt the issue is just whether the
Commission wants to have the opportunity during the next public
hearings for the rule making for overall Indian River County to
be able to look at the south fork of the St. Sebastian River. If
the Board doesn't send the letter, it is possible the opportunity
might not be there to look at the St. Sebastian River again.
18
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we aren't already on the
record as to what our recommendation was, and Commissioner Bird
felt this is just to reiterate our position and stress that the
majority of the Commission still feels the same as before.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know, if the signs are up,
if anyone has checked on how it is working and whether there have
been complaints. He felt this would be something we should
pursue.
Commissioner Bird asked if Commissioner Bowman was correct
that the whole proposed 20 mph corridor would be in Brevard
County. He did not think that was right.
Planner DeBlois stated the the 20 mph corridor is clearly in
the Indian River County portion.
Commissioner Bowman clarified that what she said was that
the traveled way between the 2 bridges (the highway bridge and
the railroad bridge) is all in Brevard County.
Several Commission members indicated they were not sure that
is correct, and Commissioner Bird believed that all we are asking
is to send the letter to reaffirm the position of the majority of
the Commission.
Commissioner Bowman felt what it is saying is that this will
open the whole issue to public hearing when the rules are set for
this county.
Commissioner Scurlock did not see why everything wouldn't be
on the table at a public hearing. He felt that was the purpose
of a public hearing, and he did not like public hearings where
you limit the scope to talk about what you want to talk about and
avoid the things people have an interest in.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Scurlock, Commissioner Bowman voting in
opposition, the Board by a 4 to 1 vote authorized the
Chairman to send a letter to the FDNR as recommended
by staff as it was felt we should reiterate our position.
C 11X990 , g BOOK, �
DEC 111990
BOOK
L. TEFRA Hearing (Escambia Co. Finance Authority/Single Family
Fond Tyr o _ram —� ---��—
The Board reviewed the following:
_l 011ham I.Honh & Co.
100 SECOND AVENUE SOUTH
SUITE 800 -
ST. PETERSBURG, FLORIDA 33701
(813) 823-8100
December 7, 1990
_V J
Ms. Carolyn K. Eggert /6 0Fc1990
Chairwoman
Indian River County•Commissio
1840 25th Street o04�/c,E�t o
�
Vero Beach, Floridada 32960 Dt1N
Dear Ms. Eggert:
William R. Hough & Co. is again structuring a single family bond program
for the Escambia County Housing Finance Authority to provide affordable housing
to low, moderate and middle income families. As you recall, last year we
presented the same program to Indian River County and, because of timing on the
program, we were unable to include Indian River County prior to the time that we
marketed the bonds. However, we did make a presentation to the financial
advisory committee of the County who made a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners to participate in the program. The Board of County Commissioners
was very enthusiastic about the program.
This year, we have structured another program with the Escambia County
Housing Finance Authority as the lead issuer and have invited Indian River County
to be a participant. We are requesting that the Board put that item on the
agenda to consider participation in the program and if interested to formally
adopt a resolution, approving the program. I have enclosed the following
documents that the County would have to execute to participate in the program:
1) Resolution to be adopted by the Board of County•Commissioners; and
2) Interlocal Agreement to be executed by the Board of County
Commissioners
In addition; provided with this letter is a term sheet with a three-page
description of the program and also a summary of the background of Indian River
County's interest in the program.
If there are any questions or you need any additional information, please
do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
WILLIAM R. HOUGH & CO.
Edwin M. Bulleit, CPA
Vice President
Chairman Eggert advised that it is necessary to advertise a
public hearing in this regard..
20
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise a public hearing to be held in
regard to the above Housing Program in the Commis-
sion Chambers on Friday, December 28th, at 10:00 A.M.
Commissioner Scurlock believed there is no requirement for
the entire Commission to hold the hearing and advised that he
will be in town, and he will be glad to attend if the County
Attorney and staff make the arrangements.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REGULATING DISTRIBUTION OF HANDBILLS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached, to -wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA r
NOTICE _ Y
• Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath
says that he le Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Journal, a dally newspaper published
Indli
The Board County, County hereby so ide Ot tice
RiverHeartFlorida, hereby provides notice
PUbIIC Hearigs scheduled lei 9:08 A.M c
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
Tuesday, December it. 1990, to dlecuss 110 k,
lowingg proposed ordinances entitled:
r(1) AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
a
—
ER , FLORID/ RRADOPTING
PART ICOF NEW CHAPTER 310 REOU-
In the matter of
LATINO (THE DISTRIBUTION OF HAND'
..
BILLS.
(2) AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY,
FLORIDA. ESTABLISHING
CERTAIN MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES ;
In the Court, was pub-
IN A NEW CHAPTER 308• PROVIDING
FOR REPEAL, SEVERABILITY AND AN,
' �(o_ l d�
9/
EFFECTIVE DATE.
�.• Ushed in said newspaper In the Issues of ///7yil1c6Y�/
I(.9) AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY,' FLORIDA. ESTABLISHING
PROVISIONS FOR THE COLLECTION
OF FINES FOR PARKING VIOLATION .:
AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION
Afflanl further says that the sold Vero Beach Press -journal Is a newspaper published at
318.1987(8) • OF .THE FLORIDA STAT -
BUTES.
Vero Beach, In Bald Indian River County, Florida, and lKai the sold newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida. each dally and has been
entered as second class mall matter at the attics In Vero Beach. In Indian River Coun•
(4) AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
post said
ty, Florlda, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
COUNTY. FLORIDA, DIRECTING THE
CLERK OF THE COURT TO. REPORT
advertisement; and affiant further says Thal he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
OUTSTANDING •. PARKING' TICKETS;
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for In the said newspaper.
FOR HANDICAPPEIJ r.ARKING -VIOLA
— publicallon
TONS.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day f . tg �1L__
Anyone who may wish to sppsal iffy didek
Which may be made at this meeting will need 1
ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedlnF
_
(Businas a
Is made, which Includes testimony and evident
—
which the appeal Is based.,�,
November 18, 1990. ; +• a :- .l 71221
-{64erk•17Fttte Circuit- uun7,tndlen-RIveF6gUhty, Florida)-.-
lorida)-.
(SEAL)
(SEAQ .
Nnlmy PRlhlle, State offIn,I&+
'�•• Commhrinn Exp+Ini Juns-29; 1993
SAID NOTICE APPLIES TO THE NEXT THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ALSO.
21
DEC 111990
B00K 8 3 FADE 141
Commissioner Wheeler commented that as he understood the
proposed ordinance, church ground parking lots would be con-
sidered public places so you couldn't put handbills on the cars
parked there.
This was confirmed by Asst. County Attorney O'Brien, who
also pointed out that there is no prohibition against handing
them out to individuals.
Commissioner Wheeler believed you can put handbills on
private property on door knobs, for instance, and Attorney
O'Brien agreed that you can unless the premises is posted "No
trespassing, etc."
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that on Page 1 of Attachment
"A" the definition of commercial handbill says "except news-
papers," but Page 2, paragraph 3, talks about a publication that
is essentially and predominantly advertising with some capsule
news items, and that is all this thing is.
Attorney O'Brien explained that what we are trying to
prohibit is the distribution of handbills which are publications
that are predominantly advertising, and Attorney Vitunac further
clarified that a real newspaper can be distributed, but an
advertising type newspaper cannot be indiscriminately thrown
around.
Commissioner Bowman later wished to know what "carting" of
handbills is, and Attorney O'Brien advised this wording is taken
from another ordinance; he guessed it is more or less bringing
them around; and he felt that language could be left out.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, came before the Board and
handed out examples of advertising type newspapers which are
thrown around in neighborhoods, such as the Vero Beach/Sebastian
Advertiser and The Beachcomber.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if this ordinance makes
this type newspaper illegal, and Attorney O'Brien advised that it
does if someone objects in writing to having them thrown on their
22
M
premises or has a No Trespassing sign. Also, this ordinance
stipulates that you can't pile them up if there are already 3 or
4 on the lawn. With those exceptions, they can be distributed.
Mr. Koolage noted that he has protested to these publica-
tions; in fact, he wrote them certified letters, but still has
the papers thrown on his property. He felt it is a shame to have
these lying around cluttering up the neighborhoods and urged that
the Board adopt a strong ordinance that is very specific.
Chairman Eggert commented that although she realized we have
a penalty section in our Code, she was concerned that if someone
wanted a copy of this handbill ordinance, nowhere in it is the
penalty set out.
Attorney O'Brien explained how much duplication there would
be and how many additional identical sections that would cause.
He suggested that possibly we could have a stamp made up that
could be used whenever we send out this ordinance.
Chairman Eggert felt if we pass this ordinance, it would be
nice if we sent a copy of it out to the people who are concerned
in the distribution of these type publications.
Attorney Vitunac suggested that it would be a good idea for
the County Attorney write a letter to all the advertisers we know
of and make them aware of the penalty.
Chairman Eggert agreed but liked the idea of a stamp also.
She determined that no one else wished to be heard and closed the
public hearing.
Attorney Vitunac advised that they will leave out the
reference to "carting."
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-27 regulating the distribution of
handbills with the deletion of the language
described above.
EC 111990 23 E~oor{rQ
F �,, If
DEC 1 Q9
moK
ORDINANCE 90-27
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ADOPTING PART 1 OF NEW CHAPTER
310 REGULATING THE DISTRIBUTION OF
HANDBILLS.
WHEREAS, the distribution of unsolicited handbills
often results in litter on lawns; and
WHEREAS, the presence of handbills on residential
property can become a signal to thieves that the property is
unattended;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County that:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
A new Part 1 of new Chapter 310 is added as set
forth In Attachment "A".
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or If any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance Is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
Intent to puss the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
Invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming
law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this
day bf. December , 1990.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 16 day of Noyes_, 1990, for a
public hearing to be held on the 11 day of _pecembPr
1990, at which time '• it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Scurlock seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert AYE
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird AYE
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman AYE
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. AYE
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler AYE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By L,4o,
CeroTyn gger , airman
24
ATTACHMENT "A"
CHAPTER 310. SALES AND SOLICITATION
Part 1. Handbills
§ 310.01
Distribution
generally
§ 310.02
Definitions
§ 310.03
Distribution
in public places
§ 310.04
Distribution
on private premises
§ 310.05
Distribution
in vehicles
§ 310.06
Sponsorship
identified
§ 310.07
Exemptions
PART I. HANDBILLS
Section 310.01
All handbills, as
Indian River County
the regulations set
Section 310'-.02
The followings
part, have the
except where
meaning:
Distribution generally
defined in this part,
shall be distributed in
forth in this part.
Definitions
distributed in
accordance with
words, terms and phrases, when used in this
meanings ascribed to them In this—section,
the context clearly indicates a different
1. Commercial handbill shall mean and include any printed
or written matter, any shape or device, dodger,
circular, leaflet, pamphlet, magazine, bumper sticker,
booklet, or any written matter or literature, except
newspapers, which:
a. Advertise any merchandise, product, service,
commodity, or thing;
b. Directs attention to any business or mercantile
or commercial establishment, or other activity`,
for the purpose of either directly or indirectly
promoting the interest thereof by sale,. lease,
benefit, gift, or other promotion;
C. Directs attention 'to or advertises any meeting,
theatrical performance, exhibition, or event of
any kind, for which an admission fee is charged
for the purpose of private gain or profit; or,
d. While containing reading matter other than
advertising matter, is essentially and
predominantly an advertisement and is distributed
or circulated for advertising purposes or for the
private benefit and gain or any person or entity
so engaged as advertiser or distributor.
2. Distribute shall mean and includes the depositing,
placing,—or throwing of handbills.
3. Newspaper shall mean and include any newspaper of
general circulation as defined by general law, any
newspaper duly entered with the post office department
of the United States in accordance with federal statute
or regulation, and any newspaper filed and recorded
with any recording officer as provided by general law
I?
25 €A005 G..
DEC 11 j990
f1k00K Fr'H 14b
and including any periodical or current magazine
published with not less than 4 issues per year, and
sold to the public. "Newspaper" shall not include a
publication that is essentially and predominately
advertising with some capsule news items which does not
have regular subscribers and is distributed without
costs to the recipient.
4. Noncommercial handbills shall mean any other printed or
written matter, any sample or device, dodger, circular,
leaflet, pamphlet, bumper sticker, magazine, paper,
booklet, or any other printed or otherwise reproduced
original or copies of any matter or literature not
included in the definition of "commercial handbill," or
"newspaper."
S. Private premises shall mean any dwelling, house,
building, or other structure designed or used either
wholly or in part for private residential purposes,
whether inhabited or temporarily or continuously
uninhabited or vacant, and shall include any yard,
grounds, walk, drive, porch, steps, vestibule, or
mailbox belonging to appurtenant to such dwelling,
house, driveway, or other structure.
6. Public place shall mean any and all street, boulevards,
avenues, lanes, alleys, or other public right-of-ways,
and any and all public parks, squares, spaces, plazas,
grounds and buildings, and any commercial business or
shopping center to which the public is regularly
invited.
Section 310.03 Distribution in public places
1. No handbills, commercial or noncommercial, shall be
distributed:
a. On public rights-of-way which are used as
highways, streets, roads, or alley, median strips
in such rights-of-way and public parking lots;
b. By sale on public property; or
C. On public property other than by personal delivery
to a person wishing to receive the handbill.
2. No handbills, commercial or noncommercial, shall be
distributed:
a. Between the hours of 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. of
the following day;
b. In any manner in public parks or on beach land;
C. By persons any closer than 150 feet from another
person distributing the same handbill or working
for the same principal;
d. By persons walking along with the intended
recipient, but must be distributed instead from a
stationary position;
e. By insisting that a person take such han-dbil'I if
that person has already declined the offer.
26
M
Section 310.04 Distribution on private premises
1. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute any
handbills in or upon private premises which are or
appear to be temporarily or continuously uninhabited or
vacant. If 2 or more handbills are in a receptacle,
inside a door, on a porch, or are otherwise visible on
the premises, such premises shall be considered vacant;
however, the presence of unretrieved handbills shall
not be the exclusive indication of uninhabited or
vacant premises.
2. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute any
handbill or newspaper in or upon any private premises
if requested in wr i.t i ng by the owner or lessee of the
premises not to do to.
3. It shall be unlawful for any person to distribute any
handbill in or upon any private premises that is
conspicuously posted "No Trespassing," "No Peddlers or
Agents," "No Advertisement," "No Handbills," or any
similar notice, indicating in any manner that the
occupants of said premises do not desire to have their
rights of privacy disturbed.
Section 310.05 Distribution in vehicles
It shall be unlawful to distribute any handbill i n or upon
any motor vehicle. The provisions of this section shall not
prohibit the handing of any handbill to the driver or other
occupant of any motor vehicle who is willing to accept same.
Section 310.06 Sponsorship identified
It shall be unlawful to distribute any handbill that does
not contain the name and address of the person who is the
sponsor of the handbill.
Section 310.07 Exemptions
The provisions of this part shall not apply to:
1. The distribution of mail by the United States =Postal
Service.
2. Newspaper, magazines, or other reading material for
which a person has subscribed.
3. Distribution of the sponsor's handbills on the
sponsor's premises.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING CERTAIN MISC. OFFENSES IN
A NEW CHAPTER 306 (Surfing in Inlet, Oyster Harvesting,_ etc.)
Commissioner Bird wished to know if the section re surfing
or water skiing near the inlet is in effect now or is this new.
Attorney O'Brien explained that is a Special Act passed in
1967, and there is no way other to remove these than to have
legislation; so, this is merely a recodification of existing
Special Acts.
DEC ��9 27 R00� p�°ut °�j
®E0111990
MOO 82
FAJt
Ad
Chairman
Eggert assumed unless we change the Statute,
we
can't put in our provision that a train horn can be blown in an
emergency situation, and Attorney O'Brien confirmed that the way
the state law is now, it has to be an unconditional prohibition.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that in Attachment "A,"
Section 306.03, Paragraph 1, the word "boarders" should be
corrected to "borders."
Commissioner Bird brought up the matter of having a license
for selling various items, such as Christmas trees, and asked if
this doesn't require an occupational license.
Attorney O'Brien explained that all vendors are required to
have a County occupational license, but this is special permis-
sion by the County for them to sell the goods in the R/W or any
County parks, etc.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-28 establishing certain miscellaneous
offenses in a new Chapter 306.
28
ORDINANCE 90-28
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING CERTAIN MIS-
CELLANEOUS OFFENSES IN A NEW CHAPTER
306; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL, SEVERABILITY
AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, certain offenses have been established in
Indian River County by Special Acts of the Florida
Legislature, and
WHEREAS, these Special Acts are codified herein
for ease of reference, and
WHEREAS, other actions should be prohibited by the
County for the general welfare,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT
A new Chapter 306, Miscellaneous Offenses, is
hereby adopted as set forth in Attachment "A".
SECTION 2. REPEAL
Chapter 17 is hereby repealed in its entirety.
Regulation of precious metals and stones, and drug
paraphernalia, which appeared in Chapter 17, is now
provided for in Florida Statutes.
SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming
law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this _11
day of December 1990.
DEC111990 - - - 29
fu
Poor 2, C
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 16 day of November—1 1990, for a
public hearing to be held on the 11 day of December
1990, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Wheeler I seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert _Ave
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Ay -e-
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman _6YCE_
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Cary C. Wheeler Axe
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Carolyn Eggert.airman
i
ATTACHMENT "A"
CHAPTER 306.01 MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES
Section 306.01 Surfing or water skiing - Sebastian inlet
It is unlawful for any person to engage in surfboard riding
or water skiing or to assist another person to engage in
water skiing in or within two hundred (200) feet of the
Sebastian Inlet. (Sp. Acts, Ch..67-1153; § 1)
Section 306.02 Penalty violation of Section 306.01
Violation of this action [section 306.01] shall constitute a
misdemeanor punishable as such (Sp. Acts, Ch. 67-1153, § 2)
Section 306.03 Oyster_Harvesting
1. It is unlawful for any person to harvest oysters in
Indian River County, whether such harvesting be for
private use, commercial sale, or for out -of -season
relaying, from any public or private land which is
within seventy-five (75) feet of the shoreline of the
Indian River County or from any canal in Indian River
County without first obtaining written permission from
the owner of the public or private property which is
within seventy-five (75) feet of the shoreline of the
river or which directly borders any such canal.
2. With respect to the harvesting of oysters from any
canal in Indian River County, the owner of the property
abutting the canal shall be deemed to have jurisdiction
30
to the midpoint of the canal for the purpose of
granting permission for any such harvesting.
3. The violation of any provision of this act [section] is
declared to be a criminal offense and misdemeanor
within the meaning of Section 775.08, Florida Statutes,
and shall be punishable as provided by law. (Sp. Acts,
Ch. 79-480, §§ 1, 2)
4. Additional statutory restrictions are conta-fined in
Chapter 370, Florida Statutes.
Section 306.04 Sounding of train horns or whistles
between certain hours
It shall be unlawful for any engineer, conductor, fireman or
other person in charge of or in control of any locomotive or
railroad train of any railroad company operating wholly
within this state to sound any railroad train horn, whistle
or other audible warning signal between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00
a.m. in advance of or at any rail highway crossing located
within Indian River County, providing that. the crossing is
equipped with train -activated automatic traffic control
devices, which shall include, flashing lights, bells and
crossing gates.
Section 306.05 Selling goods on street or sidewalks
It shall be unlawful for any person to use or occupy any
portion of any public square, park, street, right-of-way, or
sidewalk for the purpose of exhibiting, selling or offering
for sale any goods, wares, or merchandise in Indian River
County outside the corporate limits of any city without a
permit issued by the County.
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR THE
COLLECTION OF FINES FOR PARKING VIOLATIONS
Attorney O'Brien reminded the Board that Police Chief
Gabbard came before the Board and, in cooperation with Tax
Collector Morris, requested this be done.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and she thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-29 establishing provisions for the
collection of fines for parking violation.
31
—) old - F 1
ROOK C.�
0 E0111930 POCK 82 PA"iE151
ORDINANCE 90-_2_9
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING PROVISIONS FOR THE
COLLECTION OF FINES FOR PARKING
VIOLATION AS PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION
316.1967(6) OF THE FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach has experienced
difficulty in collection fines for municipal parking
violations, and
WHEREAS, the City of Vero Beach has asked the
County to adopt an ordinance providing for collection of
unpaid parking tickets, and
WHEREAS, Section 316.1967(6) authorizes the County
to provide by ordinance a procedure whereby a person who has
three or more outstanding parking tickets shall not be
issued a license plate or revalidation sticker until the
parking fines have been paid,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
A new section 306.06 is added to the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County to read as follows:
Section 306.06 Payment of parking ticket
(1) The Clerk of the Court (traffic violation
bureau) shall supply the Department of Highway Safety and
Motor Vehicles (Department) with a magnetically encoded
computer tape reel or cartridge which is machine readable by
the installed computer system at the department, listing
persons who have three or more outstanding parking
violations.
(2) No license plate or revalidation sticker shall
be issued to a person whose name appears on 'this list
provided in paragraph (1) of this section until such
person's name no longer appears on said list or until the
person presents a receipt from the Clerk showing that such
parking fines have been paid.
32
� r
a
3. The City of Vero Beach shall remit monthly to
both the Tax Collector and the Clerk of the Court, as costs
for implementing and administering this program, 10o each of
the civil penalties and fines recovered from such persons.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and It shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming
I aw.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 11
day of December 1990.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 16 day of November . 1990, for a
publ is hearing to be held on the 11 day of Decpmbpr�•
1990, at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Wheeler seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A�P
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird _VP
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman VP
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. _ ye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Z1,41
��
Y
Carolyn Egger i airman
DEC 1990 33 POOK
noK. 82 P"�uE 1523 -7
PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE DIRECTING THE CLERK TO REPORT
OUTSTANDING TICKETS FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING VIOLATIONS
The chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard on
the proposed ordinance, and there were none. She thereupon
closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 90-30 directing the Clerk of the Court to
report outstanding parking tickets for handicapped
parking violations.
ORDINANCE 90-30
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, DIRECTING THE CLERK OF THE
COURT TO REPORT OUTSTANDING PARKING
TICKETS FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING
VIOLATIONS.
WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has enacted
Chapter 90-48 into law; and
WHEREAS, this Chapter directs the County to
provide by ordinance that the Clerk of the Court notify the
Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles of unpaid
parking tickets for handicapped parking violations,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, that:
SECTION 1. AMENDMENT.
A new section 306.07 is added to the Code of
Ordinances of Indian River County to read as follows:
Section 306.07 Unpaid handicapped parking
violations.
The Clerk of the Court (traffic violation bureau)
shall supply the Department of Highway Safety and Motor
Vehicles (Department) with,a magnetically encoded computer
tape reel or cartridge which is machine readable by the
installed computer system at the department, listing persons
who have any outstanding violations of §316.1955, Florida
34
Statutes, §316.1956, Florida Statutes, or any similar local.
ordinance regulating parking in spaces designated for use by
disabled persons.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY.
If any section, or if any sentence, paragraph,
phrase, or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to
be unconstitutional, inoperative, or void, such holding
shall not affect the remaining portions of this ordinance,
and it shall be construed to have been the legislative
intent to pass the ordinance without such unconstitutional,
invalid or inoperative part.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This ordinance shall become effective on becoming
Iaw.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 11
day of December _, 1990.
This ordinance was advertised
in the Vero Beach
Press -Journal on the 16
day of November ,
1990, for a
public hearing to be held
on the 11
day of
December ,
1990, at which time it
was moved
for
adoption by
Commissioner Wheeler
seconded
by
Commissioner
Scurlock , and adopted by
the following
vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye_
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Armee_
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Afire
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
DEC 11 X990 35 Caro I 7pK_.___ Egger CFia i rman
DEC 11 990
E�OOK 82 F'AGEIK
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication
attached to -wit:
Ir A -
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Rorlda 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER �
STATE OF FLORIDA Woo 31 oitCittlj
Before the undersigned authorityy personally appeared J.J.
Schumann. Jr. who on oath nays that he Is Business Manager of the
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33" at $9.45
Per column inch
billed- I.R.C. Planning
was published in said newspaper In the Issue(s)
of November 30, 1990, on page 4A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
loth day or December A.D 1990
Q� Business Manager
�tt�4uo•tie..t-i cam•
(SEA74
or C-1--tR-Emtk= A.-29.IM
NOTICE OF.CHANGE OF LAND USE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County; Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use
of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County as shown in the map of the advertisement. A
public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, December 11, 1990, of 9:05 a.m, in the County Commix
sion Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this
public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of this amendment to
the County's Comprehensive Plan to the State Department of Community Affairs for their review. The proposed
amendment is included in the proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR
(SOUTH RELIEF CANAL TO SOUTH COUNTY LINE) FROM 201 ACRES TO 202.2+- ACRES] AMEND-
ING THE LAND.USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY DECREASING THE HOBART
ROAD/U.S.*I COMMERCIAL NODE FROM 50 ACRES TO 36+- ACRES AND CHANGING LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR 14+- ACRES TO L-2, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COM-
PREHENSIVE PLAN BY REPLACING THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER C-2 DISTRICT WITH A NEW CONSER-
VATION DISTRICT FOR PRIVATELY OWNED UPLAND AND XERIC SCRUB AREAS AND AMENDING
THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIALANDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR (VERO SOUTH CITY
LIMITS TO SOUTH RELIEF CANAL) FROM 367 ACRES TO 375+- ACRES, AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE OSLO ROAD/ 27TH AVENUE r '
COMMERCIAL NODE FROM 60 ACRES TO 64.83+- ACRES; AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY ENLARGING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA TO CORRESPOND TO THE WATER AND SEWER
SERVICE AREAS ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 1-95 AND S.R. 60, AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROP-
ERTIES HAVING AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION, AND AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF ..
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REDUCING THE DENSITY FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND WEST OF ST.
JOHN'S MARSH; BY REDUCING THE DENSITY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BETWEEN 1-95 AND ST.
JOHN'S MARSH (EXCEPT FOR THE AREA AROUND FELLSMERE AND 1.95/C.R. 512), BY REDUCING
THE DENSITY OF AREA SOUTH OF SEBASTIAN AND NORTH OF C.R. 510, BY REDUCING THE DEN-
SITY OF AREA FROM 66TH AVENUE TO 1/2 -MILE EAST FROM 49TH STREET TO 33RD STREET, BY RE-..
DUCING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE COUNTY
BETWEEN C.R. 510 AND 33RD STREET AND REDUCING THE DENSITIES IN THESE AREAS, BY RE-
DUCING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY IN THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE COUNTY FROM
16TH STREET TO THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE BETWEEN 82ND AVENUE AND 58TH AVENUE AND
REDUCING THE DENSITIES IN THESE AREAS, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
POLICIES TO REFLECT THE DENSITY CHANGES AND REQUIRING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND
CLUSTERING WITHIN AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED AREAS, BY AMENDING THE INFRASTRUC-
TURE ELEMENT AND THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE CAPI-
TAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public (tearing regarding the transmittal of this proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the Community Development Division offices
located on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
between the hours of 8t30 a.m, and 5 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a ver-
batim record of the proceeding is made which•Indudes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be
based. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Subject \ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
M-1 \
Property BYs Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
•% '
SUBJECT PROPERTY'%\'.
AG i • ...1 _.%3 -moi m \\
1:OWi \ \
u r1a —
SUOJECI PROPERTY ;
6 L
�. y RM -10 &I OL
W i€�cli
O CO
-au-s aiy>
" + !
S..SUBJECT
"C'4VROPERTY\�, I t - ! J
... RS -3 ••- • ttl I
d
N
RM -B
LO RD
u .w
CL
Sublect RM
Property
36
36
Community Development Director Keating made the following
presentation:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP RM K
Community Development Director
a
DATE: December 4, 1990 •
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
It is requested that the information provided herein be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners _-at -their
regular meeting of December 11, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Indian River County's comprehensive plan was adopted on February
13, 1990. Subsequent -to adoption, the plan was submitted to the
state Department of Community Affairs for their compliance review.
After review, the DCA issued a statement of intent to find the plan
not in compliance.
Upon DCA's issuance of its notice of intent, several actions
occurred. One action was the initiation of negotiations between
the state and the county to develop a set of actions that -would
bring the county's plan into compliance and avoid an administrative
hearing. At the same time several parties formally intervened in
the plan approval process. The intervenors then became
participants in the administrative hearing process.
After several months of negotiation, the county and the state
agreed on a set of remedial actions to bring the county's plan into
compliance. Incorporated into the formal compliance agreement that
was approved by the Board of County Commissioners on September 26,
1990, the remedial actions must be officially adopted by the county
as amendments to its comprehensive plan. That remedial actions
comprehensive plan amendment request is attached to this item.
While the compliance agreement resolved county/state issues, it did
not address the intervenors' concerns. In an effort to resolve the
intervenors' issues and also avoid a separate county/ intervenor
administrative hearing, the Board of County Commissioners agreed to
allow each intervenor to submit a comprehensive plan amendment
request to change those plan provisions which he opposed, those
amendments to be considered concurrently with the remedial actions
amendment. Three intervenors submitted amendment requests, and
these are attached to this item.
During the negotiation process between the county and the state and
between the county and the intervenors, the adopted plan was being
implemented. One provision of the plan with which the staff
complied was to accept proposed amendments to the plan during the
month of July. Since the comprehensive plan had not yet been found
in compliance, staff determined at that time that it would be
unreasonable to process the four amendment requests received until
the plan's non-compliance issues had been resolved.
Besides the non-compliance status of the plan, another issue
affected processing of the July amendment requests. That was the
state requirement limiting comprehensive plan amendment requests to
two times in each calendar year. Because of the amendment process,
U E G 1 1 199® 37
BOOK. 82 rarE ��a
DUE C 111990
mQK S " FA. 7E 15 d
the July amendments would not be considered for final action until
1991. Since the staff had anticipated execution of a county/state
compliance agreement prior to the scheduled October, 1990
administrative hearing and because such a compliance agreement
would require a comprehensive plan amendment to adopt the remedial
actions, such action would also result in final action on a plan
amendment in 1991. If both the July amendments and the compliance
agreement amendment proceeded separately, the result would be that
the plan would have been amended twice in 1991. That would have
precluded consideration of amendment requests which may be
submitted in January.
For those reasons, -the July plan amendment requests have been
combined with the intervenors' amendment requests and the remedial
actions amendment request. All of these proposed amendments are
scheduled for consideration by the Board of County Commissioners on
December 11, 1990. The specific requests are as follows:
County's Proposed Amendment
•Remedial actions comprehensive plan amendment request
Intervenors' Proposed Amendments
*Diamond Wedge
•Coraci --
*Mixed Use Designation
July Amendment Requests
*Graham Stikelether
*Dean Vegosen
•Jerome Quinn
*Betty McRae
ANALYSIS
It is staff's position that the remedial actions amendment and the
intervenors' proposed agreements should be considered differently
from the July amendment requests. Since the remedial actions
amendment and the intervenors' amendments are extensions of the
comprehensive plan preparation process, these requests need not be
reviewed for concurrency. As with plan adoption, these proposed
amendments must meet internal consistency and -financial feasibility
tests; however, concurrency criteria need not be considered. For
the July amendments, the established amendment criteria apply, and
concurrency must be evaluated.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that th
of the plan amendment
resolution, transmitting
review.
e Board of County Commissioners review all
requests, and then approve the attached
the proposed amendments to DCA for their
38
Director Keating stressed that the proposed Resolution of
transmittal should not be approved until the Board has considered
all the 8 Comprehensive Plan amendment requests. He explained
that the first request concerns the remedial actions amendment to
approve the actions in the Compliance Agreement-; the second set
of 3 are amendments submitted by the intervenors; and the final 4
are amendments that were submitted during the July Comp Plan
amendment window timeframe; and these all need to be considered
differently. The remedial actions amendment and the intervenors
are all really extensions of the Comp Plan process; so, essenti-
ally we are applying the same criteria as when we considered the
Comp Plan back in February. The last 4 are amendments to that
Plan that have been submitted separately, and when reviewing
those, we are actually looking at concurrency and general
policies that are in the Plan. After all these have been
considered, then the Board can consider the Resolution of
transmittal and delete or add any amendments.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that we drew up a plan and
submitted it to the DCA and they denied it; then Chairman Eggert
and staff negotiated and came to some kind of agreement with the
DCA; so, if we now go back in and make a change, are we not back
into negotiation with the DCA?
Asst. County Attorney Collins explained that the Compliance
Agreement provided that if we did not transmit these recommended
remedial actions within a certain time frame both parties reserve
their right to an administrative hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock believed Commissioner Wheeler's
question is why are the intervenors here before us today rather
than being before the DCA. He understood that the DCA objects to
both what we proposed and what the intervenors proposed; so, why
are we debating the issue here rather than the intervenor
presenting their case directly to the DCA?
Attorney Collins pointed out that some of the intervenors
are for our plan and some are against it, and they really have to
DEG 111990
39
f,. 4 r
Poor - F 11% D
I
DEC 111000 Book FAgE15v+
meet with us and come to some resolution between them and us as
to what is appropriate for their lands so they then can proceed
on to the DCA to try to convince them that whatever resolution we
come to is appropriate under the Growth Management Act.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we have any formal corre-
spondence from DCA indicating a shift in opinion on any of the
intervenors' issues before us today, and Attorney Collins advised
that the DCA has been copied on virtually everything the
intervenors have submitted, which is substantial. We have talked
to the DCA on the phone, and we have a general idea whether they
are responding favorably or not.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he is getting "whip sawed"
on this. He has yet to see any document from DCA that indicates
they have changed their position in reference to any of the
intervenors, and, as one Commissioner, he does not want to rely
on "he said" or "they said," etc.
Attorney Collins stressed that this is just a hearing to
decide whether to transmit these documents to the DCA.
Commissioner Scurlock believed that transmittal implies you
favor what is being transmitted, but Attorney Collins pointed out
that you can reserve your right to change your mind based on the
comments you get back from DCA.
Commissioner Wheeler continued to question whether we can
still change our Plan (i.e., a line or boundary) if we want to
and submit it to DCA even though we have negotiated a position,
and then they have 90 days to say whether they agree with that.
Chairman Eggert noted that the next item on the agenda is to
adopt the remedial actions required by the DCA Compliance
Agreement, and she believed that to disagree with that now would
put us back into an administrative hearing.
Attorney Collins further explained that you can propose
changes to them, but changes that are inconsistent with the
remedial amendments they would not look favorably upon. If, for
example, we decided we wanted to allow one unit per 5 acres in
40
r
the AG areas west of Blue Cypress, the DCA would say that we
breached the agreement.
Debate continued as to exactly what we are doing today and
how it all relates. Commissioner Bird noted that, in other
words, the discussion on the next agenda item is do we still
support the compromise plan that was agreed to between us and the
DCA, and if we disagree with part of that or someone from the
public disagrees, now is the time to speak.
This was confirmed.
AMEND COMP PLAN TO ADOPT REMEDIAL ACTIONS REQUIRED BY COMPLIANCE
AGREEMENT
Director Keating gave a brief review of the following memo:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AI
Community Develo ennnt rector
FROM: Sasan Rohani S• • �c .
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: December 5, 1990
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE
REMEDIAL ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/DCA
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990.
C Promotion of Urban Sprawl:
The DCA contended that the county's plan fails to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl because the densities and
intensities of uses assigned in the FLUM to rural and
EC 111990 41 soar �'A
UC.
FF,_ 7
-DEG 11199®
BOOK F�1GE 161
agricultural areas will encourage development in these areas
and the county plan does not have sufficient control
mechanisms for development in rural and agricultural areas to
discourage urban sprawl. The DCA contended that the county's
Urban Service Area (USA) is too large for the projected
population and will cause urban sprawl. The DCA also
contended that the county's plan does not ensure that public
water and sewer expansion will occur in a manner that
discourages urban sprawl.
P -
Protection of Upland Plant Communities and Agricultural Lands:
The DCA contended that the county's plan is not consistent
with the comprehensive regional policy plan. While the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's plan calls for
preservation of a least 25% of each native plant community
occurring on-site, the county plan calls for only 15% -to be
set aside. In the county's plan, the 15% set aside could be
reduced to 10% if preservation is in a contiguous tract. This
objection has arisen despite the fact that TCRPC found the
county's plan to be consistent with the regional policy plan.
The DCA contended that the adopted goals, objectives and
policies do not ensure that residential development in the
Agricultural area will proceed in a manner that preserves _-
agricultural values and provides for clear separation of urban
_,nd rural land uses.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13,
1990. Pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive -Planning and
Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, a copy of the adopted plan
was then sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for
its compliance review. After review, the DCA issued a statement of
intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in
compliance. The principal reasons for the noncompliance finding
were the DCA's contention that the plan promoted urban sprawl,
allocated too much land for residential use, and failed to protect
upland plant communities.
Summary Of DCA's Non -Compliance Objections
s
On April 9, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs issued a
statement of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive
Plan not in compliance. DCA's objections are summarized below:
c Over -allocation of Land for Residential Development:
The DCA contended that the county's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
is not supported by the data and analysis because it allocates
more residential acreage and allows for the development of
more residential dwelling units than are projected to be
needed by the date depicted on the map (2010).
The DCA stated that the county allocated 5.9 times as many
acres and 11.3 times as many dwelling units within the Urban
Service Area as are projected to be needed throughout the
planning period. It stated that the county allocated 27.9
times as many acres and 11.6 times as many dwelling units for
the county as a whole than are projected to be needed. Over-
allocation of land is one of the indicators of urban sprawl,
and the above multipliers are the indicators of over-
allocation of land.
42
M
c Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements: -
The DCA contended that the data and analysis in
Land Use and Housing Elements do not present a
projection of demand for future dwelling units and
acreage, and the projections do not utilize
residential categories.
the' Future
consistent
residential
the same
Despite the noncompliance finding, the adopted plan was and still
is the county's official plan. Not only has the staff been
implementing the plan since its adoption, but the staff prepared
and the Board of County Commissioners on September 11, 1990,
adopted a set of land development regulations consistent with the
plan. —
Compliance Agreement
In an effort to avoid the administrative hearing process and
potential financial sanctions, the county and the DCA negotiated an
agreement to find the plan in compliance. Throughout this
negotiation process, county officials twice traveled to
Tallahassee, while DCA staff came to the county once. As a result
of this process, the county staff and the DCA staff reached
agreement on measures to be taken by the county to have its plan
found in compliance. These changes involve future land use plan
map amendments, including density reductions in agricultural areas -
and reduction in the extent of the urban service area; future land
use plan policy changes to promote clustering of residential
development in agricultural areas; conservation element changes to
reflect more upland preservation; capital improvement element
changes to reflect upland acquisition; and various data and
analysis amendments.
On September 26, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the proposed compliance agreement and directed the staff to proceed
with the actual Comprehensive Plan amendments which will implement
the remedial actions specified in the compliance agreement.
Changes proposed to bring the county's plan into compliance consist
of revisions to the future land use plan map as well as revisions
to the text, objectives and policies for several elements as shown
on attachment "A". Proposed text or policy changes are indicated
by strike-throughs and underlines.
Summary of Remedial Actions
In order to address the DCA's objections and bring the county's
plan to compliance, the county negotiated an agreement with the
DCA. The main points of the compliance agreement are as follows:
c r._ -Over -allocation of Residential Lands:
Over -allocation of residential land was DCA's principal
objection to Indian River County's comprehensive plan.
According to DCA, this over -allocation could produce urban
sprawl.
* DCA's Position
DCA's position was that the county allocated more than 11
times as many dwelling units as projected to be needed through
the planning horizon (1990-2010). The DCA used the following
formula to calculate the multiplier:
��
1990
43 ani 4
Fr- I
DEC 111990
Multiplier = Total number of units allowed - Existing units
Projected number of units needed (1990-2010)
O Total number of units allowed = Summation of units
allowed for each land use category
c Total number of units allowed for each land use category
= (total acreage of land in each land use category) X
(maximum number of units allowed for the appropriate land
use category).
By using this formula, the DCA's figure showed that the county
allocated more than 11 times as many dwelling units as
projected to be needed.
* County's Position
The county acknowledged that there was some over -allocation of
residential land, but disputed the accuracy of DCA's
multiplier. It is the county's position that flaws in the
methodology overestimate the multiplier. These flaws are
summarized below:
Historically, the county's development has not occurred
at or near the maximum density allowed in each land use
category, and the county predicts this trend to be
continued in the future. The DCA did not consider this
trend and used the maximum number of residential units
allowed in each land use category to determine the
multiplier.
Existing subdivisions have a much lower density than the
density designated in the FLUM for the areas in which
these subdivisions are located. This was not taken into
account in establishing the DCA multiplier.
DCA did not reduce gross acreage amounts to reflect land
used for infrastructure improvements (roads, stormwater
tracts); usually 25% or more of a development project
acreage will be allocated for these infrastructure
improvements. The 25% allowance for infrastructure
improvements is a conservative figure.
It is the county's position that the multiplier would be more
accurate if the formula was revised to be as follows:
Total number of units allowed = (net net acreage of
lands for each land use category) X (maximum number
of units allowed for that land use category) +
(existing number of lots/units in the major
subdivisions).
c Net net acreage = (total acreage of land in each
land use category) - (acreage designated for
commercial/industrial, recreational and
institutional) - (25% for infrastructure
improvements) -(acreage of existing major
subdivisions).
* Compromise Position
To reduce the 'over -al location of residential land, DCA and
Indian River County identified various amendments to Indian
River County's plan which would reduce the number_ of dwelling
units that could be built. These amendments are depicted on
the Future Land Use Plan Map and are generally as follows:
44
** Reduction of density for agricultural land west of
I-95 (except for areas around Fellsmere and I-95/CR
512) to 1 unit/20 acres west of the St. Johns Marsh
and 1 unit/10 acres in other areas
** Revision of USA boundary in the central and
southern portion of the county by excluding active
agricultural lands and certain areas which do not
have access to the urban services
** Reduction in density for areas east -of I-9-5 and
falling outside of the USA to 1 unit/5 acres
** Reduction in density for certain areas within the
USA in the northern and central part•of the county
By making adjustments to the USA boundaries, by reducing
density, and by modifying the DCA's method for determination
of total number of units allowed, the county reduced the
multiplier for the portion of the county within the Urban
Service Area to 4.4 or less.
c Urban Sprawl:
Over -allocation of land for residential use and lack of
control mechanisms to cluster development which may occur in
agricultural areas are indicators of urban sprawl. The
stipulated compliance agreement has the following provisions
for actions to discourage urban sprawl. Since the urban
sprawl issue is closely related to the issue of over-
allocation of residential land, many of the sprawl actions are
the same as over -allocation remedial actions.
Reduction of the Urban Service Area in the central and
southern portion of the county by excluding active
agricultural land and certain areas which do not have
access to the urban services from the USA.
Reduction of density of agricultural lands west of I-95
by revising policy 1.8 of the Future Land Use Element.
Revision of future land use element policies by
introducing control mechanisms for non-agricultural
development of agriculturally designated lands (required
clustering of residential development, maximum
residential lot size in agricultural areas). Policies
1.8, 1.31, 2.5, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 7.3 were revised,
and new policies 1.32 and 5.8 were added to the future
land use element as identified in attachment "A".
Protection of Upland Plant Communities:
The remedial actions which address the protection of upland
communities include revisions to the objectives and policies
of the future land use element and the conservation element.
These actions require specific site design for environmental
lands to minimize impacts upon endangered 'and threatened
plants and animals, and preservation of native upland areas
through establishment of conservation easements and/or fee
simple purchase. The county proposes to comply with TCRPC's
25% preservation objective. Rather than exacting land from
developers, however, the county has opted for acquisition to
compensate for its lower (15%) preservation requirement.' As
indicated in attachment "A", the following policies were
revised: Land -Use Element policy 7.3; Conservation Element,
objective 6, and policies 6.1, 6.3. The following new
policies were added to the Conservation Element: 6.14 and
6.15. - --
C
4 5
1990 EGG b F'a 6
DEC 111990
C Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements
There are several minor changes to the data and analysis
portion of the plan to addressinaccuracies and typing
mistakes. There are also changes_ -to� -£die' data and analysis
portions of various plan elements to justify various policy
changes and to address internal consistency. These changes
are identified in attachment "A".
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
request as presented by the staff to the Board of County
Commissioners and to recommend transmittal of this request~to the
DCA.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the changes
will be presented. The analysis will identify the general
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments and will
evaluate alternatives.
Residential Land Use Designation
As indicated in the description section of this item, one of the
major reasons for the DCA finding the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan not in compliance was the amount of land
designated for residential development on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). This residentially designated land can accommodate many
more residential units than are needed based on the plan's
population projections. To reduce the number of units allowed, the
county agreed to reduce the density in the agricultural areas west
of I-95, to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area by moving its
boundaries to the east, and to reduce the density of areas falling
outside of the USA.
In evaluating the proposed amendments, it is useful to contrast the
technique used by the county to prepare its land use plan map and
that followed by DCA. While the county focused almost exclusively
on natural constraints and- man-made conditions, DCA used a
population based approach. Under its method, the county identified
the limits of urban service provision and designated land within
those limits, assigning different densities based on existing
densities, natural constraints, and proximity to services.
According to the DCA's land use policy, a community's population
projection is the most important factor in land use designation.
With this method, the population projection becomes a cap, and only
that amount of land needed to serve the projected population
receives an urban designation. With urban land uses confined to
compact areas, more efficient provision of facilities and services
can occur.
Revision of the future land use map, as proposed, will leave the
county somewhere between these two techniques. The county does
propose to pull back its Urban Service Area, reduce densities in
the. agricultural areas, and reduce densities in the central and
southern portions of the county. However, the county still has an
ample supply of land to accommodate the full range of land uses for
a period well beyond the planning horizon, and this density
reduction would not preclude future development in the county.
The proposed new USA boundary has been established by excluding
active agricultural land furthest from existing developed areas and
other land that does --not have access to urban services. The result
of this reduction to the USA will be more infill development. The
total amount of growth and development is not expected to be
46
reduced; however, its location will be changed. The county will
still have residential capacity to accommodate projected demand far
beyond the planning horizon (2010).
The DCA's position was that all active agricultural lands must be
excluded from the USA; that included areas north of Gifford and
areas in the south portion of the county as far east as 20th
Avenue. DCA recommended density reduction in these areas. Since
these agricultural lands have access to urban services and are in
close proximity to existing development, the county opted not to
exclude them from the USA. Further density reduction within the
urban service area is an alternative to the proposed remedial
action amendments, but such action would reduce the county's
capability to provide for various housing types and to provide for
the construction of affordable housing.
Reduction of density in the agricultural areas will provide for
additional protection of agricultural lands. This action combined
with the requirement that all residential development in
agricultural areas be clustered will constrain development of large
lot development projects. While somewhat limiting choice of
housing type, these actions will reduce the existing residential
development unit over -allocation.
Urban Sprawl
The proposed amendments will effectively eliminate urban sprawl
problems. By constricting the urban service area, these amendments
will increase the overall efficiency for provision of facilities
and services. Provision of services in a compact area is more
economically feasible than extending those services over a large
area. Elimination of urban sprawl will also increase the
opportunity for protection of agricultural lands. Both the
increased efficiency of facility and service provision and the
additional protection of agricultural lands -are positive factors
associated with the elimination of urban sprawl.
One of the most important requirements established as part of the
proposed remedial actions to eliminate urban sprawl and provide a
clear separation of urban and rural land uses is the requirement to
cluster residential development in the agricultural area. The
alternative is to use the traditional land use and zoning
regulations and to reduce.agricultural densities even lower.
Protection of Upland Plant Community and Agricultural Lands
The remedial action amendments relating to upland preservation
involve acquisition of conservation easements and/or fee simple
purchase of native upland areas and the requirement for a specific
site design for environmentally sensitive and important lands to
minimize impacts upon endangered and threatened plants and animals.
The county proposes to acquire more environmentally sensitive and
important lands, actions which would have a direct and indirect
effect on the quality of life. This amendment will give the county
the ability to protect upland communities by acquisition as well as
through developer exactions. Objective groups 5 and 6 of the
Conservation Element will support additional preservation of
environmental lands. The principal disadvantage of this proposed
remedial action amendment is the cost to the county to finance
additional land acquisition.
Agriculture has played a major role in development of the county
and is one of the county's major industries. Preservation of
agricultural lands from encroachment of non-agricultural activities
is important. Requirements such as clustering of non-agricultural
activities and approval of non-agricultural development through the
Planned Development- (PD) process will maximize the preservation of
agricultural lands. The major disadvantage is that this
47
DEC I 11990 `
P IOK 82 F',�' d
requirement limits creation of large lots and limits the -choice of
a rural lifestyle. However, a sufficient number of large lots
already exist to accommodate expected demand for such lots well
beyond the planning period.
Conclusion
The Board of County Commissioners has the option to approve these
amendments as they have been presented, to approve them with
modifications, or to deny the amendments.
i
Denial of these amendments will force the county to go to an t
administrative hearing. If the county loses and a hearing officer
finds the comprehensive plan not to be in compliance, the county
will lose approximately 10 million dollars annually in revenues.
It has been demonstrated that these amendments to the cbunty's
comprehensive plan will eliminate urban sprawl, will protect
environmental and agricultural lands, and will have a significant
impact on development potential, but will not stifle development.
i Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that the proposed
comprehensive plan amendments should be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the comprehensive plan amendments as identified in attachment "A",
direct staff to transmit these amendments -,to the DCA for their
review, and announce their intention to hold a final public
hearing.
Director Keating explained that essentially most of the
changes and remedial actions referenced in the Compliance
Agreement include changes to the map itself, and he referred
those present to the map being displayed which reflects those
changes, advising that the three maps displayed show the
evolution of the process leading up to the Compliance Agreement
Map which is the map located on the left. He informed the Board
that the big changes to this map are moving in the Urban Services
boundary, particularly in the south and central parts of the
county. All the area east of 1-95 and not in the Urban Service
Area is AG at a density of 1/5. The other major changes to the
Compliance Agreement were establishing 2 other AG Districts that
are further west in the county - AG 2 at 1/10 and AG 3 at 1/20.
Director Keating advised that there are several policy
changes that go along with this - a major one which was
incorporated in the LDRs was establishing several AG zoning
districts that correspond to the AG Land Use Districts. He
further advised that these policies also require clustering
48
within the AG Districts. Another major policy relates to the
problem we had with the Regional Planning Council in regard to
upland preservation. Essentially this is a policy indicating
that the County will acquire or help to acquire certain native
vegetation areas in the next several years, and -basically we have
agreed to acquire about 400 acres. There is one policy in here
that is not reflected in the Compliance Agreement per se. It is
really an expansion of Policy 1.31 of the Land Use Element that
is a little more specific about exactly how ES areas will be
delineated, and it essentially it says that ES areas will be
delineated based on environmental surveys and specifies the
criteria.
Director Keating noted that DCA's major concern was the
over -allocation of residential land uses. Originally they said
we had 11.6 times as much residential land as needed for the 20
year period. He then gave the history of how through the process
of density reduction and negotiation we got the DCA to agree to a
4.5 ratio, which is still substantially more than other counties
have; so, he felt that we were fortunate to be able to get them
to see the light in that regard.
Chairman Eggert believed the DCA feels that because our
county is low rise, low density, it attracts urban sprawl.
Commissioner Bird expressed the hope that we made the point
that even though we show certain density, it builds out less than
that, and Director Keating advised that we made that point 100
times, but they said then don't show it that way. He noted that
the DCA starts out with wanting a ratio of 1.25.
Commissioner Wheeler felt that it sounds like the DCA would
prefer everyone to develop the way Miami has.
Director Keating did not think so - he explained that they
are saying allocate based on what you actually project you need,
and if you say you need more, prove it by your population
projections. They want high density in some places, but they
understand the County's desire for low density. They would not
49
DEC I 11990
DEG 11 ROOK 82 N ,r 5 .
look favorably on the County putting 1 upa over the entire
County, of course. They are looking at a number of objectives
here - not only the total number of units, but also protecting AG
areas, preserving native vegetation, efficient allocation of
services, etc.
Commissioner Wheeler continued to stress the need for
flexibility and felt it seems the DCA wants a plan that is too
exact.
Chairman Eggert believed they agreed to take out a
percentage for the infrastructure so there is some flexibility.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that the issue is confusing,
and the more he has thought about it, he believed he did not
understand originally that the DCA is not mandating higher
densities - what they are saying is that you have too much in
your inventory for reasonable buildout. They are not saying you
have to raise your densities in the Urban Service Area - they are
identifying that with the densities we have proposed, we have
substantial land to be developed and they are saying that
inventory should be consumed considerably before we want you to
come back. In other words, their thinking is that by the year
2010 there is no realistic expectation by us or by them that we
are going to consume the land within our service areas, and he is
coming around to their thinking on that.
Commissioner Wheeler argued that they have put areas in and
taken areas out that potentially very easily could be in our
service areas. He contended that they are taking the choice away
from people of where they want to live.
Commissioner Scurlock felt they would be willing to trade
off, i.e., if you see development occurring in a particular area
that is fine, but just reduce and move your boundary in in other
areas where it is not not going to occur; however, just put so
much in the inventory.
Commissioner Bird wished to know if we adopt this plan,
whether it is possible to take a large parcel of land in this
50
- M M
r M M
county and subdivide it to create 5 acre sites for a mini ranch
concept.
Director Keating confirmed that you would be able to do that
in the Urban Service Area, but not in the AG areas. There are,
however, already a lot of existing 5 acre parcels out there,
particularly in the Fellsmere area.
Commissioner Scurlock stressed that they are just saying
don't move on the other side of the boundary until you consume
the land within your Urban Service Area, and Chairman Eggert
believed they are saying, in effect, don't "hop scotch."
Corrmissioner Bird stated that he would be very surprised if
they have been that strict and that consistent over 67 counties
in Florida.
Director Keating commented that he can say that consistency
is not their strong point, and the only way they justify it is
saying that you are different; the conditions are not the same.
Commissioner Bird continued to stress that land costs for
creating 5 acre tracts within the urban service areas would be
prohibitive, and also it is not true rural living, and Director
Keating continued to try to explain DCA's statewide perspective.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the answer is that depending on
the color on the map and which side of the boundary you are on,
it is feast or famine, and that's the history of the land
development business.
Commissioner Bird continuedtoexpress his concern about
eliminating a certain type of lifestyle and asked whether, in the
process we are going through right now, there are options about
further amending the map.
Attorney Collins advised that the Board has discretion in
the other items on the agenda today besides Item #1, but he felt
to go just on the basis of what we hear today without analysis
and review, then you would jeopardize the entire remedial
agreement. If there is something new to be considered, he felt
it should be considered through the normal Plan amendment
Ol/7 ( �q
.' I'.r
.DEC 1110390
procedure on the 6 months intervals because he believed that to
change the boundary lines drawn on the map would breach the
Compliance Agreement and put us back into an administrative
hearing.
Chairman Eggert asked if anyone present wished to speak
regarding adoption of the remedial actions required by the DCA
Compliance Agreement.
Ralph Poppell.- 465 38th Square SW, came before the Board and
passed out the following map showing his 80 acre parcel:
Mr. Poppell informed the Board that his little 80 acre
parcel on 43rd Ave, that is now in citrus grove was listed in
1985 as 3 upa, then downzoned to 1 upa, and then downzoned again,
according to this proposal, to 1 unit to 5 acres. He stated that
this property is the closest piece of property in Indian River
County to an 1-95 interchange; it is on a main thoroughfare
between Vero Beach and Fort Pierce; and it also happens to be one
mile south of where the proposed County water line will be
52
arriving shortly. The infrastructure for this property is all in
place; so, we are not "leap frogging." Mr. Poppell informed the
Board that Walker Banning of the DCA spoke to him about the
location of this property being so strategic that it really made
sense for it to be greater than 1 unit for 5 acres, and he also
spoke to Bob Knave of the DCA who works directly under Tom
Pelham. Their comments this morning were that they would be
happy to convey to the Chairman, or anyone who wants to speak to
them, that it makes sense for this property to have something
else done with it, and he stressed that they did not say it would
jeopardize anything. Mr. Poppell emphasized that the DCA has 90
days to review whatever the County transmits, and then the County
has 60 days to come into compliance if they do not approve this -
then it is only after that 60 days that any action would be taken
regarding a hearing.
Mr. Poppell continued that just one mile north, there is a
designation of 3 units for 1 acre on the west side of 43rd Ave.,
the same side his property is on, and everything between 27th and
43rd Avenues all the way up to Oslo Road is at the present
considered 6/1. He stressed that we are talking about 100% AG
property there with no roads and no infrastructure in the area,
and yet it is 6/1 while he has 1/2 mile of highway frontage, he
is on a main thoroughfare, and he is in a direct path with the
County water/sewer plan, but his property has been downgraded 3
times. Mr. Poppell felt strongly that this inequity should be
addressed now instead of later. He put his house up for sale
recently in order to develop this property into a subdivision and
build a new home, and his house sold so quickly that he had to
get something else in the meantime. Now that he is in this
process, however, he finds the County has drawn an arbitrary line
down 43rd Avenue, and he wants to develop his subdivision now,
not in the future.
Mr. Poppell again stressed that Walker Banning agreed this
is not "leap frogging" and also said he did not agree with the
53 p
DEC 1.11990 BOOK & F�wEi i
r �
BOOK 82�
DEC 1 1990
County's assessment of 6 upa across the street and would like to
see that reduced. Mr. Poppell, therefore, offered the following
suggestion. He referred the Board to the mile section from 43rd
Avenue east towards 27th Avenue and advised that if you just took
the western half and zoned that 3/1; then went across 43rd Avenue
1/4 mile and zoned that 3/1, you have just reduced the overall
density in the county by about 450 units. He claimed that both
Banning and Knave liked that idea and said they saw no reason
something like that would not pass through DCA without any
problem at all. Mr. Poppell felt we need to understand that in
the section of property we are talking about between 43rd and
27th starting at 25th Street, the County line, and going north,
at 6 upa (which actually can't be accomplished there because of
some existing houses and a borrow pit) just 40 acres alone is 240
units which would take care of all of what he is speaking of on
the other side of the road.
Chairman Eggert asked if he is talking about rezoning
between 13th and 25th, and Mr. Poppell noted that his property
doesn't go
all
the
way
to 13th but it probably would make sense
to go all
the
way
up to
13th.
Chairman Eggert wished to know when Mr. Poppell is giving us
these units of change by rezoning east of 43rd, how far north he
has gone with that.
Mr. Poppell clarified that if you went to 17th Street, that
is one mile north from the County line; then it is another half a
mile to 13th. When he was referring to the change in number of
units, he only went one mile, which is up to 17th. It would
reduce the density even more if you went on up the other 1/2 mile
or about another 225 units, which would add up to about 700 units
reduction altogether. He continued that the section of land he
is speaking of between 43rd and 27th Avenue from the County line
north one mile at 6/1 equates to 3,840 units. Conversely, if you
take the same section of land on the other side of 43rd Ave., the
County is allowing them 128 units on a whole 640 acre piece of
54
r ® �
property, and that equates to a 3,712 unit deficit just because
you are on the other side of the line. Mr. Poppell continued to
stress the difference in units from one side of the road to the
other on property which has infrastructure and the other property
which is without infrastructure. He urged that someone check'
with Walker Banning and Bob Knave to confirm their reaction to
his ideas and stressed that there is no real risk involved to the
county in doing this.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Keating about the
thought process followed by staff in identifying the densities in
this area.
Director Keating reminded the Board that Mr. Schlitt came in
and spoke to some property in this area during the initial
consideration of the Plan, and he also explained that the blue on
the map represents generally an overlaying of the flood zone in
that particular part of the county. The difficulty in
developing in the flood hazard area was the reason why in
February a large unit there was put in 1 upa.
Commissioner Scurlock had questions about just what land
the flood prone area covered and whether it included the L-2.
Director Keating advised that the L-2 shown in the orange is
not in the flood area, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that then
some of the property Mr. Poppell is talking about wanting to
average to a lower density is in'the flood zone and some is not.
Director Keating confirmed that statement and explained that
this was identified from the FEMA flood maps._
Chairman Eggert noted that it is one thing to deal. with Mr.
Poppell's property, but she did not think we have advertised
considering any change in the property east of 43rd; so what
would our legal status be if we should wish to recommend a change
in zoning there?
Director Keating advised that our advertising set out that
we were going to consider remedial actions for the entire plan.
®C 11 19a 55 800K ;�p
. l I
DEC
IO
BOOK
P �`
Attorney Collins agreed that
ideally you would
like
the
people on the other side of the street to be notified, but he
pointed out that this won't take final effect until it comes back
from Tallahassee in 90 days and then you have another public
hearing.
Chairman Eggert asked Public Works Director Davis about the
status of 43rd Avenue from 13th south as far as our Transporta-
tion Plan is concerned, and Director Davis advised that we have
acquired some R/W but there are no plans in the next 5/10 years
to do a capacity expansion to 4,3rd. 43rd is designated on the
Thoroughfare Plan as an arterial route; however, it is
functioning today as a collector road.
Commissioner Scurlock felt what Mr. Poppell suggests has
some merit, but he has some difficulty dealing with the issue at
this time and wondered why we can't address it at one of those 6
months periods when we have all the written correspondence and
not depend on hearsay.
Chairman Eggert agreed that what we don't have now is the
background material the DCA needs to see, and they would have
this if they had a formal amendment.
Director Keating advised that staff suggested that Mr.
Poppell come in with a separate Comp Plan amendment after we
resolve the Compliance Agreement. He believed that actually the
DCA would love to have the land east of 43rd 3 upa or 1 upa, but
he stressed that the Board has to make a finding as to what the
facts are that justify the suggested change.
Mr. Poppell continued to argue that the County has been
inconsistent with their densities and stressed that most of the
area on the east side of 43rd which is 6/1 is in the flood plain
also.
Commissioner Wheeler asked what would the DCA do if we
reduced the 6/1 to 3/1 in the flood plain area and put 3/1 across
where it would balance out as suggested earlier. and Attorney
Collins just could not say.
In terms of overallocation of
56
residential units which they objected to, there would be a wash,
but as far as the urban sprawl issue and trying to preserve AG,
he felt that could work against us a little bit.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that his problem is the
inconsistency on the two sides of the road. He asked if Mr.
Poppell has had flood problems on his property, and Mr. Poppell
advised that he has never had any flood problems; in fact, he
does not even have a pump. He disagreed with the FEMA map.
Commissioner Bird commented that he could agree with Mr.
Poppell as to his property being overlooked, and he would be
willing to do something about it if it would not jeopardize our
Compliance Agreement. He, however, is not willing to do that
today if it means taking away some of the density on the other
side of the road because he felt it would unfair to those
property owners. If we can't do it the first way, he would
consider it later as a Comp Plan amendment.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that this person had no
more notice than the others had, and Mr. Poppell stated that he
would have been here months ago if he had special notice. He
again stressed that the DCA would prefer not to have the 6/1 on
the other side of the street and that is how the compromise idea
arose.
Commissioner Scurlock inquired if it would jeopardize
anything if we convey to DCA that we would like to request this
property in the flood prone area to be reduced to an average of
the 3/1 on both sides of 43rd Avenue.
Attorney Collins did not know but read the Board one
sentence from the Compliance Agreement that supports Mr.
Poppell's position and one that works against it.
Commissioner Scurlock asked why we can't transmit to DCA
that we accept the plan as it is, but we suggest as a possibility
modifying it to incorporate a downzoning from 6 to 3 as just
discussed. In other words, say we will accept the agreement the
way it is,
if that is what you choose
to do, but would you
DEC
111990
57
BOOK F. i.
I
BES
1 'S50
BOOL( 21PAGE
dj dt
it." They
consider this possibility.
He asked how this is different
from
what we are doing for the other intervenors.
Attorney Collins stated that it is only different because
you don't have the data analysis, and Chairman Eggert stressed
that her concern is that there is nothing for the DCA to review
on this beyond a simple request.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that the DCA will have material
conveyed to them from this meeting, and once they receive it,
they
will say "Like
it or
lump
it." They
will
not throw
the
whole
thing out, and
after
they
review it
for
90 days, we
still
have a long process to go through.
Attorney Vitunac believed we can do just what Commissioner
Scurlock said - adopt the plan that we worked out as is, and
include with it Alternate A and suggest the DCA look at that
also. He did not see how that could jeopardize our position.
Commissioner Bird again stated that he has no problem adding
Mr. Poppell's request, but he does have a problem doing that in a
package deal that would change the other properties down.
Commissioner Scurlock again pointed out that there is no
formal adoption until all this gets back from the DCA, and then
there will be another hearing. This man has had the same notice
as everyone else, and if no one else wishes to speak, he is ready
to offer a Motion.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard on
this particular item.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested a Motion that, without
jeopardizing our Plan, would approve conveying Mr. Poppell's
suggestions in regard to balancing out densities, fully realizing
there will be another public hearing when the other affected
property owners can have their say. He felt this would not put
the DCA in a corner to where they are denying our plan.
Chairman Eggert asked if Commissioner Scurlock's intent is
to approve the plan as is and send these suggestions as an
58
alternate, and he affirmed that is his intent and also stressed
that he wants to make the densities consistent in the area.
Discussion followed at length as to more clearly defining
the exact properties to be down zoned and those to be increased.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler that, without jeopardizing the
agreement, we transmit along with our approval of the
Comp Plan amendments as recommended by staff, as an
alternate, that a balance of property on the east side
of 43rd Avenue in the flood prone LD -2 area be reduced
from 6 units to 1 acre to 3 units to 1 acre, and the
same amount of property to the west of 43rd Avenue,
including Mr. Poppell's 80 acres, be increased from 1
unit to 5 acres to 3 units to 1 acre; this property
pretty much following the flood prone area and being
an effort to square off the LD -1 to be consistent.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with Commis-
sioner Bird voting in opposition.
Commissioner Bird emphasized that he is 100% in favor of Mr.
Poppell getting his increase but'voted against the Motion because
of his concern about the other property owners to the east.
The Board recessed briefly and reconvened with all members
present except Commissioner Bowman who was still out of the
Chambers.
DEC 1119190 594 F, ;t i i'
ROOK FACE 70
D E C 111990
James Young of Kimley-Horne next came before the Board
representing Edmund Lappeman, owner of about 16 acres of land
just south of Grand Harbor, who has filed a petition for an
administrative hearing to object to several of the issues of the
Comp Plan. Mr. Young advised that the way staff has rewritten
Policy 1.31 of the Future Land Use Element is unacceptable to Mr.
Lappeman, and on the last page of his Stipulation he is
requesting a proposed amendment as follows:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Submitted on behalf of Edmund Lappeman
October 29, 1990
The boundaries between conservation land use categories and non -
conservation land use categories indicated on the generalized Future
Land Use Map are approximate and are not intended to specifically
delineate where one land use category begins and another ends. Such
boundaries are general designations which will be specifically
determined by environmental survey conducted in accordance with
Policy 1.31 of the Future Land Use Element. If an environmental survey
demonstrates that a parcel of property Is erroneously designated, the
boundary between land use designations may be shifted so that the land
` use designation applicable to contiguous property shall apply without
amendment of the Comprehensive Plan or the Future Land Use Map.
Mr. Young further advised that in an effort to resolve this
problem, they have prepared a stipulation for dismissal of Mr.
Lappeman's petition to intervene if the Board approves their
proposed amendment.
Chairman Eggert did not believe we have received notice of
an intervention, and Attorney Collins explained that Mr. Lappeman
has been one of the intervenors since the beginning but he has
not filed a Comp Plan amendment as the other intervenors did
because the only issue was that if his property was determined
Environmentally Sensitive, he wanted an assurance that the
adjacent Land Use designation would apply to the non -sensitive
lands that he owned, and apparently the wording staff has put in
to address that is not satisfactory.
60
Mr. Young submitted for the record copy of Stipulation for
Dismissal of Lappeman's Petition to Intervene, which copy is on
file in the Office of Clerk to the Board.
Director Keating referred the Board to the wording of our
Policy 1.31, as follows:
POLICY 1.31: Conservation land use designations shall be depicted
on the future land use map. The exact boundaries of the C-2 and C-
3 Conservation Districts shall be determined by environmental
survey. Any portion of a property which is depicted as C-2 or C-3
on the future land use map but determined not to be environmentally
sensitive or environmentally important based upon an environmental
survey will have the same land use designation as the contiguous
adjacent property, except for land in the C-3 district east of the
St. Sebastian River which shall have an R, Rural, land use
designation if determined not to be environmentally sensitive or
environmentally important.
Conservation area boundaries shall be established through
environmental surveys using the following criteria:
•C-2 Areas. C-2 area boundaries shall be established based
upon the extent of wetland areas as defined in Conservation
Element policy 5.1.
•C-3 Areas. C-3 area boundaries shall be established based
upon soil types and xeric scrub vegetative characteristics.
The following soil types shall indicate C-3 areas:
Orsino fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes; or
• - Electia sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Mr. Young confirmed that their attorneys have reviewed this
wording and found it unacceptable.
Chairman Eggert did not see the difference in that wording
from what Mr. Lappeman's attorneys have proposed, and Mr. Young
noted that he did not think we would reach a resolution here.
They do have a petition before DCA; he felt sure this is going to
be an ongoing issue with the county and the DCA; and he just
wanted to exercise their right to object.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard in
regard to adopting the remedial actions required by the
Compliance Agreement, and the Chairman closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we should approve the plan with
the current language and then the intervenor can resolve it with
DCA.
61
MOO r
i
DEC 111990 BOOK PAGE I �
ON MOTION made by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Bird, Commissioner Bowman being out of the room,
the Board unanimously (4-0) approved the Comp Plan amend-
ments as recommended by staff for transmittal to DCA.
2) REQUEST TO CREATE A MIXED USE FLOATING LAND USE DESIG. FOR
PROPERTIES W/AG_DESIG. (BARKETT)
Chief Planner Sasan Rohani made the following presentation:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
J "
Robert M. Keat?Opmenf
g, 'P
Community DeveDirector
FROM: Sasan Rohani 4j .P.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 19, 1990
RE: BRUCE BARKETT REQUEST TO CREATE A MIXED USE FLOATING LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES HAVING AN AGRICULTURAL
DESIGNATION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bruce Barkett, on behalf of two of the intervenors in the
Comprehensive Plan administrative process, R. Dale Sorensen and
James B. Cain, has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and create a new mixed use floating land use designation for
properties having an agricultural designation. The purpose of this
request is to provide an opportunity to develop properties in the
agriculturally designated portion of the county through the planned
development process. The intent is to establish a mechanism
whereby multi -use projects can be allowed in the agricultural areas
of the county without creating urban sprawl. This type of mixed
use project will create self sufficient communities and provide
opportunities for residents to live, work, shop, and attend
recreational activities in the same place.
On February 13, 1990, the county approved its Comprehensive Plan
and sent a copy of the adopted plan to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for their compliance review. On April 9, 1990, the
DCA issued a statement of intent to find Indian River County's
Comprehensive Plan not in compliance. One of the major issues in
the non-compliance finding was. urban sprawl. The DCA, in the
62
W
statement of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive
Plan not in compliance, stated that "the plan fails to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl because the densities and
intensities of uses assigned in the future land use map to rural
and agricultural areas will encourage development in these areas
without meaningful controls or regulations designed to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl".
With respect to this request, staff worked with the applicant to
develop the proposed mixed use land use designation amendment.
This designation is structured to correspond to the DCA's criteria
for non -urban sprawl rural development. The concept is that a
large mixed use project which provides opportunities for living,
shopping, working.and taking care of other daily needs internally
will create a self-sufficient community, will capture most of the
trips internally, will preserve natural and agricultural areas, and
will not cause urban sprawl. Mixed use planned development
projects will provide meaningful controls and regulations for
development of agricultural areas while discouraging urban sprawl.
This mixed use designation would be established upon approval of a
mixed use project meeting the specific criteria set out in the
proposed mixed use designation amendment. These criteria will
ensure that the project will provide the opportunity to live, work,
shop, and take care of other daily necessities within the project.
Since the mixed use designation is a floating zone and will be
approved only upon an applicant's request, the number of mixed use
projects and the quantity of people that will be attracted is not
known. For these reasons, there is no need to update the county's
population projections with establishment of the mixed use
designation; instead, projections will be updated to reflect these
increases upon approval of each mixed use district.
Attachment "A" identifies the proposed changes to the data and
analysis section of the Future Land Use Element to address the
mixed use designation and provides the proposed new policies
establishing the mixed use designation. The proposed amendments to
the plan include the following:.
Changes to the sprawl section of the data and analysis
portion of the Future Land Use Element.
- Revision to Policy 1.2 of the Future Land Use Element and
creation of a new mixed use designation.
- Addition of two new policies to the Future Land Use
Element which establish criteria for a mixed use
designation.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
request as presented by staff with one change. Staff had
recommended that at least twenty (20%) percent of the total housing
units be affordable housing units; the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended this percentage to be changed to (10$)
percent instead. The Planning and Zoning Commission also
recommended transmittal of this request to the DCA.
DEC1 1 199® 6 3 C�OGK , FAGE
DEC I11990 BOOK 8' P','E S
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of current and future land uses in the agricultural
areas and potential impacts on the other plan elements.
Current and Future Land Uses in the Agricultural Areas
At present, there is no mechanism in the adopted comprehensive plan
to control the development of agricultural lands. Agricultural
land may be developed in a large lot pattern which could lead to
ranchette type development. This ranchette type development could
potentially absorb a large portion of agricultural land area for
non-agricultural uses. Provisions identified in the proposed
remedial actions amendment to the plan, however, will resolve this
problem by requiring non-agricultural uses within areas having an
agricultural land use designation to be clustered.
As identified in Policy 1.7 of the Future Land Use Element, the
main purposes of. the agricultural use category are to ensure.
continuation of the agricultural industry, to protect agricultural
lands from urban encroachment, and to provide natural open space.
The clustered non-agricultural requirement which has been
incorporated in the proposed remedial actions will ensure that the
intent of Policy 1.7 of the Future Land Use Element will be met.
However, the proposed remedial actions do not provide for
development of multi -use projects in the agricultural areas. Such
multi -use projects functioning as self-sufficient communities could
be established without creating urban sprawl through the mechanism
of a mixed use designation.
Through traditional land use and zoning regulations, residential
and other non-agricultural development are limited in
agriculturally designated lands. With a mixed use floating
designation, increased residential densities and other non-
agricultural uses could be allowed in the agricultural areas under
strictly controlled conditions. The ability to provide for higher
residential densities and associated non-agricultural uses makes a
mixed use designation an important tool for development within
agricultural areas. The stringent requirements of the mixed use
designation will ensure the creation of self-sufficient communities
which can absorb increases in density and intensity and ensure high
internal trip capture to reduce travel demands on county roads
without adversely affecting the surrounding areas.
Through buffer requirements, these mixed use projects will be
buffered from neighboring land uses, eliminating potential land use
conflicts. Compatibility of uses internally and externally will be
addressed through the requirement that projects within the mixed
use designation comply with established Planned Development (P.D.)
standards. Such mixed use projects will provide even more county
control over development in the agricultural areas.
In*analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of a mixed use land
use designation, the county must consider its adopted plan, its
revised plan if the remedial actions are approved by the Board of
County Commissioners, and its revised plan if the mixed-use
designation is approved in addition to the remedial actions. The
following chart summarizes the land use advantages and
disadvantages for each of the above scenarios:
64
M M
Adopted Plan
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
No control mech-
Maximum flexibil-
ity for residential
anism over
development in the
residential develop -
agricultural area
ment in the agri-
in respect to
cultural areas
residential lot
size
Creation of large
lot development
(ranchettes)
Limitation on the
amount of resident-
ial and other non-
agricultural devel-
opment
Encouragement of
Urban Sprawl
Insufficient
'protection for
agricultural and
environmental lands
Revised plan
Establishes crit-
Limits flexibility
according to the
eria for non-agri-
for non-agricultural
remedial actions
cultural develop-
development in
ment
respect to
residential lot size
Limits Urban Sprawl
Limits the amount of
Protects agricult-
residential and -
ural and environ-
other non-agricul-
mental lands
tural development
Revised plan
Establishes crit-
Limits flexibility
according to the
eria for non-agri-
for non-agricul-
remedial actions
cultural develop-
tural development in
and establishment
ment
respect to
of mixed use des-
residential lot size
ignation
Limits Urban Sprawl
Creates opportuni-
ties for mixed use
self-sufficient
communities
Provides support
for agricultural
areas
Protects agricul-
tural and environ-
mental lands
65 BOOK.21F':.vt
Fr- -7
DEC 111990
Impacts on Other Plan Elements
Any change in the land use element of the comprehensive plan has
the potential to affect other plan elements. For that reason any
proposed ,plan change must be evaluated in relation to the other
plan elements. In this case the proposed amendment was reviewed
for consistency with all other plan elements. This review found
that the proposed amendment was consistent with other plan
elements. Three elements, the traffic circulation, the
infrastructure element, and the conservation element, however
warrant special consideration.
- Traffic Circulation Element
Establishment of a mixed use designation which allows development
of self-sufficient communities will have a positive effect on the
county's traffic network. As mentioned above, large lot
development could lead to a ranchette type development pattern.
Such a land use pattern, creating 5, 10 or 20 acre lots with no
provision for other daily necessities such as work, shopping,
recreation and other needs, would add substantial trips to county
roadways. Due to the remote location of agricultural designated
lands, the length of these trips generally exceeds the average trip
length in the county. Creation of self sufficient communities
based on criteria established as part of attachment "A" will reduce
both the number of trips and trip length. A mixed use project will
capture most of the trips internally and will not have a negative
effect on the County's roadways.
- Infrastructure Element
The proposed mixed use designation has been structured to minimize
impacts on the county's infrastructure system. With the minimum
size requirement for a mixed use designation, it is anticipated
that public services and facilities will be provided on-site. The
proposed criteria for the mixed use designation, however, do allow
for extension of public services if the designation is established
adjacent to the urban service area. Together, these criteria
ensure that no adverse impacts to the county's infrastructure will
occur.
- Conservation Element
The mixed use land use designation will maximize the use of open
space by requiring residential and non-residential activities to be
clustered. Together with land use changes proposed through the
remedial action plan amendment, the proposed mixed use designation
will eliminate the potential for ranchette type of development in
the agricultural areas. With the mixed use designation,not only
will the opportunity exist to create self-sufficient communities in
the agricultural areas, but there will be an added incentive to
preserve natural areas and provide working open space which could
be used for agricultural uses and recreational uses.
While Policy 6.12 of the Conservation Element exempts agricultural
operations from setting aside native plant communities, a mixed use
planned development project will minimize environmental impacts by
preserving environmentally sensitive and environmentally important
lands. Through the planned development process which is requried
of any project in the mixed use designation, the county has more
control to ensure maximum protection of environmentally sensitive
and environmentally important lands, while allowing for mixed use
projects in the agricultural areas.
M M M
W M
Through the provisions established as part of the mixed use land
use designaiton, Objective 6 and Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the
Future Land Use Element will be implemented, and protection of the
agricultural industry in the county will be further enhanced.
Conclusion
In considering this request for establishment of a mixed use
designation, it is important to note that application of the mixed-
use designation process to agricultural areas is a relatively new
concept; there are few examples of similar successful efforts.
Through the staff analysis, it has been demonstrated that a mixed
use floating designation in the agriculturally designated portion
of the county will provide an opportunity for non-agricultural
development while protecting agricultural land. This floating
designation will create self-sufficient communities and provide for
county control over developments in agricultural areas through the
planned development process. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff
that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would be reasonable
and is compatible with the intent of the comprehensive plan and
will satisfy both the DCA and two of the intervenors in the
Comprehensive Plan administrative process. The criteria
established for a mixed use designation are restrictive and provide
for maximum county control over development in agricultural areas.
RECOMMENDATION ,
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request, direct staff to transmit
this request to the Department of Community Affairs for their
review and announce their intention to hold a final public hearing
concerning this matter.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this type project normally
would be a DRI, and Director Keating stated most likely it would
be because it is a minimum of 1,000 acres. He further noted
that even though we are dealing with one intervenor who is
representing 2 or 3 properties, this conceivably could be'
anywhere in the AG Districts.
Commissioner Scurlock noted',that he really has some
difficulty with this business of requiring the developer to have
10/20% affordable housing, day care, etc., and Chairman Eggert
felt the problem is that we have.to be consistent with the TCRPC.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that but felt we should
voice our concerns about having to be consistent with something
that he feels is not responsible. He felt that this type of
thing actually is government's responsibility, and we should not
put this burden on individual developers.
t
DEC 111990 67 -
POOK 11A�Ik: r
BOOK 82 N�IULIS'j'
Director Keating made the point that this is a lot different
than an affordable housing requirement with a mall. Here we are
trying to establish something that fits out in the rural area,
and the reasons we are justifying it is that it is going to be
pretty much self-contained. Maid quarters, for instance, could
qualify as affordable housing.
Discussion continued, and Commissioner Wheeler expressed
some concern about creating a supply without having the demand.
Commissioner Bowman returned to the meeting.
Chairman Eggert asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board representing
the applicants, Dale Sorensen and James Cain. He recapped
briefly that when the Board adopted the Comprehensive Plan, it
put a 1 unit for 5 acres density on his clients' land, but the
DCA challenged this, and they ended up with 1/10 upa, which
basically made the property unusable. At the Board's September
hearing, when they were presented with the terms of compliance,
his clients came in as intervenors, and the Board directed staff
to accept their application for a Comp Plan amendment. Attorney
Barkett noted that to staffs credit, they took the ball and ran
with it and came back with the concept presented today, which is
something that at least keeps his clients in the ball game. The
plans for these developments are very stringent, and as far as
affordable housing is concerned, they have acceded to that
although it was not in their original proposal. Attorney Barkett
stressed that this new designation at least gives property owners
west of 1-95 an opportunity to develop their property in a way he
felt the DCA should accept.
Commissioner Scurlock felt the one positive thing this might
do is serve to keep large tracts under one ownership.
68
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff
recommendation and directed staff to transmit this
request to the DCA for review, etc.
3) REQUEST TO AMEND BOUNDARY OF URBAN SERVICE AREA WEST OF 1-95 6
SOUTH OF SR 60 (DIAMOND WEDGE, INC.)
Chief Planner Rohani reviewed the following:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keats g, AIXP
Community Developmer& Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: December 3, 1990
RE: DIAMOND WEDGE, INC. REQUEST TO AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA WEST OF I-95 AND SOUTH OF S.R. 60
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of,County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Diamond Wedge, Inc. has submitted a request to amend the boundary
of the Urban Service Area west of I-95, south of State Road 60, and
north of 4th Street, as depicted on attachment 4, to be consistent
with the Utility Service areas as delineated in Figure 3.A.10 (2010
Wastewater Service Areas) of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element and
Figure 3.B.9 (2010 Potable Water Service Areas) of the Potable
Water Sub -Element of the comprehensive plan. This amendment will
correct an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan. A portion
of this area is also addressed by the remedial actions
comprehensive plan amendment: that amendment includes a land use
designation change and urban service area expansion for a part of
the area involved in the subject request.
On the adopted Future Land Use Map, the area west of I-95, east of
104th Avenue, between State Road 60 and 4th Street has the
following land use designations; Commercial/Industrial node, M-1,
Medium -Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre), and AG,
Agriculture (up to 1 unit/5 acres).
g99a,,,
DEC 11 69 800 b F"1uCL'J0
DEC 111990
The applicant's intention is to develop his property, which is
located in this area, as a golf course community. There is no
request for an increase of the land use density for the subject
property; the applicant simply wants the ability for improvements
in this area to connect to the regional water and wastewater
system, if available. The applicant will be responsible for the
cost of any water and wastewater system expansion.
At the comprehensive plan final adoption hearing on February 13,
1990, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to evaluate
the possibility of expanding the Urban Service Area (USA) around
the intersections of I-95 and S.R. 60 and I-95 and C.R. 512. The
Board's intention was to provide for the infrastructure necessary
to accommodate residential development around these two
intersections to support development of the commercial/industrial
nodes designated for these two areas.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as
the Local Planning Agency, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
request as presented by staff to the Board of County Commissioners
and to recommend transmittal of this request to the DCA.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will focus on the
potential impacts of the proposed amendment on the county's land
use pattern as well as on the amendment's relationship to the other
comprehensive plan elements.
This proposed amendment to adjust the USA is to correct an
oversight in the adopted plan. During the plan preparation
process, the staff generally designated the urban service area
boundary based upon the existing and planned provision of urban
services. In this case the urban service area excluded areas
designated within both the water and the wastewater service areas.
Since these service areas were established through the water and
sewer master plan process, plans have been made to service this
area, and justification exists for including the subject property
within the urban service area.
Since this proposed land use amendment only involves changing the
urban service area boundary and not increasing density, the
amendment will not negatively affect land uses in the area. Of,
course, such a change in the USA would provide a basis for density
increases on the subject property in the future. In the interim,
expansion of the urban service area would allow rural development
in this area to be connected to urban services and allow the
subject areas to accommodate effluent reuse.
Other proposed plan amendments being considered at this time will
affect the area around the subject property. Among the amendments
affecting the area proximate to the subject property is the
remedial actions amendment designed to bring the comprehensive plan
to compliance. With the remedial actions amendment, much of the
land_ in this portion of the county will have its land use
designation and density changed. The major change will be in the
agricultural designation. Much of the land around the subject
property will change from AG -1 to AG -2, Agriculture (up to 1
unit/10 acres).
Further expansion of the Urban Service Area boundary around the
intersection of I-95 and SR 60 and I-95 and CR 512 will be
addressed by the establishment of a mixed use floating land use
designation which is another of the comprehensive plan amendments
currently under consideration.
70
M
As indicated previously, the subject property has been included in
the county's water and sewer service area. Adjustment of the Urban
Service Area (USA) without a density increase will not increase the
utilities demand. In fact, a golf course located on or near the 10
mile ridge will be an appropriate place for effluent reuse.
Expansion of the Urban Service Areas (USA) in this portion of the
county will not adversely affect the environment. This area is -not
designated as environmentally sensitive nor environmentally
important by the comprehensive plan, but a portion of it is within
a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating Map
(FIRM) .
Conclusion
This amendment is needed to correct an oversight in the adopted
comprehensive plan. It has been demonstrated that the adjustment
of the USA in this portion of the county does not have any negative
effects on transportation, utilities, or the environment. This USA
adjustment will meet the Board of County Commissioners' intent to
provide for the infrastructure necessary to accommodate residential
developments around commercial/ industrial nodes at the intersection
of I-95 and SR 60, and I-95 and CR 512.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed and in order to correct an
oversight in the adopted plan, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to amend the future land
use map and to adjust the Urban Service Area at the intersection of
I-95 and SR 60, as depicted on attachment 4, direct staff to
transmit this request to the Department of Community Affairs for
their review, and announce their intention to hold a final public
hearing concerning this matter.
1 1. • 1.
'
- - - -
IM
MIM leg :
1;
IDMIMMOM
W
JC 1
a
c� °:1.5
SRI
---
AG
-1 1
i
=1 1
cl 1
e..a e•
d L -1a:
>
N t 1
.1—
L-2
—
O
3=t
mmni IW�Ii•
Ul!W�1llWi
WIWW�
s�i: ' .its,__
S. R. 0
w�.12th
=� EP.
5 .--
E
L-2
_�-- ---
—�—t
�
4th S_T
-t - L-2-�..-._..
1
Compliance Agreement's
Urban Service Area
{>'?<•..•
••** +w
—_
(1-95/SR 60) :;::>c<• x?;:�
1
I!' Pr -t R
FIREQUESTED EXPANSION
DEC11 X9'0 7 >
DEC
11
1990
e00K. !� F>,,E101
Mr. Rohani
emphasized that the intent is to adjust the
boundary to be compatible with the water/sewer service boundary,
west to 104th Avenue and south to 4th Street.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that would be consistent with
what we did with the flood prone area.
The Chairman determined that no one wished to be heard and
thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved staff
recommendation and directed staff to transmit this
request to the DCA for their review, etc.
4) REQUEST TO CREATE NEW CONSERVATION LAND USE DESIGNATION (C-3)
TO REPLACE THE C-2 SURROUNDING ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER (CORACI)
Chief of Environmental Planning, Roland DeBlois, reviewed
the following:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
ober M. K a ing, AICP
Community Development D rector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani 4;5;. K.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twore
Staff Planner, L g- ange Planning
DATE: December 4, 1990
RE:_ CORACI REQUEST TO CREATE A NEW CONSERVATION LAND USE
DESIGNATION (C-3) TO REPLACE THE C-2 LAND USE DESIGNATION
SURROUNDING THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER AND AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE AND CONSERVATION ELEMENTS
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990.
72
M
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Robert Riggio, on behalf of Anthony Coraci, an intervener in the
comprehensive plan administrative process, has submitted a request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan and create a new conservation land
use designation to replace the present C-2 conservation land use
designation in the area surrounding the St. Sebastian River. Mr.
Coraci is the present owner of the W.W. Ranch, an area of
approximately 8,000 acres. The ranch property lies predominately
within the AG land use designation, with the exception of
approximately 600 acres designated C-2 and lying west of and
adjacent to the St. Sebastian River.
The 600± acres is a largely undisturbed xeric scrub community. The
purpose of this request is to modify existing land use designations
as they apply to xeric scrub communities adjacent to the river to
allow for residential development up to 1 unit per 2� acres. The
applicant has been involved in the comprehensive plan preparation
process and has participated in various meetings and hearings.
Subsequent to plan adoption, the applicant challenged the county's
plan by formally intervening in the adoption process. It is the
applicant's contention that the C-2 land use designation of his
property with its 1 unit/40 acre density limitation is an
unreasonable restriction of his land in the C-2 District.
Attachment "A" attached hereto contains the applicant's .proposed
modifications to Future Land Use Element policies 1.4 and 1.5 and
a new Conservation Element policy 6.14. These have been modified
somewhat by staff, but still reflect the applicant's intent and are
satisfactory to the applicant. Also in attachment "A" are changes
to the data and analysis section of the Future Land Use Element
which have been proposed by staff. Attachment "B" contains
planning staff recommendations, with changes to the applicant's
proposal.
The C-2 designation in this area applies to the St. Sebastian
River, associated wetlands, and xeric (dry) scrub uplands adjacent
to the river. According to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (GFC), approximately 900 acres of "viable" (relatively
undisturbed) scrub habitat exists along the south fork of the St.
Sebastian River. Approximately 300 acres along the east bank are
dominated by xeric hammocks undergoing sporadic development:- The
remaining 600 acres along the west bank are a mosaic of xeric
hammock, scrubby flatwoods, sand pine scrub, dry prairie, pine
flatwoods, and forested wetlands.
The combination of the mentioned natural communities provides
significant biological benefits beyond each individual, separate
community type. Ospreys, bald eagles, and river otters are
examples of wildlife found in the St. Sebastian River area that
utilize the combined upland/wetland St. Sebastian River ecosystem.
The GFC describes the area as one of the most valuable natural
areas remaining in the county.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to
2 to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners the approval of
staff's recommendation (as presented in Attachment "B"), and
transmit the request to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for their review and comment.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application is presented. The analysis includes a description of
current and future land uses, potential environmental impacts, and
potential impacts relating to future development. This section
will also consider alternatives to the request.
DEC 111990 73
RO["X °,ter'„GE 192
r
®EG 111990 BOOK F'"EjqU
- Current and Future Land Uses
Currently, the St. Sebastian River area is designated C-2,
Conservation -2 District, a designation which allows up -to 1 unit/40
acres. As identified in Policy 1.4 of the Future Land Use Element,
the main purpose of the conservation district is to "protect areas
which contain or possess lands with qualities and features which
play a vital or essential role in the normal functioning of the
ecosystems". The C-2 District provides that protection by limiting
residential densities and prohibiting intense non-residential uses.
- Environmental Impacts
The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment would affect not only
the Coraci property, but all property presently designated as C-2
along the St. Sebastian River. As such, environmental planning
staff have studied the implications of the -proposed changes as they
pertain to the entire St. Sebastian River C-2 area.
Following is a comparison of existing comprehensive plan policies
applicable to the St. Sebastian River C-2 area vs. the proposed
amendment, pertinent to environmental protection.
EXISTING
C-2: 1 unit/40 acres
(uplands & wetlands)
Transfer of Density Incentive
1 unit/acre, off-site
(scrub uplands & wetlands)
Planned Development
encouraged, clustering
encouraged
50' upland vegetation
buffer along river for
unplatted parcels, 25'
buffer for platted parcels
measured from M.H.W. of
river
10/15% upland preservation
set aside requirement for
property 5 ac. or larger
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
C-3:1 unit/21 acres (upland)
1 unit/40 acres (wetlands)
Transfer of Density Incentive
1 unit/2� acres on-site
internal transfer
1 unit/acre off-site
Planned Development required,
clustering encouraged
100' upland vegetation
buffer measured from M.H.W. of
river, or 50' from jurisd.
wetlands, whichever is greater
Same; no off-site mitigation
allowed. (Percent set aside
would not apply to parcels
21 acres in size)
Requires utilities
infrastructure (sewer/water) as
appropriate
References restriction of boat
access as may conflict
w/manatee protection.----.-
The
rotection____._
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) identifies
approximately 2,709 acres of viable scrub habitat remaining in
Indian River County; approximately 900 acres (33%) of that total
occurs along the St. Sebastian River. The ecological value of the
St. Sebastian River area xeric scrub versus other scrub areas in
74
the county is high due to its relatively large size, its
association with other complementary habitats, and its presently
undisturbed/unencroached status. Other xeric scrub areas in the
developing portion of Indian River County have been largely
isolated by urban development, are relatively small in size or are
not part of a bigger, diverse ecological system such as the St..
Sebastian River area. Thus, the St. Sebastian River area xeric
scrub community has been given extra consideration in its
conservation designation.
Outside of - the St. Sebastian River conservation area, lands
designated as C-2 in the existing comprehensive plan are limited to
privately owned wetlands and islands associated with the Indian
River Lagoon. In such cases, a 1 unit/40 acre development density
with a 1 unit/acre density transfer credit is appropriate.
Wetlands are inherently not conducive for development based on
their environmentally sensitive characteristics. The low density
serves to deter development within the C-2 wetlands while still
providing relief via the density transfer credit.
The intent of the established 1 unit/40 --acre C-2 density was
primarily to provide needed protection to sensitive wetlands. In
reassessing the C-2 density as it applies to the scrub upland along
the St. Sebastian River, the appropriateness of the density
restriction is subject to scrutiny. Contrary to wetlands, xeric
scrub upland physical characteristics are highly conducive for land
development. The land is "high and dry" and, as such, xeric scrub
has been largely developed elsewhere in the county and in Florida
as a whole. Thus, the conflict of development vs. preservation is
greater than with wetlands.
An increase in the density allowance for the scrub uplands adjacent
to the St. Sebastian River, however, may be appropriate in striking
a reasonable balance between private development rights and public
preservation interest.
It is staff's position that the 1 unit/2J acre density as proposed
by the applicant is too substantial of a density increase for the
uplands of the St. Sebastian River conservation area, particularly
as it would apply to the west bank of the south fork. The area
west of the river is physically isolated from existing
infrastructure and access, and the proposed density would
substantially increase development pressure in the face of
conservation objectives.
A majority of the W.W. Ranch is agriculturally designated with a
density of 1 unit/5 acres. The original intent of the C-2 District
around the St. Sebastian River was to provide additional protection
for the environmentally significant areas than would be afforded to
the agriculturally designated lands. The applicant is proposing a
higher density (1 unit/2 1 acres) in the conservation area than when
the area was originally designated as agriculture (1 unit/5 acres).
A 1 unit/5 acre density would be more compatible with the adjacent,
similar density of agriculturally designated lands in the vicinity.
Moreover, the county would retain its percent set-aside purview
over created parcels within the conservation area.
The present C-2 designation does not allow agricultural use. The
purpose of the agricultural use exclusion is to prevent the
potential for unregulated conversion of the environmentally
significant St. Sebastian River area natural communities to grove
or pasture. Planning staff support the continued restriction on
agricultural use within the conservation area.
75
BUUKF,1 �c J� L
HOOK PA.,�
D E C 111990
In comparing other aspects of the county's existing comprehensive
plan and the proposed amendment, the proposal would increase a
required upland buffer abutting the St. Sebastian River and
associated wetlands. Given a substantial increase in development
density potential, environmental planning staff support the
proposed buffer revision. An extended upland buffer along the
river would provide complementary habitat to river and wetland -
utilizing wildlife, would contribute toward surface water runoff
pollution control and erosion control, and would provide protection
to the river from potential pollutants such as lawn herbicides,
pesticides, and septic leachates.
Regarding specific references to planned development/cluster
incentives within the proposed amendment, the incentives already
exist, although PDs are not mandated in the conservation
designation. The requirement of PDs may not be appropriate to all
existing parcels within the St. Sebastian River conservation area
when reviewed as a whole, based on the existence of nonconforming
parcels of record. A requirement of clustered development instead
of an encouragement, however, may be a more effective habitat
protection measure. For example, a cluster requirement of one acre
lots on property with a 1 unit/5 acre density could effectively
protect 80% of a natural community, as opposed to larger lots with
no native upland protection.
Planning staff support the proposed reference to required utility
infrastructure and boat access restrictions as appropriate,
although such reference would only reinforce existing county
policies. In reviewing the appropriateness of utility
infrastructure and boat access restrictions, planning staff would
coordinate with such agencies as the Environmental Health/HRS and
FDER to determine if a package plant would be more appropriate then
individual systems, or if boat facility restriction would be
necessary to minimize impacts to manatee habitat.
Policy 1.31 of the Future Land Use Element' provides that the exact
boundaries of the C-2 District shall be determined by environmental
survey. Expanding the policy to also apply to the new C-3
Conservation District would be appropriate, defining the C-3 east
and west boundaries based on scrub soils and/or scrub vegetation.
In that the intent of a conservation designation is to protect
relatively undisturbed resources, areas disturbed east of the St.
Sebastian River within the general boundaries of the C-3 District -
which no longer have wetland or scrub characteristics - could
appropriately revert to a compatible higher density, such as R,
Rural, 1 unit/acre. The 1 unit/acre density in such instances
would be compatible with existing development density east of the
river, which is included in the county's Urban Service Area.
In adjusting the outer boundary of the C-3 District, that portion
of the property which is not determined to be in the C-3 District
shall revert to the same land use designation as the contiguous
adjacent property. When considering the east boundary of the C-3
District, however, the adjacent contiguous property is largely
incorporated lands of the city of Sebastian. Therefore, specific
to the east boundary adjustment of the conservation area, staff
recommends that the lands determined not to be within the C-3
District revert to R, Rural, 1 unit/acre, which is the historic
density of the area.
76
® M. M
I
Conclusion
Upon consideration of the data collected and analysis of the
request, staff supports the following changes/comprehensive plan
policies, as presented in Attachment "B" of this memorandum:
• Create a new C-3 conservation land use designation
applying to the St. Sebastian River, associated wetlands,
and adjacent xeric scrub communities.
• Utilize a density of 1 unit/5 acres for xeric scrub areas
in the C-3 land use designation, instead of the requested
density of 1 unit/2 I acres.
° Retain the C-2 land use designation at 1 unit/40 acres
for wetland areas.
• Support the 1001/50' buffer revision specified in
Attachment "A".
• Support the text changes in Attachment "A" regarding boat
access and clustering. The C-3 land use designation
shall require the same clustering requirements as the
agricultural districts as presented in the remedial
action comprehensive plan amendment.
• Determine specific boundaries of the C-3 District on a
site -by -site basis, based on existence of wetlands and/or
xeric scrub communities/soils. ' —
Establish the R, Rural, land use
of 1 unit/acre for areas within
boundaries that do not have the
scrub communities or wetlands
designation shall only apply to
Sebastian River.
RECOMMENDATION
designation at a density
the overall conservation
characteristics of xeric
The Rural land use
the east side of the St.
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the request to amend the comprehensive
plan to establish a new C-3 District (as set forth in Attachment
"B") for the St. Sebastian River area at a density of 1 unit/5
acres for xeric scrub communities, instead of the 1 unit/2 I acres
recommended by the applicant (Attachment "A"). Specifically, the
staff recommends that the Board amend the Future Land Use Element
and the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan as indicated
in attachment "B", amend the background data and analysis of the
Conservation element as indicated in attachment "C", and amend the
Future Land Use Plan Map to establish a C-3 designation in the St.
Sebastian River area as identified in attachment "D". Staff also
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners transmit these
amendments to the state for their review and announce their intent
to hold a final public hearing on this matter.
X990 ��
DEC 11 » �ooa 6�
BOOK 8"? FgE to ,
OVA/f�i tr�.�NYY �' �C
IK
SubjectQ `�!;,�.' ; _, • , . ,:.; � . , ' -• --; ••�
Property
till:t; Y• Y? . t
Y' •,4,34 :y�>' !i' $ :j'' Sf BASI AN
�' off,• EC
^,• � <, �:u`+. :.:•s• : Via.>w ``. ♦ i.
14
��-T
n. is Sr'' < ' r vi • <�' � t ,: �. •
,1...�_ . �'�.�.,��,•<Z7J•% •:$> . r.L.. ii :s<!4;. 3 ;::y.:;! ra3':f 0:9'�H':wt Si'
<>//rS...rsy::<: rY'• •v4 y r• '<,i < � �C�•fi L E;A.. ;.:�...�... <�f:.i` ..�3�;•�3:
;.<y > '4%j/' 6 .i : ) 3rJ> nj.{-c,';;o4,' � `�-.:4•*..: •,?,.°•:.::•:vt•.:�:n;
!I�'I�,II�I, I ':;:s. .i > i,< •f3���:.'•:4�� • •:¢.:�"t•:'�` ♦ •��'�;Fad}::?:�t.•'t<:::>:h:<:;:.:2'
W idif W iii <�•< - r �?d'�^-` � '�y :> r .......q��..::.::<•::.�y::<a
',3',%4;15<:4:>�'i:+!�• �3,•;ri.' : •• i' % __ ') a:.::::.
C R.
I -r.
+�t11'� 1qp1'''��tt w tR _•...� _. _ _ L awl• ST �• '� • '��•:'•:
41
��IIIIIII�II�II�III'II�* _« ._ / .. � � , .•'�:.i
L .. `-- • '. c• ••.
• � :+ � •h T ^•laaas ys
AG
` _ -• ,- -• - - ; ' X11 f e-�1. r t —+—•
78
Planner DeBlois noted that the applicant contends the C-2
designation of 1/40 is unreasonable on his xeric scrub upland
property, and the main disagreement at this point is the density
that would apply to that property. Staff recommends 1/5 instead
of the 1/22 the applicant is requesting here. This particular
ares is one of the most valuable natural communities left in the
county; it represents approximately 1/3 of the remaining scrub in
the county; and it has a unique combination of characteristics
beyond the other scrub areas in the county.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if this is supported by the
analysis done in the CARL Program and if staff has identified
that unique nature to be different than any other xeric scrub in
the county.
Planner DeBlois confirmed that staff has looked at all the
biological data accumulated and looked largely at the Fish & Game
Commission scrub community report, and their assessment is that
the combination of diverse characteristics makes this area unique
and more valuable than other areas.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that he wanted to establish
consistency with what we have done with other xeric scrub, and he
wishes to set a record that staff has identified it as being
different so that it is clear that we are not being inconsistent
because it does have characteristics the other properties do not
have.
Planner DeBlois noted that staff has conceded that 1 unit to
40 acres on that upland, as it was adopted in February, was
probably too low a density and not consistent with densities in
the county in that most of the C-2 density elsewhere in the
county is specific to wetlands and islands. In re-evaluating
this, they looked at several factors. One of those factors is
the aspect of the west side of the St. Sebastian River not being
within the urban service area. The highest density the county
has presently in other areas that are outside the urban service
area in the county is 1/5. Also, historically before the update
DEC 11 1990 79
Root< 821;
DEC 111990
of the 182 Plan, areas west of the river were 1/5. East of the
river there is a distinction because it is in the urban service
area; it has been subject to development over time; and it
historically has been 1 upa.
Commissioner Scurlock continued to question how staff
reviewed this particular area and identified its special
characteristics, and Community Development Director Keating
summarized that the property under consideration is much larger
than any of the others; it includes both uplands and wetlands;
the characteristics include the fact that endangered species have
been seen there; on the west side there are no adjacent urban
land uses; and it is outside of the urban service area
particularly on the west side.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if anyone has done an environ-
mental survey, and Commissioner Bowman advised that such a survey
was done by the Florida Native Areas Inventory, and what is of
great importance and especially unique about this property is
that it is a link in a wildlife corridor.
Commissioner Scurlock reiterated that his intent was to
establish on the record that there is concrete data that we can
rely on and that staff has sufficient data on record that they
are comfortable about what they have identified and how it
relates to land use.
Planner DeBlois further clarified that the applicant is
proposing a new Land Use designation (C-3) for the xeric scrub
area adjacent to the river. The C-2 is to remain the same as it
applies to the wetlands adjacent to the river. The applicant is
not challenging the conservation designation but the densities.
Planner DeBlois continued his review of staff's memo,
mentioning the increased buffer requirement along the river and
from the wetlands, which is not an issue.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that for a portion of the 600
acres staff is recommending 1/5, and he wanted to know how much
of that acreage is east of the river.
80
M
Planner DeBlois advised that approximately 300 acres is east
of the St. Sebastian River. The total acreage is 900 acres.
Commissioner Bird believed the main contention between what
staff proposes and the applicant proposes pertains to the
cross -hatched area shown on the west side of th.e river, and
Planner DeBlois agreed.
Questions continued regarding the size of the different
areas east and west of the river and densities, and Asst. County
Attorney Collins advised that the generalized survey shows 300
acres east of the river. If a precise specific survey shows that
to be xeric scrub, the density east of the river also would be
1/5. It is only what a survey shows not to be sensitive land
that would be 1 upa.
Attorney Collins went over the history of this situation.
He noted that the Coraci representatives have been involved in
the administrative hearing from the beginning, and it was partly
out of their depositions that this proposal arose. When the
review agencies were looking at the original proposal, St. John's
commented that 1 upa around the river did not afford adequate
protection, and the DCA in reviewing that comment made their
recommendation to put it in a 1/40 category. The distinction
that the Coraci representatives are trying to draw is that 1/40
was oriented toward an estuarine protection and not toward the
xeric scrub uplands. Attorney Collins then referred to fairly
similar property around the Entomological Laboratory where the
Board decided it wasn't appropriate to develop that sensitive
site at the maximum shown by the Plan.
Attorney Collins stressed that the main concern he has in
terms of this application proceeding is that these people be
treated fairly as compared to other areas that are developing
similar communities. He informed the Board that the Coraci
people are much less adversarial in nature than most of the
intervenors, and they have demonstrated a good sensitivity to the
characteristics of the property. Attorney Collins was concerned
81
C 11199
J
DEC 111990 6'2 FAGE 02,0
that the Minutes of the P&Z meeting show considerable discussion
about not intensifying any of the zoning because a portion of
this property was proposed for purchase under the CARL Program.
Court rulings consistently have been that you can't use zoning
powers to depress the value of a property that government may
later go in and condemn, and he felt it is very important that
any decision the Board makes on this property shouldn't have
anything to do with the fact that it is on the CARL list. This
property should get a fair consideration and be given the
designation the Board feels is appropriate given all the factors.
Attorney Collins stressed how 750 of the vegetation could be
preserved through cluster development, and he believed their
proposal is well thought out and fair.
Attorney Vitunac at this time asked Attorney Collins if we
have any unanswered questions we need to have Director Keating or
Planner DeBlois answer, and upon learning that we do not, advised
that he believed staff recommendation covered every aspect
discussed in the County Attorney's office over the'week to ensure
that our Plan was not a violation of the rights of the Coraci
people. Attorney Collins comments on tying the CARL Program in
are designed to protect the County because there have been
letters sent to the County Commission from certain groups which
want us to keep.the zoning low so it can be acquired, and Attor-
ney Collins is absolutely correct that those are two separate
issues as far as the action today is concerned.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Keating once again to
establish what differentiates this particular property from other
similar properties in the county, and Director Keating cited the
size of the property; the ecological diversity there; the fact
that it is adjacent to the river and wetlands; the threatened
and/or endangered species found there; and the fact that it is
not in the urban service area.
Commissioner Bird expressed his feeling that there is a
certain amount of "pulling it out of the air" as far as the 1/5
82
is concerned. He further noted that we are just lucky that
Coraci didn't decide to develop on this beautiful property on the
bluff years ago, put a road along the river, and subdivide.
Commissioner Scurlock believed the money these days actually
is in large residential estates, not necessarily in developing
small subdivisions.
Commissioner Bowman felt that the large estate idea would be
more environmentally damaging than clusters.
Commissioner Bird believed from a practical standpoint if
you are going to cluster your development on a piece of property
that large, it probably would be difficult, once it is done, to
determine whether it is 1/21 or 1/5.
Commissioner Bowman stressed that if you really want to save
your xeric scrub, you will require a special architectural staff
and you should build up off the ground and have elevated
walkways.
Director Keating pointed out that any project here not only
would have to cluster but would have to go through the PD
process.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Allan Watts, Attorney of the firm of Cobb, Cole & Bell,
Daytona Beach, came before the Board representing Anthony Coraci.
He informed the Board that Mr. Coraci has always thought of this
particular piece of land as the crown jewel of his holdings.
They recognize that the land along the Sebastian River is
special, but do believe they are entitled to some reasonable use
of the property consistent with that. The W. W. Ranch, as this
property is known, is bisected by the county line, and north of
that line along the river, Brevard County has planned the
property at a density of 1/21 and away from the river at 1 unit
to 1 acre, and those designations have been approved by the DCA.
Attorney Watts, therefore, did not believe the DCA will object to
83 1t�J,c
DEC 111990
PIP -
that same classification in Indian River County. That is why
they requested the 1/21 along their entire riverfront to be
consistent and also, so you would not have to travel through land
that is now 1/5 and 1/40 in order to reach land in Brevard County
that is 1/21 and 1/1. He noted that if you look across the
river, you will see staff is now recommending 1/1.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that it is 1/1 except where
there is scrub, and Attorney Watts noted that there is a very
narrow band of unincorporated territory along Roseland Road and
then you get into the City of S.ebastian. South of CR 512 in Vero
Lake Estates you have 3/1, and in the area near the interstate,
you have a Commercial and Industrial classification. There are a
variety of uses in the area, and what they are looking at now, if
the Board turns down their application is 1/40.
Attorney Watts pointed out that under the 1982 Plan, all the
Coraci holdings were AG; so they could have come in and stripped
the ridge bare and planted citrus groves. The draft plan in 1989
talked about a Conservation area and a density of 1/1, and that
is the way the Board transmitted it to DCA. In October of 1989,
the CARL Committee prepared their design for the proposed
Sebastian Creek Project, which they noted was designed primarily
as a manatee protection effort. In that project design, under
the heading of Land Use development trends, they pointed out that
the Indian River Comp Plan has designated that a Conservation
area at 1 unit per acre. Then under agency review, St. John's
River Water Management District made their comment that 1 upa was
not adequate to protect the wetlands; the ORC Report picked up on
that and recommended the reduction to 1/40 and recommended this
for all Conservation land in the county; and the Board adopted
that.
Commissioner Scurlock agreed but noted it was adopted with
an objection.
Attorney Watts contended that through a misreading, the
xeric scrub community got included in that density designation,
84
and that is when they filed a challenge. He stressed that in
their application, they have attempted to put together a package
of development standards they can live with. Everyone likes the
conditions they have developed, but they don't like the density
that drives the conditions and they need a density of 1/21 in
order to cluster the property effectively and to do the things
they have said they would do. Mr. Watts advised that he is not
authorized to amend the application before the Board; so, the
Board either will have to accept their application or reject it.
Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating if there was any
reason we couldn't do the same as we did with Mr. Poppell's
property, i.e., say we go along with the stipulated agreement but
we like Alternate B and forward their proposal as an alternate,
Director Keating did not think the Commission would be
precluded from making changes to any recommendation and sub-
mitting whatever it wants whether or not it is the applicant's
recommendation.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we don't have the ability to
forward something other than what the applicant has requested -
in other words, do we have an alternative between 1/21 and 1/40?
Attorney Watts advised that their opinion on that is that
while the Board may administratively initiate an amendment of the
Land Use Plan that would change the density from 1/40 to 1/5,
they do not now have such an amendment pending, and the applicant
would be entitled to notice and a full opportunity to respond to
that amendment before it could be considered. He, therefore, did
not feel this could be before the Board today, but noted that
doesn't mean the Board can't do it without their consent.
Attorney Vitunac noted that the problem is that this is not
part of our Compliance Agreement; so, the only issue on the table
is the challenge filed by Coraci, and if he withdraws it,.we
would have to initiate our own. Right now, we are riding on his.
Attorney Collins further noted that when we entered into the
Compliance Agreement, the Commission directed us to accept any
E 011 X990 85 BOOK
FF -
DEC
l'O�IK v' 905
applications from the intervenors that would resolve their
challenges, but the Commission also waived application fees and
directed staff to process this in a cooperative manner. He
believed it is a joint cooperative effort to resolve the issue
between the two of us, and if the Board chooses to transmit
something other than what Mr. Watts has submitted on behalf of
Coraci, they would certainly have the right to disassociate
themselves from that and continue with their challenge. Attorney
Collins did think the Board has the discretion to take any input
they get and base the recommendation they forward based on that
input.
Attorney Watts stated that he does not want to overemphasize
the adversarial nature of this, but they have a final point to
resolve, and if the Board resolves it, it disposes of everything.
Otherwise, it does not dispose of the administrative hearing.
They do not concede the point that they are entitled to required
notice on any substantial deviation from their application. Mr.
Watts stressed that the point he wished to make is that if we are
going to try to work this out, the only way to get DCA to say yes
or no to the 1/21 is to send it to them. He will stipulate for
the record that the Board's adoption of 1/21 at this hearing and
transmitting it to see what Tallahassee thinks about it does not
bind them to that density when it comes back for final adoption.
The transmitting of that will not prejudice the Board's right to
change their minds, if they get adverse comments.
Attorney Watts continued that the point he wants to make
about staff's position is that one of the things that was added
on in the Dec. 4th memo was a maximum lot size of 1 acre. If you
take a density of 1/5 and you assign a 1 acre lot size to each of
those 120 resulting units coming out of the 600 acres, you have
cleared 120 acres of the scrub potentially. The applicant didn't
necessarily think they were going to go in there with 1 acre lot
sizes when they thought cluster. Their concept was to come along
and run a road north/south well out of the scrub area and
86
penetrating into the conservation area for a limited residential
development in a village type concept, perhaps 20 acres being
developed out of each 100 acres. That's the same size
disturbance staff has been talking about, and Mr. Watts stressed
that once you agree that you are going to leave, after taking'out
roads, 70/750 of this land intact so that you can preserve the
functioning system, it really doesn't make any difference what
you do with the rest of it in terms of density. It doesn't
really matter if you have a total of 120 units or 240 units; if
it is okay to disturb 120 acres, then it is okay to disturb 120
acres. He felt that if we are looking at saving the scrub, what
we ought to be talking about is what percentage of the scrub do
we have to leave intact and connected in order for it to serve
its function.
Attorney Watts continued that if they are at 1/40 and no AG
permitted on that land, you either have these million dollar lots
40 acres in size running down to the river, or they have got a
"taking" problem on their hands. He noted that "taking" results
one of two ways - either you deny any economically viable use of
the land or you impose a regulation on the land that is not
rationally related to the goal you are trying to reach. First of
all, he contended that the reduction of 1/40 and not allowing any
AG use of the land doesn't give you much you can do with the land
economically. You can't put roads through to County standards at
that low a density and also it is not feasible to run fire
trucks, school buses, etc., out through that.kind of sparse
se.ttlement.. That is what compact settlement is all about, and it
is particularly ironic if you are running all the way up into
Brevard County where you have a different density. As to the
other aspect of whether the regulation is rationally related to
what you are trying to protect, they think the package they have
come up with rationally protects the river and do not think the
change in density from 21 to 5 has any rationality to support it
because once you concede it is okay to disturb 120 acres, it
DEC111990 87
[Roar F,�t
LES 199D BOOK' PAGE d�
would be okay to do that at any density that sufficiently
protects the balance of the scrub. They have tried to work their
problem out with the county in a constructive atmosphere and have
come so close, but the Board is the final decision maker.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he personally did not buy
their argument about being inconsistent with what is done in
Brevard County. He noted that every time we have raised a
question with DCA about their not being consistent here with what
they have done in another county, we have been rebuffed very
quickly.
Attorney Watts stressed that those densities were
implemented in Brevard County after their compliance agreement.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if there were any
significant objections in Brevard County from the environmental
community, and Attorney Watts answered that there were none he
was aware of. He believed their package is a good one and that
it has a fair chance of success.
Commissioner Scurlock asked Attorney Vitunac what the
process is if the DCA hangs with where they are.
Attorney Vitunac stated that while it is not crystal clear
to him, he thinks the county has to stay involved because
whatever action happens out of this has to be implemented by the
county. He further pointed out that the plan we sent up has been
challenged by Coraci, and his question is if the DCA approves the
1/21 and says it is fine with them, is it fine with our Planning
staff because our staff has commented that they would prefer the
1/5 to give additional protection to this land regardless. Then
it gets back to a policy decision of the Board.
Attorney Watts pointed out that if the County approves the
1/21 and the DCA does not, then you may be talking about the
State's checkbook in a "taking" case.
Attorney Collins felt that Attorney Watts has said one thing
he believes is very important and that is - what is it that we
are trying to do with our regulations, and the answer is trying
88
s M M
to protect the value of that land to function as an environmental
ecosystem. The point he is making is that our staff has said if
you allow less density, you afford more protection because there
is less development going in there, and they have recommended no
lots larger than 1 upa. What Attorney Watts has said is we
agree, but we can protect the functional values of this land by
leaving just as much land intact with 1/2 acre lots or less on
the same amount of disturbed land. He is saying that he can
afford that same ecological protection with lots half the size
but twice the density.
Director Keating wished to make a couple of points. When
Mr. Watts brings out that we allow 120 acres to be cleared, we
have a requirement in there that lots can't be any larger than 1
acre. In his proposed C-3 District there are just "weasel"
words. There is no requirement; it is "preferably cluster" and
"encourage cluster." What we have done is set a standard and
some criteria - with the 1/5, limiting lot size to 1 upa, lessing
out utilities, you will have at least 80% preservation. If he
sells his property tomorrow, you have got nothing except some
encouragement in the C-3 as he is proposing it. Director Keating
further pointed out that according to our proposal there is no
prohibition for having 1/2 acre lots or even less. We have a
maximum lot size.
Attorney Watts agreed that Director Keating makes a good
point, and he believed his clients will agree that clustering
will be required, not simply encouraged. If that will give him
some comfort, they do not have any quarrel with that.
Commissioner Bird noted that they then could accept
mandatory clustering at 1/21, and Planner DeBlois brought up also
the mandatory cap of a 1/2 acre which is not specific currently.
Attorney Watts felt they could change the language in their
proposal and instead of saying that lots created through the PD
process shall not
exceed 1 acre in
size, they could
just
put a
flat cap in there
that development
approved through
the
PD
DEC 11 I U9®
89
BOOK
8
Cid
F'1uto.`���J
MOK 8. NGE 91110
process shall not exceed 120 acres with the remainder of the area
designated as open space. Then, if they decide for market
conditions that they need 1 acre lots, it means they have put
their own cap on density at 120 units, but if they decide the
market is 1/2 acre lots, then they get 240 units, but no more
than 240.
Director Keating felt the big point is that Attorney Watts
has said,the density is irrelevant, and he did not agree with
that. The more density you get, the more impacts you will have.
By limiting the choice of development type by mandatory
clustering, you will get more resource protection, but you still
will have an impact from an increase in density. He did believe
that generally we are pretty close on what we want, but he felt
the two decisions to make right now are the difference between
1/5 and 1/21 and 1 upa maximum lot size as opposed to 1/2.
Commissioner Scurlock wished to know if the actual construc-
tion of these units under the applicant's scenario ends up with
an equal amount of what we are requesting under the 1/5, and
Director Keating stated that their scenario of a maximum of 120
acres disturbed would actually provide more protection than ours.
Attorney Vitunac asked if there is any way to send up
something between the two figures.
Attorney Watts again stressed that he does not have the
authority to do that and just asked that the Board transmit his
applicant's proposal without binding themselves to it.
Commissioner Scurlock did not believe that Attorney Watts
would be interested in submitting this if they did not have some
confidence that DCA would approve it.
Chairman Eggert expressed her concern that with smaller lots
you are putting more people on the property, and more people tend
to disturb protected property more.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
90
L J
George Klein, Director of the Friends of the Sebastian
River, commented that he lived in Miami in 1946, and since that
time, that whole area and the bay has been destroyed by uncon-
trolled development. Indian River County has one of the few
unspoiled estuaries in the state. The St. Sebastian River and
the adjoining uplands are an irreplaceable asset to the citizens
of the county, and the pressure from developers is overwhelming.
Mr. Klein did not agree with the argument that new development
increases the tax base of the county and will reduce your
property taxes because his taxes have gone up almost 300% in the
past 4 years with the growth in Brevard and Indian River
Counties. He also wished to refute what the gentleman said and
what Commissioner Scurlock said about the zoning in Brevard
County. He attended a Board of County Commissioners meeting
there, and they passed a Resolution unanimously regarding any
increase in density in environmentally sensitive areas,
especially what was proposed in the CARL Program.
Attorney Vitunac advised that Attorney Collins talked to
Brevard County officials by telephone, and they said they do not
have such a thing.
Mr. Klein contended that it should be on record in their
Minutes, and that as far as increased density was concerned, at a
subsequent meeting, the zoning was decreased from 1/1 to 1/21 in
that area. He expressed the hope that this Board looks upon
themselves as custodian of this beautiful natural resource and
the endangered species there, and he did not_feel that will be
accomplished under any proposal he has heard by the Coraci people
this morning. He stressed that although it seems the legal
aspect is very intimidating, if this petition is denied, the
applicant has to plead his case before the DCA, and it does not
hurt the county in any way.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, Mr. Klein
apparently wants the density left at 1 unit to 40 acres.
DEC -111990 91 �'alfl
Rl [ e' FaU
L.l .d k! U C pcd U
DEC
11
1994
eonK
� o
n f�
Mr. Klein agreed.
He felt that is the only way
this
resource can be saved. He went on to express his concern about
pollution of the river by development, sewage, etc.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that luckily now with the
growth of our Utilities Department we do not allow package plants
to be franchised any more. The County operates them, and they
have zero discharge into the river.
Frank DeJoia,-resident of Roseland, informed the Board that
he is a Director of the Friends of the Sebastian River and, in
the absence of their president,, he was asked to speak in their
behalf on the Coraci request to set up a new designation along
the Sebastian River. He noted they were all elated to see that
these lands were moved up to the 10th spot by the CARL Selection
Committee list. Mr. DeJoia stressed that this area not only has
one of the highest concentrations of manatees on the east coast
of Florida, but its flora and fauna must be protected for future
generation. In addition, the Indian River Lagoon has been
designated an estuary of national significance, and the St.
Sebastian River is a major tributary of the Indian River Lagoon.
Mr. DeJoia hoped that the Board will consider the Coraci
request and staff recommendation very carefully because so much
is at stake. He stressed that the Friends of the River are not
trying to upgrade or downgrade the value of the Coraci property
and they do not want to take away anyone's legitimate property
rights, but because of the sensitive nature and interdependence
of these communities, he would hope the Board would consider
keeping at least the wetlands in the C-2 1/40 designation and the
remaining land at no more than 1/5. He felt this density, plus
the density transfer credit, would provide a reasonable use of
the land. Speaking also as a director of the Roseland Property
Owners Association, Mr. DeJoia expressed pride in the County
Commission's zoning stance in the North County area and stressed
that he did not feel they should be influenced by the zoning in
South Brevard County. Speaking for himself, he would like to say
92
that with respect to some of these areas east of the south prong
that are already partially developed, he agreed with staff
recommendation that special consideration should be given but
that in no case should the density be greater than 1 upa in areas
that don't meet the criteria for either C-2 or C-3.
Warren Dill, Roseland resident, first of all felt that the
Brevard County zoning issue is a bogus argument; what another
county does should have no influence on this Board at all.
Secondly, while he felt it is elementary that the Board cannot°
use its power to downzone property so that it can be purchased by
a government agency at a lower price, in this case, the land
owner is asking to be upgraded in order for him to get a higher
price. This whole procedure today sounds to him like the old
"Let's make a deal" TV program. Mr. Dill felt strongly that the
Board should only transmit something to DCA that they have faith
in and can support. He did agree that the Board needs to be
consistent and probably should grant them the 1/5, but possibly
the Board should decide that other similar properties in the
county should be 1/5 also.
Getting back to the specific proposal presented today, Mr.
Dill felt it is essential to have mandatory clustering, which the
applicant now has agreed to. Mr. Dill felt one further change
should be considered in the applicant's proposed amendment. He
suggested that the Board consider imposing an 1,000' setback from
the river or 500' from the environmentally sensitive land. This
would not deny the applicant their density, but with this, they
would be contributing to the protection of that corridor which is
under consideration for purchase, as well as maintaining the
scenic visual integrity of the river. He, therefore, urged that
the Board support staff's proposed 1/5 and also a more signifi-
cant setback to preserve the corridor.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard, and
the Chairman closed the public hearing.
1193 �-
800 r �'
P.',sc ��1ti
DEC
111990
1400K,2
F, IE �J
Commissioner
Scurlock believed that Mr. Dill did
raise a
significant question in regard to believing in what we convey to
the DCA.
Commissioner Bird wished to know how staff draws the line
between the 600 acres and the remaining 8,000, and Director
Keating commented that it is established by environmental surveys
based on soil types and vegetative characteristics as set out in
Policy 1:31 of the Conservation Element.
As to a reasonable use of the land, Commissioner Scurlock
commented that he did some research on his own to see what the
courts have done, and he found that in one case they upheld the 1
unit to 40 acres; that was in the sand pine area of New Jersey.
Commissioner Bowman believed that sand pine area in New
Jersey is analogous to what we have here, and she did agree that
an 100' setback is nothing at all - it is just an invitation for
the residents to hack down the vegetation in that setback so they
can have a view of the river.
Commissioner Scurlock asked, just for the record, what the
C-2 (1/40) allows them to do to the 600 acres and the other land
east. What kind of density stacking does that allow because
actually what is on the table with the DCA right now hasn't even
been discussed.
Director Keating advised with the 1/40 essentially they
could only provide 1 unit for 40 acres, and it doesn't require
any additional clustering and we don't have an 100' setback but
only a 50' setback from the river.
Environmental Planner DeBlois further clarified that
presently you always have the opportunity for PD and clustering,
which could apply to the 1/40 with some transfer from the
wetlands.
Commissioner Scurlock commented that in regard to reasonable
use of land, here there is 8,000 acres but he has not seen anyone
say let's go to the DCA and propose a significant transfer of
higher densities from the area we would like to protect to the
94
other 8,000 acres that nobody seems to care about. As Mr. Dill
commented, it is unfortunate that the land you want to protect
actually is the most developable area as well.
Commissioner Bowman did not see why it is the most
developable. She stressed that the applicant has 8,000 acres'to
play with, and here we have this irreplaceable xeric scrub that
will be destroyed.
Commissioner Bird realized Commissioner Bowman's heartfelt
feelings on this, but asked where would you want to build your
home - on a high bluff overlooking the river or out in the middle
of a huge ranch palmetto patch. People naturally want to be able
to build their homes on the most desirable land, and this is a
conflict that will go on forever.
Commissioner Bird wished to be clear as to just exactly what
the applicant is asking for - are they asking for 1/21 over the
whole 600 acres and we are recommending 1/40 and 1/5?
Director Keating clarified that the applicant also is
proposing 1/40 for the wetlands, and the only question is on the
area back away from the river.
Commissioner Bowman stressed it is not back away from the
river, but only 100' back; and Commissioner Scurlock noted that
he has problems with the setback as well but he is ready to make
a Motion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock to accept
staff's recommendation but further tighten some of
the regulations in terms of what was discussed here today,
(i.e., mandatory clustering, a maximum of 120 acres
disturbed and in addition, direct staff to further
address increasing the setback); transmit the amendments
with a minimum of 100' setback, but have language to
indicate that while the 100' setback is what is on the
table at this point, we are not satisfied with it.
DEC 111990 95 BOOK Ci'10 fAiH
r
BOOK� PAGEc�
DEC I I A90
Director Keating asked if the intent of increasing the
setback is for aesthetic reasons and view from the river or
stormwater purposes and impact on the wetlands environment.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that he is looking at more than
stormwater retention. He is looking for a combination of not
only the aesthetics, but also the impact of encroachment.
Discussion continued regarding the Motion, and Chairman
Eggert summarized that the Motion would include approval of staff
recommendation, a maximum of 120 acres disturbed, required clus-
tering, and a note regarding reevaluation of the 100' setback.
COMMISSIONER BOWMAN SECONDED THE MOTION.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried 4 to 1 with
Commissioner Bird voting in opposition.
The Board recessed at 1:30 o'clock P.M. for lunch and
reconvened at 2:30 -P.M. with all members present. Deputy Clerk
Barbara Bonnah took over from Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves
for the remainder of the meeting.
96
PUBLIC HEARING - WINDSOR POLO REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND REZONE 14± ACRES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/90:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. K6aeilng,4ACP
Community Developm nt Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani �•� .
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 29, 1990
SUBJECT: WINDSOR POLO REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
REZONE 14+/- ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular _
meeting of December 11, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Windsor Polo has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and rezone property. The subject property is located on the
south side of Hobart Road (77th Street), west of the FEC Railroad
right-of-way. The request includes 14+/- acres of a +/-480 acre
parcel.
The request entails changing the existing land use from C/I,
Commercial/Industrial Node to L-2, Low Density Residential (up to
6 `units/acre), and rezoning the property from IG, General
Industrial District to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District
(up to 6 units/acre).
The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning for multiple family development and polo
fields. The Windsor Polo Corporation is proposing to develop an
overall 480+/- acre site as phased multiple -family housing and polo
fields. Phase I of the project is being reviewed by the planning
department.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve
transmittal of the request to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for their review and comment.
Amendments to the comprehensive plan must meet the requirements of
Florida Statutes, the administrative rules of the Department of
Community Affairs and Chapter 800 of the County Code of Laws and
Ordinances. In addition to meeting these requirements, any changes
to the land use map must be consistent with and related to the
other plan elements. In some cases a land use change will require
concurrent changes to other plan elements.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property currently lies within the Hobart Road and U.S.
#1 Commercial/ Industrial Node and has an IG, General Industrial
DEC 11
a00K 82 F'glE � P
zoning classification. The site contains one vacant structure and
is otherwise 'overgrown land. Hobart Estates Subdivision is north
of the property and is zoned IL, Light Industrial. Hobart Welders
is situated directly east of the property and is Zoned IG. The
eastern most portion of subject property abuts the FEC Railroad
right-of-way. Properties located west and south are vacant lands
currently zoned RM -6. Both properties are included in the overall
480+/- acre multi -phased development project.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property currently lies within the Hobart Road and U.S.
#1 Commercial/Industrial Node. This designation permits various
types of commercial and industrial zoning categories. The
properties north and east also share this land use designation.
The properties west and south lie within the L-2 land use
designation.
Transportation System
Hobart Road (77th Street) forms the northern boundary- of the
subject property and bisects the overall 480+\- acre project area.
Hobart Road is classified as an urban minor arterial road on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Hobart Road
is a two-lane unpaved road with seventy (70) feet of road right-of-
way.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county; however,
water and sewer lines do not extend to the site.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on surrounding areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utilities systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. The
analysis will also assess the request for consistency with the land
use policies and objectives of the comprehensive plan. In
addition, the requested change will be reviewed in terms of the
impact the land use change would have on the other elements of the
comprehensive plan.
Compatibility With Existing Services and Facilities
The site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan -
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service would not be lowered. A typcially high traffic generator
type of development which could be built in the IG district would
98
i
M
generate approximately 140 trips per day. The actual number of
trips would depend on the total square footage and the exact mix of
uses. With the proposed zoning, the maximum build out would be 84
units, generating approximately 588 average daily trips. A
standard two-lane road can accommodate approximately 13,000 -trips
per day. Based upon a staff analysis, it was determined that
Hobart Road and other roadways serving the project can accommodate
the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of
service. A more detailed review of transportation impacts will be
required as part of the development review process, and as part of
any development project the road will have to be paved.
- Utilities
The site is within the urban service area; however the area is not
currently serviced by water and wastewater. At present, capacity
for these services is not available for this portion of the county.
Since no ERUs for water and wastewater have been reserved as of the
present time, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement
with the county which states that the developer agrees to__expand
county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the__needs of
his development. The agreement must be signed prior to final
consideration of this matter by the Board of County Commissioners.
Also, the developer must pay 5% of the amount of utility impact
fees associated with maximum site development based upon the number
of units or intensity of development permitted by the approved
zoning of the property. With these conditions, the utility
concurrency test would be met for the subject request.
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion
capacity beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development
will be required to maintain its pre-existing discharge rate for
the design storm. Together, these regulations limit the potential
for on-site and off-site flooding and damage. As with all
development, a more detailed review will be conducted. during
development approval.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and projected demand as a
result of this rezoning indicates that adopted levels of service
will be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional
park space that would be needed for the proposed rezoning and the
existing surplus acreage by park type. This indicates that no
additional park space will be needed.
Park Type
Urban District
Community
Beach
River
ANALYSIS
Project Demand (Acres)
.92
.55
.27
.27
Surplus Acreage
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment and
represent a decrease in acreage for the Hobart
Commercial Node, and an increase in residential
assessing this request, three major issues must
® E C 11 1990 99 1100K
222
28
77
38
zoning change
Road/U.S. #1
density. In
be addressed:
g9"-
.d t! IJ Pa1y
-DEC 111990
BOOP( 8? [,ASE 21 OU
compatibility with the surrounding area, consistency with the
comprehensive plan and concurrency of public facilities.
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. The area is
predominantly vacant land, and the subject property is a part of an
overall 480+ acre project, including parcels to the north, east and
south of the subject property. The owner is planning to develop
multi -family housing and has submitted site plan drawings for
Phase -I of the project to the planning department. The industrial
property adjacent to the northeast corner of the subject property
is in the process of being rezoned to multi -family residential as
well. Therefore, the proposed zoning and land use designation will
be compatible with the surrounding uses. Since multi -family
developments undergo either site plan or PRD review, specific
buffering and compatibility would be addressed at that time as
well.
A review of this amendment request with the Future Land Use Element
reveals that approximately 700 acres of- land are currently
developed with commercial/industrial land in the county. According
to the plan, approximately 3,00,0 acres of land will be needed for
commercial/ industrial uses in the future. Since more than 5,000
acres in the county are designated for commercial or industrial
uses, a surplus of 2,000 acres of Commercial/ Industrial designated
land exists in the county. For this reason a change in the land
use designation of the subject property from commercial/industrial
to multi -family will not adversely affect the supply of
commercial/ industrial designated land in the county. There will
still be an ample supply of commercial/industrial land.
Policy 1.33 of the Future Land Use Element allows the approval of
plan amendments only upon a showing that one of the following
criteria has been met:
C The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the
approved plan
C The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the
approved plan
C The proposed amendment is warranted based on a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
The subject property is a part of a much larger tract of land to be
used for multiple -family development and polo fields. In order for
the applicant to pursue this development, he needs the land use
changed to allow multiple -family uses , Which is appropriate for
this project. The applicant must unify the land use and zoning
into one that is appropriate for his desired development.
Therefore, a change in circumstances affecting the property does
warrant a land use amendment. Residential development of this area
would also facilitate the development of non -residentially
designated land along Old Dixie Highway and U.S.#1 to the east.
CONCLUSION
It has been established that the concurrency test for drainage,
roads, solid waste and parks has been met with the proposed zoning.
Analysis also shows that the proposed request will be consistent'
with other plan policies.
The subject property is located in an area designated for
Commercial and Industrial Uses. However, land on two sides of the
subject property is designated for residential development, and
Hobart Road abuts the subject property on a third side. In
addition, the subject property is a part of an application for an
overall large-scale residential project. For these reasons the
proposed change in land use and zoning would be consistent with
county policies and existing land uses.
100
L 77
L]
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners transmit this request to amend the land use
map from commercial to L-2 to the DCA for their review and announce
their intention to hold a final public hearing concerning this
matter.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone.wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
Community Development Director Robert Keating noted that the
most important Comp Plan policy that the Board will be hearing
about every time we do a Comp Plan amendment request is Future
Land Use Policy.13.3 which establishes the criteria for amending
the plan. Basically, one of three findings have to be made in
order to amend the plan. It has to be shown that there was an
oversight in the approval plan that warrants the change; that
there was a mistake in the approval plan; or that circumstances
have changed substantially since the plan was approved.
According to the adopted plan policies, those are the only three
criteria that can justify a land use change.
in this case we
DEC
111990
, o,
.N-
DECFF-- I
111990 BOOK 8.2, NGL 221
looked at circumstances having been changed substantially and
this being a change that actually would bring us more in
conformity with the Comp Plan's objectives in that it is reducing
the overall allocation of commercial property that we have in
this county and also serving to consolidate for an overall
residential development. Given the fact that we feel it meets
the criteria of Policy 13.3 is consistent with the overall
policies of the Comp Plan, and has met the concurrency
requirements, staff is recommending approval of the transmittal
of the land use request and that the Board consider the rezoning
at the time of the final action.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the transmittal of the Windsor Polo's request to
amend the land use map from C/I, Commercial Industrial
Node, to L-2, Low Density Residential, to the
Department of Community Affairs for their review, and
announced their intention to hold a final public
hearing concerning this matter, as recommended by
staff.
102
r � s
PUBLIC HEARING - OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES' REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE 4.83 ACRES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/3/90:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Keati , AI�j
Community Devel pmenfl Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani '74L.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri Boudreaux
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: December 3, 1990
RE: DEAN VEGOSEN TRUSTEE FOR OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE 4.83 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990. - --
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is located on the north side of
Oslo Road just west of the 27th Avenue/Oslo Road intersection and
is presently owned by Marie Simmons, Trustee. The request includes
4.83 acres of a 10.68 acre parcel.
The request includes changing the existing land use from L-2, Low -
Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to Commercial Node, and
rezoning the property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (6 units/l acre) to CG, General Commercial District. This
request is considered an expansion of the Oslo Road/27th Avenue
Commercial Node.
The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning for future development of a retail shopping
center.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the
applicant's request.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District and is currently undeveloped. The property directly east
of the subject property is zoned CL, Limited Commercial, and is
currently undeveloped. The property west of the subject property
is zoned RM -6. South of the subject property is also zoned RM -6
and contains some single-family residential uses and some
undeveloped property. North of the subject property is zoned RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District and is currently mostly
undeveloped.
103 N00X
1 � ,t �;�
9�0 1119. 0 E,00K � F;tq : ut 7
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated L-2, Low -Density, on the
county's future land use map. The L-2 designation permits
residential densities up to 6 units/acre. All property 'to the
west, north and south is also designated L-2. Property to the east
is designated part of the Oslo Road/27th Avenue Commercial Node,
which permits commercial zoning designations.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
Utilities And Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county, and county
waterlines extend to the site; however, sewer lines do not extend
to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts Oslo Road to the south.
as a urban principal arterial roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of
paved road with approximately 60 feet
right-of-way.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Oslo Road is classified
on the future roadway
Oslo Road is a two lane
of existing public road
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on surrounding. areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This
section will also consider. alternatives for development of the
site.
Compatibility with Existing Services and Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive.
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that 'the existing level of
service "C" or better would not be lowered. A typically high
traffic generator type of development which could be built in the
CG district would generate approximately 1,900 trips per day. The
actual number of trips would depend on the total square footage and
the exact mix of uses. A standard two-lane road can accommodate
approximately 13,000 trips per day. Based upon a staff analysis,
it was determined that Oslo Road, 27th Avenue and the other
roadways serving the project can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service. A more
detailed review of transportation impacts will be required as part
of the development review process.
104
L�
- Utilities
The site is within the urban service area; and there are water
lines available to the site. Wastewater lines, however, are not
available at this time. Water service capacity is available at
this time; however, wastewater service capacity is not available.
Since no ERUs for water and wastewater have been reserved as yet,
the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the
county which states that the developer agrees to expand county
facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the needs of his
development. This agreement must be signed prior to final
consideration of this item by the Board of County Commissioners.
Also, as part of conditional concurrency approval, the developer
must pay 50 of the amount of utility impact fees associated with
maximum site development based upon the number of units or
intensity of development permitted by the approved zoning of the
property. With these conditions, the utility concurrency test
would be met for the subject request.
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 -year capacity, and the landfill has expansion
capacity beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, any development proposal will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any
development review will be required to maintain a pre-existing
discharge rate for the design storm. Together, these regulations
limit the potential for on-site and off-site flooding and damage.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be cpnducted
during development approval.
- Recreation
Not applicable for commercial land use development.
ANALYSIS
In assessing this request, three major issues must be addressed.
These are the compatibility with the surrounding area, consistency
with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of public facilities.
Compatibility with surrounding land uses is an important issue with
respect to this property. The adjacent properties to the west, and
north are vacant properties and designated for residential
development. The property across Oslo Road, southwest of the
property, contains some single-family homes; however, it is zoned
for RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential, up to 6 units/acre and is
buffered by Oslo Road. Since commercial development undergoes site
plan review, specific buffering and compatibility would be
addressed at that time.
A review of this land use amendment and rezoning with the future
land use map and policies does reveal inconsistencies.
Specifically, this request is inconsistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.23, which requires that no node should be considered for
expansion unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is
developed or approved for development, or otherwise warranted by
the proposed development.
Review of existing and/or approved development in the Oslo Road &
27th Avenue Commercial Node shows that Policy 1.23 is in direct
conflict with this land use amendment and rezoning request. The
DEC 111990 105 74-�,�
i.gor � Ft � t ��`
DEC 111990
existing commercial development in this node is 10± acres which is
170 of the total land designated for this node. Since the 700
criterion has not been satisfied, this request is not justified.
In evaluating a land use plan amendment request, probably the most
important consideration is Future Land Use Policy 13.3. This
policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to
approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: an
oversight in the approved plan, a mistake in the approved plan, or
a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property. - The staff is of the opinion that this land use amendment
and rezoning request does not meet any of the three criteria as
stated above.
CONCLUSION
Public facility concurrency requirements are important factors in
evaluating any land use amendment or rezoning request. Concurrency
requirements, however, are not the only criteria. Unlike other
comprehensive plan policies, though, concurrency requirements by
themselves can be a reason for denial of a request. _Even if all
other comprehensive plan policies are satisfied by a request, a
lack of concurrency would be a reason for denial.
In this case concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste and
potable water can be satisfied for the proposed land use amendment.
Although capacity for wastewater services is not presently in
place, the applicant's execution of a developer's agreement to
ensure that these facilities will be provided would meet the
concurrency test. Despite such a positive concurrency finding in
this instance, other plan policies fail to support approval of the
request.
Specifically, inconsistencies. with adopted comprehensive plan
policies in the Future Land Use Element as described -in detail in
the above analysis section warrant denial of this proposed land use
amendment and rezoning. The subject property is located in* an area
designated for low-density residential development, and based on
staff's analysis this request does not warrant a change in that
designation.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis including the Planning and Zoning.
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny transmittal of the land use amendment to
the Department of Community Affairs. --
106
M M M
I
M M
Communitv Development Director advised that this is an
unusual situation because staff is changing its recommendation on
it. He explained that during the site plan review process, the
applicant was informed that there were substantial right-of-way
deficiencies on both Oslo Road and 27th Avenue and that
right-of-way would have to be acquired/purchased by the County.
At that time, since he would be losing commercial land, the
applicant inquired if there was an opportunity for a commensurate
amount of land to be added to the node adjacent to this property.
Staff indicated to him that would be possible and that staff
would look at that favorably. However, when the applicant
submitted his Comp Plan amendment request, there had been no
action on actually taking the right-of-way out of the node, so
staff told the applicant that until the right-of-way actually was
severed from the node and that amount of land made available,
staff would not recommend favorably on a land use amendment.
That is the reason why today's staff recommendation was written
up for denial of the request. Subsequently, the applicant has
coordinated with Public Works Director Jim Davis and the County
Attorney's Office and a later item on today's Agenda involves
County acquisition of this right-of-way. Staff feels this is
sufficient for the land to be severed. If that item is approved,
the County would go in and acquire the property under the
appraised value. Director Keating felt that everyone will win in
this situation. The. County will get what is needed, and the
applicant will be able to do his project in more area. If for
some reason the Board doesn't agree to purchase this right-of-way
when that matter is considered later in today's meeting, the
decision right here is not final. It can be considered when it
comes back from Tallahassee after DCA consideration of the land
use change. Basically, this is a request for adding 4.83 acres
to the commercial node. The amount of right-of-way the applicant
is
giving up
is 2.28 acres, but staff agreed
that the
additional
DEC
111990
107
P00K.
:� FA c ?
BOOK
amount of commercial would not be a problem, and this would serve
to square off areas. The P&Z Commission did recommend denial of
this, but that was based under a different set of circumstances
than what is being presented to the Board today. In working
through the whole process, staff looked at the concurrency
situation, and determined that since utilities are not available
to the site at the present time, the applicant would have to
agree to enter into a developer's agreement and pay the 5% prior
to a final action on this matter. However, if the developer
actually has proceeded with his, site plan approval by that time,
he may eventually require the ERUs, but that still would come
after a final hearing on the land use amendment request.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the transmittal of the Oslo Plaza Associates' request
to amend the Comprehensive Plan from L -Z to Commercial
Node, and announced their intention to hold a final
public hearing concerning this matter, as recommended
by staff.
108
� � s
PUBLIC HEARING - BETTY F. McCRAE, ET. AL. REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ±6.8 ACRES AND REZONE ±4.3 ACRES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/90:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
t
c
Robert M. Keatincj,, AICP
Community Develo men irector
THRU: Sasan Rohani 5
Long-Range Planning, Chief
FROM: Cheri J. Boudreaux G
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: December 3, 1990
SUBJECT: Betty F. McRae, et. al., Request
To Amend The Comprehensive
Plan ±6.8 Acres/Rezone ±4.3 Acres .
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is located on the west side of
Indian River Boulevard, just north of the 4th Street and U.S.
Highway 11 intersection and is presently owned by Betty F. McRae,
Mr./Mrs.. Thomas O. Fultz, Jr., Peggy Fultz Brinson and Mr./Mrs.
Charles B. Roach. The land use amendment includes a total of ± 6.8
acres and the rezoning request includes only ± 4.3 acres of the
total ± 6.8 acres. -i
The request includes changing the existing land use from M-2,
Medium -Density Residential (up to 10 units per acre) to
Commercial/Industrial Area, and rezoning the property from RM -10,
Multi -Family Residential District (10 units/1 acres) to CG, General
Commercial District. This request is considered an expansion of the
City of Vero Beach to South Relief Canal Commerical/Industrial
Area.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the
applicant's request.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RM -10, Multi -Family Residential
District and currently contains single-family homes and undeveloped
r
DEC
1-
1990
DEC 111990
41
RUCKFACE
land. The property directly north of the subject property is also
zoned RM -10, and contains a single-family home and undeveloped
land. The property west of the subject property is zoned CG,
General Commercial District, and contains a retail/commercial
center. Land to the south of the subject property is also zoned CG
and contains commercial/retail uses. The property east of the
subject property and across Indian River Boulevard is zoned RM -10
and contains multi -family residential dwelling units and
undeveloped property.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated M-2, Medium Density, on the
County's future land use map. The M-2 designation permits
residential densities up to 10 units per acre. The property north
and east of the subject property is also designated M-2. Property
to the south and west is designated part of the commercial/
Industrial Area, which permits commercial and industrial zoning
designations.
Environment
The property is not designated
environmentally sensitive by the
property is located in "Other
identified as lying within the
according to the Flood Insurance
as environmentally important or
Comprehensive Plan. The subject
Flood Area Zone X," which is
500 and 100 year flood plain
Rating Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services '
The site is within the urban service area of the county, and county
waterlines extend to the site; however, sewer lines do not extend to
the site. V.
Transportation system
The property abuts Indian River Boulevard to the east. Indian River
Boulevard is classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on
the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Indian
River Boulevard is a four lane divided paved road with
approximately 150 feet of existing public road right -of -way. -
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential impacts on surrounding areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This
section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Compatibility with Existing Services and Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "C" or better would not be lowered. A typically high
traffic generator type of development which could be built in the
110
CG district would generate approximately 1,900 trips per day. The
actual number of trips would depend on the total square footage and
the exact mix of uses. A standard four -lane road can accommodate
approximately 26,000 trips per day. Based upon staff analysis, it
was determined that Indian River Boulevard and other roadways
serving the project can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing the existing level of service. A more detailed review of
transportation impacts will be required as part of the development
review process.
- Utilities
The site is within the urban service area, and there are water
lines available to the site. Water service capacity is available;
however, wastewater service capacity is not available. Since no
ERU's for water and wastewater have been reserved as yet, the
applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the county
which states that the developer agrees to expand county facilities
or pay for the expansion. This agreement must be signed prior to
final consideration of this item by the Board of County
Commissioners. Also, the developer must pay 5% of the impact fees
required for the development of the site based upon the number of
units permitted by the approved zoning of the property. With these
conditions, the utility concurrency test would be met for the
subject request.
Solid waste service includes
disposal at the county landfill.
has a 5 year capacity, and th
beyond 2010.
- Drainage
pickup by private operators and
The active segment of the -landfill
e landfill has expansion capacity
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any
development review will be required to maintain a pre-existing
discharge rate for the design storm. Together, these regulations
limit the potential for on-site and off-site flooding and damage.
As with all development, a more detailed review will -be conducted
during the development approval.
- Recreation
Not applicable for commercial land use development.
ANALYSIS
In assessing this request, three major issues must be addressed.
These are the compatibility with the surrounding area, consistency
with the comprehensive plan and concurrency of the public
facilities.
Compatibility with surrounding land uses is an important issue with
respect to this property. The subject property, as well as the
property directly north of the subject proerty, both contain
single-family homes; these are conforming uses in the RM -10 zoning
district. Changing the zoning to CG, General Commercial, as
requested by the applicant would create non -conforming single-
family residential uses.
A review of this land use amendment and rezoning with the future
land use element and its policies does reveal several
inconsistencies. The Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
��o�
DEC 111990 "'
8 I'A",E
� X99® BOOK ,E
Plan indicates that the county's availability of commercially
designated land already exceeds that which will be needed from the
present through the year 2010. The land use element also indicates
that the existing Commercial/ Industrial Areas or Corridors contain
approximately 829 acres of vacant land; this constitutes 38 percent
of all the land in the commercial/ industrial corridor. These
numbers indicate that the county currently has a surplus of
commercial land available for development and does not need
additional lands designated commercial.
It appears that the applicant's request for a land use change
relates to the existence of commercial uses abutting the site.
However, if this request to change the zoning and land use
designation can be justified, then so can a request to make the
property north of this site commercial as well. Such action could
result in a commercial designation domino effect along Indian River
Boulevard. It has been county policy to restrict further
commercial designation along the boulevard.
In reviewing this request, one of the most important policies to
consider is Future Land Use policy 13.3. That policy requires that
one of 'three criteria be met in order to recommend approval of a
land use amendment. These criteria are: an oversight in the
approved plan, a mistake in the approved plan, or a substantial
change in circumstances affecting the subject property. The staff
is of the opinion that this land use amendment and rezoning request
does„not meet any of the three criteria as stated above.
CONCLUSION
Public facility concurrency requirements are important factors in
evaluating any land use amendment or rezoning request. Concurrency
requirements, however, are not the only criteria. Unlike other
comprehensive plan policies, though, concurrency requirements by.
themselves can be a reason for denial of a request. Even if all
other comprehensive plan policies are satisfied by a request,, 'a
lack of concurrency would be a reason for denial.
In this case concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste and
potable water can be satisfied with the proposed amendment.
Although capacity for wastewater services is not presently in _
place, the applicant's execution of a developer's agreement to
ensure that these facilities will be provided would meet the
concurrency test. Despite such a positive concurrency finding in
this instance, other plan policies fail to support approval of the t
request. _
Specifically, inconsistencies with the adopted comprehensive plan
and its policies in the Future Land Use Element as described in
detail in the above analysis section warrant denial of this
proposed land use amendment and rezoning. The subject property is
located in an area designated for medium density residential
development and based on staff's analysis this request does not --
warrant a change in that designation.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners deny transmittal of the land use amendment to
DCA for their review and deny the request to rezone the property.
112
M M M
- M
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that
staff is recommending denial on this request. The big issue we
see here is that this Comp Plan amendment request does not meet
any of the 3 criteria set out in Policy 1�.3 to change the land
use. Essentially, the applicants' contention before the P&Z was
that since the property to the south and to the west is
designated as commercial, their property should have that
designation also. However, staff's position is that the property
east and to the north has a residential designation, and if this
piece is rezoned to commercial, it would be a valid argument for
rezoning the adjacent property to the north and thereby causing a
domino affect. Staff feels that current ordinances and
requirements provide requirements for sufficient amounts of
buffering to try to reduce any adverse circumstances where zoning
district boundary lines occur, and that it is a fact of life that
there is going to be a point at which commercial and residential
meet, whether it is at this property or the property to the
north. Therefore, staff doesn't see an issue here that would
warrant a change in the land use designation. Given the fact
that this property has the highest residential density available
in the county, staff feels the present designation is appropriate
for this property. Therefore, staff is recommending denial of
this land use amendment request.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that there is commercial to
the south and to the west and that staff has chosen to recommend
going with the character of the land to the east and to the
north. He hoped that staff would remember that in the future
with regard to that whole corridor.
Commissioner Bird asked if the property in orange was
designated as commercial under the old Comp Plan and zoned that
way, and whether that was taken away now in the new Comp Plan.
Planner Cheryl Tworek explained that the property shown west
of the diagonal line had a commercial land use designation, but
DEC 111990 , , 3NOK ,
k 1
BOOK � � F'AGE
DEC 11 199®
was zoned RM -10, and when we changed the Comp Plan, it was
squared off and not included as commercially designated land.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Warren Dill, attorney representing several of the applicants
in this request who are the grandchildren of the people who
settled the subject property in 1916, emphasized that these
people have been paying commercial taxes on this property for
years.
Chairman Eggert understood that part of the property was
rezoned residential and part was zoned commercial, and Attorney
Dill wished to impress upon the Board that they really are not
asking for everything they had before, but just trying to get
back maybe to where they were before, in part, and maybe move
ahead a little bit. The location of the property is very
critical to their presentation in that over 50 percent of the
property is adjacent to heavy commercial and industrial uses.
He noted that Wal-Mart was built on a high elevation and the
6 -ft. fence behind the store doesn't do much good. When the
Kennedy Groves are doing their processing, the smell can get a
little intensive, which is not really conducive to an adjacent
residential use. Attorney Dill noted that his clients believe
that there are some really important factors that were not
imparted to the PSZ Commission. Namely, his clients are not land
speculators. His clients' mother is 82 years old and lives on
the site, and quite frankly, these folks cannot continue to
maintain this property as their homestead. Just last year a
shoplifter at Wal-Mart climbed over the fence, came through their
yard and got into the grandmother's home, and it was a very
terrorizing experience. It is unfortunate that some very
oldtimers in the community are forced to move out because of
growth, but that is what happens and that is a fact of life.
Attorney Dill realized that a tremendous amount of effort
and time went into creating the new Comp Plan, but everything
114
isn't always perfect on the first go around. His clients believe
there was a possible oversight when staff did their study of this
particular area and established the line between residential and
commercial, and wish to suggest that this line be moved slightly
northward. With respect to compatibility, his clients have to
look at all the merchandise containers and trash bins in back of
Wal-Mart. In this case, there is virtually no protection or
buffering from Wal-Mart and the idling diesel trucks. Attorney
Dill emphasized that his clients feel their property is not
really suitable for residential use, and if they are not
fortunate to find someone who wants to build apartments in there,
they may never have use of that property.
Commissioner Bird was mainly concerned about the domino
effect if this property was rezoned to residential, and suggested
that the property be zoned CL (Light Commercial) as a transition
between residential and heavy commercial.
Director Keating advised that PRO (Professional Office
District) is allowed in residential land use districts if it
meets the criteria.
Chairman Eggert had a problem with doing this as.something
that was overlooked, because she recalled that this subject came
up a number of times during the Comp Plan discussions. She
didn't have a problem with PRO zoning, however.
Comnissioner Bird couldn't visualize professional offices
being built in that location behind the packing house and in the
backyard of Wal-Mart.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there is a 600 ft. depth of
commercial zoning running all along that U.S. #1 corridor to the
north, which he understood was the purpose of drawing that line
between residential and commercial.
Discussion ensued with respect to the criteria for allowing
PRO in residential districts, and Director Keating confirmed that
the PRO zoning could be established in this particular
residential district.
�y `� BOCK F
's G�"{
! 099® ri�C �yr�
Commissioner Wheeler asked if sufficient buffering would be
provided under a CL zoning, and Director Keating explained that
it would have a C-type buffering, which is a 6 feet of opaque
buffering.
Commissioner Bird stated that he would support CL as a
transitional zoning, and Attorney Dill asked that the Board table
this matter until later in the meeting in order to give him some
time to confer with his clients.
r.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board tabled his matter
until later in the meeting.
PUBLIC HEARING - STIKELETHER REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND REZONE ±0.32 ACRES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/90:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Obert M. Keaf, g, SCP
~'441Community De ve opmeifit Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani '1► • _
Chief, Long Range Planning
FROM: Cheri J. Boudreaux Ci
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: December 3, 1990
SUBJECT: GRAHAM W. STIKELETHER, JR. REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE ± 0.32 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of December 11, 1990. _
116
_bESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: e
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is located on the southwest corner
of Old Dixie Highway and 14th Place S.W. and is presently owned by
Dale and Lucille Rockwell. The request includes ± 0.32•*acres,
which includes Lots 4 and 5 of Block U, Dixie Heights Subdivision.
The request entails changing the existing land use from L-2, Low -
Density Residential (up to 6 units per acre) to _
Commercial/ Industrial Area, and rezoning the property from RS -6,
Single -Family Residential District (6 units/1 acre) to CH, Heavy
Commercial District. This request is considered an expansion of
the Commercial/Industrial Area between Old Dixie Highway and U.S.
#1 in the South Relief Canal to the South County Line
Commercial/Industrial Corridor area.
The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use
designation and zoning for a proposed mini -warehouse facility,
which would be an expansion of an existing mini -warehouse facility
located on the property.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
applicant's request as recommended by staff. The Planning and
Zoning Commission recommended to include the entire block "U" of
the Dixie Heights Subdivision, (1.20± acres) in the South Relief
Canal to south county line commercial/industrial corridor.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District and contains mini -warehouses and undeveloped property.
The parcels,south of the subject property are also zoned RS -6 and
contain four mobile homes. The west side of the subject property
is zoned RS -6 and contains some commercial uses.
The parcels located in the block north and south of the subject
property are zoned RS -6 and are currently undeveloped. Land to the
east of the subject property and Old Dixie Highway is zoned CH,
Heavy Commercial, and is currently undeveloped. The parcels
located in the block west of the subject property are zoned RS -6
and contain single-family residential homes as well as some vacant
lots. _
Future and Use Pattern
The subject property is designated L-2, Low Density, on the county
future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential
densities up to 6 units per acre. All property to the west, north
and south is also designated L-2. Property to the east, across Old
Dixie Highway, is designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial, which
permits commercial and industrial zoning designations.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor .is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
9Q 117
BOOK 1.0
J
POOK
DEC I 11990",
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county, and County
water lines extend to the site; however, sewer lines do not extend
to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts Old Dixie Highway to the east and 14th Place
S.W. to. the north. Old Dixie Highway is classified as a collector
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of
Old Dixie Highway is a two lane paved road with approximately 35
feet of existing public road right-of-way. 14th Place S.W. has a
local road classification and has approximately 50-60 feet of road
right-of-way and is a two lane paved roadway.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of the potential, impacts on surrounding areas,
potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and
any significant adverse impacts on environmental quality. This
section will also consider alternatives,for development of the
site.
Compatibility with Existing Services and Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to -ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level
of service "C" or better would not be lowered. A typically
high traffic generator type of development which could be
built in the CH district is estimated to generate less than
535 trips per day. The actual number of trips would depend on
the total square footage and the exact mix of uses. A
standard two-lane road can accommodate approximately 13,000
trips per day. Based upon a staff analysis, it was determined
that Old Dixie Highway and other roadways serving the project
can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their
existing levels of service. A more detailed review of
transportation impacts will be required as part of the
development review process.
- Utilities
The site is within the urban service area, and there are water
lines available to the site. Wastewater lines, however, are
not available at this time. Water service capacity is
available at this time; however, wastewater service capacity
is not available.
Since no ERU's for water and wastewater have been reserved as
yet, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement
with the county which states that the developer agrees to
expand county facilities or pay for their expansion --to meet
the needs of his development. This agreement must be signed
prior to final consideration of this item by the Board of
County Commissioners. Also, the developer must pay 5% of
the amount of utility impact fees associated with maximum site
118
M M M
� ® r
development based upon the number of units or intensity of
development permitted by the approved zoning of the property.
With these conditions, the utility concurrency test would be
met for the subject request.
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the
landfill has a 5 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion
capacity beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county
stormwater regulations which require on-site retention,
preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor
elevations. In addition, development proposals will have to
meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater
Management Ordinance. Any development review will be required
to maintain a pre-existing discharge rate for the design
storm. Together, these regulations limit the potential for
on-site and off-site flooding and damage. As with all
development, a more detailed review will be conducted during
the development approval. - —
- Recreation
Not applicable for commercial land use development.
ANALYSIS
In assessing this request, three major issues must be addressed.
These are the compatibility with the surrounding area, consistency
with the comprehensive plan, and concurrency of public facilities.
Compatibility with surrounding land uses is an important issue
concerning this property. The existing adjacent land uses to the
south and west of the subject property are non -conforming uses in
the current zoning district (RS -6). Changing the zoning to CH
would lessen the existing non -conformities. Some of the existing
uses, such as the mini -warehouse facility, have been in place for
over 10 years.
The purpose and intent of the Heavy Commercial District is to
provide areas for establishments engaging in wholesale trade, major
repair services and restricted light manufacturing activities. In
addition, the district permits a variety of commercial uses
including: business and commercial services; eating and drinking
establishments; furniture and appliance sales; and vehicular sales,
service and storage.
Staff recognizes that the property in question may not be suitable
for single-family residential development, due to its location,
size, and existing non -conforming uses. Although in the past the
staff has opposed extending commercial to the west side of Old
Dixie Highway, this situation is unique because the small size of
the subject property and its location with respect to existing non-
conforming uses make it unfeasible for single-family residential
development. With property across Old Dixie Highway to the east
designated as Commercial/Industrial on the county's land use map,
and zoned CH, there is additional justification for the request.
In reviewing this request, the staff determined that it would be
appropriate to amend the land use and zoning for the entire Block
(U), not just the ±0.32 acres requested by the applicant. The
entire block is ±1:20 acres in size.
This land use change and rezoning does require a change .to the
adopted Future Land Use Map in the county's Comprehensive Plan.
However, a review of these changes does not reveal any
inconsistencies with the Future Land Use Element or other
Comprehensive Plan element policies.
119
nor
DEC i 1 1990
BOOK: �� f'AuE �..�
Probably the most important policy to consider is Future Land Use
Policy 13.3. That policy requires that one of three criteria be
met in order to approve a land use plan amendment.- These criteria
are: an oversight in the approved plan, a mistake in the approved
plan, or a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property. The staff is of the opinion that this land use
amendment and rezoning request is warranted based on an oversight
which occurred when the county rezoned this property as part of the
1985 county -wide rezoning changes. The subject property was- zoned
C-1, Commercial, and in 1985 the county rezoned the property to its
current zoning, RS -6, as part of the rezoning of the residential
Dixie Heights Subdivision, which is located just west of the
property. The comprehensive plan land use designation was then
established based on the residential zoning of the site.
Future Land Use Policy 1.23 requires 70% of the land area in a node
or commercial/ industrial corridor area to be developed or approved
for development before it can be considered for expansion. Under
typical circumstances Future 'Land Use Policy 1.23 is a major
consideration in reviewing whether land use and zoning changes are
warranted; however, due to staff's determination of the previous
oversight in the rezoning and land use change made in 1985, the 70%
criterion stated in Policy 1.23 is not applicable.
CONCLUSION
Public facility concurrency requirements are important factors in
evaluating any land use amendment or rezoning request. Concurrency
requirements, however, are not the only criteria. Unlike other
comprehensive plan policies, though, concurrency requirements by
themselves can be a reason for denial of a request. Even if all
other comprehensive plan policies are satisfied, a lack of
concurrency would be a reason for denial.
In this case concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste and
potable water can be satisfied for the proposed land use amendment.
Though capacity for wastewater services is not presently in place,
the applicant's execution of a developer's agreement to ensure that
these facilities will be provided would meet the concurrency test.
The subject property is located in an area designated for low
density single-family residential development; however, the
property's location, size, existing land use and adjacent land uses
are not compatible with single-family development. The proposed
change in land use and zoning would be consistent with county
policies, and with the proper buffering be compatible with the
surrounding land uses.
RECOMMENDA2!ION
Based on the analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners:
* Authorize the staff to transmit an amendment to the
Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs which would:
La
amend the Future Land Use Map as depicted in
Attachment #3 which expands the Commercial/
Industrial area between Old Dixie Highway and U.S.
#1 in the South Relief Canal to South County Line
Commercial/ Industrial Corridor area to 202±_ acres
by including 1.20± acres;
Announce their intention to hold a final public hearing
concerning this matter.
120
Community Development Director Robert Keating explained that
this particular block on Old Dixie Highway is very unusual in
that there is not one conforming use on the entire block. Since
it was zoned RS' -6 when staff was doing the new Comp Plan, it was
given a LD -2 land use designation like all the -land there which
is consistent with everything else in Dixie Heights Subdivision.
However, there is one undeveloped lot on the block that can be
used only for a single-family detached unit under the RS -6
zoning. When staff applied the 3 criteria for a land use change
under Policy x.3.3 they felt there was an oversight in the
initial Comp Plan preparation in that it really doesn't give an
opportunity to develop that one small lot on Block U. Staff
realized that it wouldn't be appropriate to designate just the
0.32 acres, so they looked at redesignating the entire block.
The PSZ Commission went along with changing the entire
designation on the entire block, and the advertising for the
public hearing was changed to include the entire block.
Concurrency requirements have been met with the exception of a
developer's agreement for utilities and the payment of 50. Since
it was an oversight, staff recommends approval.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the transmittal of the Stikelether request to amend
the land use map by expanding the Commercial/Industrial
area between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. #1 from the
South Relief Canal to the south county line Commercial/
Industrial corridor area to 202± acres by including
1.20± acres, and announced their intention to hold a
final public hearing concerning this matter, as
recommended by staff.
DEC 11 `990
121 L",s� �5
POOx
BOOK 8? N, UH 24
CONTINUATION OF PUBLIC HEARING - BETTY F. McCRAE ET AL REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMP PLAN ±6.8 ACRES AND REZONE ±4.3 ACRES (Postponed
from earlier in this meeting)
Chairman Eggert was concerned about the domino effect in
going to CL (Light Commercial), because even with CL, that
property could be sold to Wal-Mart and become a parking lot.
Attorney Dill advised that he had conferred with his clients
and while they really prefer Commercial, they realize the Board's
concerns and have agreed to amend their request from CG (General
Commercial) to CL (Light Commercial), which is a limited
commercial use.
Bill Nelson, 230 14th Street, raised the issue of access to
Indian River Boulevard along that stretch, and Commissioner
Scurlock recalled that the County acquired some right-of-way
along that property and an agreement was reached whereby that
property and the property to the north would share an access to
Indian River Boulevard.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that the agreement states that
the two existing houses on those properties have to share an
access to the Boulevard.
Attorney Dill asked for clarification on the access to his
clients' property, and Commissioner Scurlock further explained
that the agreement reached through negotiation on the
right-of-way acquisition was that it guaranteed them access to
the two properties, the subject property and the property to the
north, and whether there is one person or 100 people there, they
have access.
Attorney Dill understood then that if they have a
predetermined access location, whatever use goes on the property
will have to coordinate through that access.
Commissioner Bird felt we will cross that bridge when we
come to it, and Attorney Dill agreed.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
122
t
M
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board approve
transmittal of the Betty McCrae et at request to amend
the land use map from M-2, Medium -Density Residential
to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, and announce the
intention to hold a final public hearing on the land
use designation at which time the modified request for
CL zoning would be considered.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock asked for
confirmation that CL is considered a transitional usage between
residential and general commercial, and Director Keating
confirmed that it is.
Chairman Eggert stated that she would not vote for the
Motion because she did not believe it has met the three criteria
for a land use change under Policy 1.33. She stressed that we
did look at it and it was not something we rushed over.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was
voted on and passed by a 4-1 vote, Chairman Eggert
dissenting.
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION 90-183 APPROVING TRANSMITTAL OF LAND USE
AMENDMENTS TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock,. SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 90-183, approving the transmittal of the
proposed amendments to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department
of Community Affairs for their review.
DEC 111990 123 eoo� F ,r � 4 Z
v
BOOK U— 4e��
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 183
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs
issued a statement of intent to find the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan not in compliance on April 9, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners on September 26, _
1990 approved a compliance agreement between Indian River County
and the Department of Community Affairs, which compliance agreement
specified remedial actions designed to bring the county's plan into
compliance, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to
initiate comprehensive plan amendments to accomplish the remedial
actions specified in the compliance agreement, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners authorized the
intervenors of the comprehensive plan administrative hearing
process to submit comprehensive plan amendment applications for
consideration concurrent with the remedial actions amendments, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1990 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
these comprehensive plan amendments except for # 2.a.2, 2.f, and
2.g. as listed in this resolution to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a -Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
124
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 183
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendments to the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan are approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment.
a. 1. Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
to adopt the remedial actions required by
the Indian River County/DCA Compliance
Agreements. This request includes
amendments to the Future Land Use Map,
Future Land Use Element, Housing Element,
Conservation Element, Capital
Improvements Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Element and Potable Water Sub -Element.
2. Alternative "1": In addition to the
changes requested in l.a. above, a
request to amend the Future Land Use Map
by adjusting the densities in the south
county area along 43rd Avenue, and
adjusting the urban service area
boundary.
b. Request to create a mixed use floating land
use designation for properties having an
agricultural designation.
c. Request to amend the land use map by expanding
the boundary of the Urban Service Area west of
I-95, east of 104th Avenue and between State
Road 60 and 4th Street to be consistent with
the Utility Service areas.
d. Request to create a new conservation land use
(C-3) for privately owned upland and xeric
scrub property in the area surrounding the St.
Sebastian River and amending the Land Use and
Conservation Elements and the land use map.
.
e. Request to amend the Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node to L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre) for a 14±
acre parcel located south of 77th Street, west
of the FEC Railroad R/W.
f. Request to amend the Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node for a ±4.83 acre
parcel located on the north side of Oslo Road
just west of the 27th Avenue/Oslo Road
intersection.
g. Request to amend the Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from M-2, Medium Density
Residential (up to 10 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node for a ± 6.8 acre
parcel located on the west side of Indian
River Boulevard just north of the 4th Street
and U.S. #1 intersection.
DEC 111990
125 n4`1r 411
DEC, 11 199Q,
em 82 r,,cr245
RESOLUTION NO. 90- 183
h. Request to amend the Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/Industrial Node for a 1.2 acre
parcel located on Block "U" of Dixie Heights
Subdivision on Old Dixie Highway.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Scurlock and seconded by Commissioner WhPPlar and
upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Maggy Bowman Aye
Commissioner Dick Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 1 1 day of December,
1990.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: C lz.eg
Carolyn Y.
Eggert, airman
ATTESL..Je
f KUarton, Clerk
„ j,
u\v\c\cpres
126
Da ie
Approved_
jkM
126
Da ie
LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FARM BUREAU
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/4/90:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: December 4, 1990 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler ��
County Administrato
LICENSE AGREEMENT
SUBJECT: BETWEEN THE COUNTY
& THE INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY FARM BUREAU
FROM Randy Dowling
•. Asst to County AdministratoREFERENCES:
BACKGROUND
The Board of County Commissioners, during its April 3, .1990 regular
meeting, granted conceptual approval to the Indian River County Farm Bureau
to construct a 31,850 square foot Livestock/ Agricultural Building on the
County's fairground property. Once constructed, the Farm Bureau would
donate. the building to the County. The Board also authorized the Farm
Bureau• to proceed with site plan approval, authorized $36,288.80 from the
General Fund contingency account for direct funding, authorized the Road
and Bridge Division to perform $61,500 worth of in-kind services, and
authorized staff to finalize the license agreement between the County and the
Farm Bureau and bring the agreement back to the Board for formal approval.
CURRENT
The project's site plan was approved by the Planning and Zoning Board on
April 12, 1990. The license agreement has been finalized and ready for
execution.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff ' recommends the Board Chairman execute the license agreement and -
approve the budget amendment.
JEC/RD/mg
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the license agreement with the Indian River County
Farm Bureau regarding a livestock/agricultural building
on the County's fairgrounds property, and authorized
the Chairman's signature.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
V, Tot Members of the Board SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER: 006
FROM: Joseph A. Bai` DATE:
OMB Director November 1990
1.27
DEC 11 19S
DEC 111990 BOOK`S F,,�cr 2 d
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION ALONG 41ST STREET FROM WASTEWOOD
RECYCLERS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/30/90:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Dir ecto --7
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA T`
Right -of -Way Acquisition Agent
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Acquisition/41st Street/
Wastewood Recyclers
DATE: November 30, 1990
-------------------------------------------------------------
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Forty Feet (401) of additional right-of-way needs to be
purchased along 41st Street by Indian River County. The
developer is dedicating thirty feet (301) on the site plan.
There is an existing 30' right-of-way at this location.
100' feet of right-of-way is required by the Comprehensive
Plan. The 40' width x 132.89' frontage contains 5,316
square feet at .570 per square foot and equates to a
purchase price of $3,030. The seller has executed the
attached contract for the right-of-wayto be purchased,
but the Attorney's office would like o prepare a better contract..
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff request authorization to purchase the 400 x 132.89'
additional right-of-way at a cost not to exceed $3,030 and
requests the chairman of the Board of County Commissioners
sign the realty contract: when completed by the Attorney's
office.
Funding to be from Impact Fee Fund #101-158-541
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the purchase of 40' x 132.89' additional right-of-way
at a cost not to exceed $3,030 and authorized the
Chairman's signature on the realty contract and
warranty deed when completed by the Attorney's Office,
as recommended by staff.
WARRANTY DEED IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
128
M
M
OSLO ROAD AND 27TH AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION -- OSLO
PLAZA ASSOCIATES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/4,/90:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Oslo Road and 27th Avenue
Right-of-way Acquisition
- Oslo Plaza Associates
REF.LETTER: Steve L. Henderson to Jim Davis dated 12/3/90
DATE: December 4, 1990 FILE: osloplz.agn -
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Oslo Plaza Associates is proceeding through site plan
application to construct a shopping center at the NW corner
of Oslo Road and 27th Avenue. The County Thoroughfare Plan
designates both Oslo Road and 27th Avenue as arterial routes
(130' R/W plus additional 12' along 27th Avenue at the 27th
Avenue/Oslo Road intersection for a left turn lane).
Existing 50' wide right-of-way's exists along the site's
27th Avenue and Oslo Road frontages. As a result, the
developer is requested to set aside right-of-way as follows:
Oslo Road - 80' R 957.7' = 76,616 sf = 1.76 acres
27th Avenue - 49' R 464' = 22,736 sf = .52 acres
Approx. 99,352 sf 2.28 acres
A portion of this right-of-way, particularly 10' along Oslo
Road and 5' along 27th Avenue (a total of 12,247 sf), is
required to be deeded to the County to satisfy the minimum
60' wide local road right-of-way requirement.
At this time, the developer and County staff have agreed to
propose a purchase/Traffic Impact fee credit agreement for
the remaining 87,105 sf of needed right-of-way area. The
proposed agreement is as follows
Total Purchase Price - 87,105 sf R $2.25/sf - $ 195,986
Phase I Traffic Impact Fee Credits - Zone 6 -119,536
to developer
Subtotal
$ 77,450
Cash from District 6 Traffic Impact Fee Fund -$ 50,000
Phase II TIF Credit to developer $ 27,450
The developer has submitted an appraisal (copy attached)
which establishes a value of $2.52/sf in a pre -development
condition.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Staff has negotiated the above agreement in a good faith,
arms length manner. The alternatives presented are as
follows:
V 19960 1 2 9 E�UO� F'gGc
DEC I I .
BOOK 82 FAGF. X40
Alternative # 1
Approve the above purchase agreement for the 87,105 sf
right-of-way parcel at a cost of approximately
$195,986. Funding to be Zone 6 Impact Fee Credit for
Phase I, Oslo Plaza in the amount of $118,536, cash
payment by County in the amount of $50,000 from Zone 6
Traffic Impact Fees, and a remaining Traffic Impact Fee
credit in the amount of $27,450 for Phase II of the
Oslo Plaza Project.
Alternative #2
Do not approve the above stated negotiated offer.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Alternative 1 is recommended whereby the County Commission
approve _the Oslo Road and 27th Avenue. Right -of -Way
acquisition for a cost of $195,986. Funding to be from Zone
6 Traffic Impact Fees (Credits and $50,000 cash purchase).
Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Oslo Plaza
Associates, noted that there is an item in staff's memo that has
to do with the balance of the $27,450 for the traffic impact fee
credit. He had talked to Public Works Director Jim Davis about
having that payment deferred so they could use that money for
utilities impact fees rather than traffic impact fees on Phase
II.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that we are deferring
payment on $27,000 because we don't have money to pay him, and
Administrator Chandler confirmed that we don't have enough money
in the District 6 Traffic Impact Fee Fund, not with our other
commitments within that area.
Attorney Vitunac explained that right now they have a credit
and the County can pay it back with cash next week or anytime and
solve the whole thing, but Commissioner Scurlock didn't want us
to get in a position of deferring payment just to cut a deal to
get this right-of-way and to get what other approval we have had
today. He felt we should either find the money or borrow it,
because just last week we had a little thing we went to Court on.
Attorney Henderson noted that, in effect, the County is
borrowing from the developer, but Commissioner Scurlock didn't
feel that was right.
130
Attorney Vitunac felt there is no problem with giving them
the credit now with the understanding that we will buy the credit
back with cash as soon as Director Davis gets the cash. He
pointed out that the Board can make him get the cash as soon as
possible.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if we would be paying interest
on the $27,000, and Attorney Henderson advised that OMB Director
Joe Baird had indicated that the County could pay the average
investment rate.
Commissioner Scurlock still maintained that it is not right,
that it would be an extraction, but Attorney Vitunac felt it
would be okay if the developer agrees.
Commissioner Scurlock didn't wonder that he would agree,
since it would be like we were holding a gun to his head. He
believed it would be wrong, and since we --.have gotten into trouble
in the past in these matters, he wanted to stop doing it.
Director Davis explained that we have some funds in the
District 6 Traffic Impact Fee Fund, but they are set aside for
construction. We don't know what the revenues will be next year,
and we don't want to put ourselves in a tight cash flow where we
are simply buying right-of-way and cannot build an improvement.
Director Davis advised that Attorney Henderson didn't get back to
us about the cash payment until after the staff recommendation
was prepared. Personally, he would prefer that the impact fee
credit arrangement run with the land.
Attorney Henderson advised that Phase II, is scheduled to be
built in two years, but Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that
the second phase of many projects were never built in this
county. He believed if we are going to take a man's property and
don't have the money to pay for it, we should borrow it and pay
the man what we owe him.
Director Davis confirmed that we could borrow the money from
the gas tax revenues.
C 11 199® 131
U
r- -1
DEC I 1990 eoa� ra,t 951
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, that the Board approve Alternative
#1, as set out in staff's recommendation, and pay the
owner $27,450, even if we have to borrow from other
funds to pay for it.
Under discussion, Director Davis explained that the
alternative to this is to deny approval for the development when
it comes in.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that his Motion to pay the man
what we owe him still stands.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
WARRANTY DEED IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
9TH AVENUE WATER MAIN INSTALLATION -- FINAL PAYMENT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/4/90:
DATE:
DECEMBER 4, 1990
TO:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR O TIL V3CES
PREPARED
H. D. " TER, .E.
AND STAFFED
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY:
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
9TH AVENUE WATER MAIN INSTALLATION
FINAL PAYMENT
IRC PROJECT NO. (UW-89-09WEST=DS)
BACKGROUND
The subject project for installation of a water main to service
residents of 9th Avenue has been completed and has been accepted by
the Department of Utility Services.
ANALYSIS t
The Board of County Commissioners approved funding of $11,700.00 for
this project on June 26, 1990, and the Contractor is now requesting
payment.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the attached request for payment in the amount of $11,700.00 for _
services rendered.
132
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Derrico Construction Corporation's request for final
payment in the amount of $11,700 for services rendered,
as recommended by staff.
FINAL PAYMENT (CHANGE ORDER NO. 1) IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
OCEAN BLUFF SUBDIVISION WATER MAIN EXTENSION - CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
TO SUMMERPLACE CONTRACT (PHASE TWO)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/90:
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. CAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL P TS E NEER
BY: DEPART M M U ITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: OCEAN BLUFUSUBDIVISION WATER MAIN
EXTENSION, CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 TO THE
SUMMERPLACE CONTRACT (PHASE TWO) ----
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -89 -09 -WEST -DS
BACKGROUND
In August of 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved Change
Order No. 2 with Derrico Construction Corporation in the amount of
$9,790.00.
ANALYSIS
Per Change Order No. 2, a lump sum amount for this work was
negotiated, and is now due the contractor. Attached please find
copies of the pay request and release of liens. The maintenance
bond for this work is covered in the bond for the Summerplace job.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Cervices recommends payment
to Derrico Construction Corporation in the amount of $9,790.00.
DEC 11 1990 133
Boor: {y� ply
fti1UL�)
DEC 111990 eaoK P4't' �5
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
payment to Derrico Construction Corporation in the
amount of $9,790, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD
SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT EXPANSION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/90:
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. TpS
AND.STAFFED CAPITAL PRO NGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT TILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY REVERSE OSMOSIS PLANT
EXPANSION
BACKGROUND
The addition of two 1.5 million gallon per day reverse osmosis
processing units is currently ongoing at the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant. Due to the necessity of another upcoming expansion
to meet the County's new concurrency plan, we now wish to proceed
j with a well field expansion.
ANALYSIS
To complete the current Phase of expansion (identified as Phase I in
the Master Plan), we need to add two additional wells -at the_ plant.
The estimated construction cost of the wells is $125,000.00, with
engineering services to be negotiated following engineering
selection. We are now requesting to advertise and select a
hydrogeological consulting firm for this project.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services requests approval of
solicitation of proposals from a qualified firm for the
aforementioned project.
134
_ M M
Chairman Eggert wished to know how wide an area they are
going out to in hunting for wells, and Utilities Director Terry
Pinto explained that part of the reason they are asking to hire
the consultant is to determine that. Through the permitting
process, they have to do all the investigation to look at the*
surrounding wells and our own wells.
Chairman Eggert explained that the reason she asked is that
the County's well did have an effect on the water systems clear
up to John Tippins' nursery, to say nothing of next door.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that we had a hydrological
evaluation that proved that was not the case, and that found that
the pump was set at the wrong level.
Director Pinto advised that the consultant will go in and do
the same type of study to make sure that the new wells don't
affect the surrounding properties.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled very clearly that the
evaluation said no impact, but Chairman Eggert interjected that
the fact that there was no impact wasn't true. She reiterated
that it was impacting next door and impacting clear up to John
Tippins, which is a long way.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the hydrologist
addressed those issues and said that was not the case, that their
problems resulted from other things not associated with that
well.
Chairman Eggert didn't believe that was the case, because
there was nothing wrong with the pump, but Commissioner Scurlock
emphasized that is what the report said and the Board accepted
the report.
Chairman Eggert felt that just because the Board accepted
it, doesn't mean it was accurate, and that was before she was on
the Board. USGS said that it was, indeed, affecting it.
However, she understood that Director Pinto wouldn't be allowing
any more affectations with this.
DEC 111990 1 3 5 BOOK. F'AuC `�
D E C 111990
�OOK F,1.
a 82 �C 255
Director Pinto explained that the whole reason we are asking
to hire the consultant is to look at those items, and Chairman
Eggert interjected that she hoped this evaluation would be done
by a different consultant and be totally accurate.
Corrmissioner Scurlock stressed that we have to go through a
selection process.
Chairman Eggert still questioned the accuracy of the first
consultant's report.
Commissioner Bowman felt it all depends on how low they site
the wells, but Chairman Eggert noted that the wells were there
before.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that if they had any cause of
action against the County, they should have taken it.
Director Pinto advised that although the study showed that
our well did not have any effect on the existing wells, it showed
that there was a drawdown in the entire area. However, the
drawdown wasn't sufficient to cause the problems that were
supposed to have occurred next door.
Chairman Eggert pointed out that the drawdown just happened
to occur when the extra 2 million gallons went on, but
Commissioner Scurlock believed that water levels could be
affected by many other factors.
Director Pinto explained that when we go through the
permitting and design of the new wells, all those things will be
looked at starting from scratch. No former information will be
taken under consideration, and Commissioner Scurlock added that
we do that to protect us if there is a cause of action against
US.
Director Pinto further explained that when we do the
studies, we will have to be very concerned about drawdown even on
our other wells.
136
® M M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
staff's recommendation to send out requests for
proposal.
SEWER FORCE MAIN ON OSLO ROAD FROM U.S.#1 WEST TO TIMBER RIDGE
TENNIS RANCH
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/90:
DATE: DECEMBER 3, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRAT
FROM: TERRANCE G. PIN
DIRECTOR OF UTI L SERVICES _
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAWLZASERVICES
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECT
BY: DEPARTMENT OF U
SUBJECT: SEWER FORCE MAIN ON OSLO ROAD FROM U. S. 1 WEST TO
TIMBER RIDGE TENNIS RANCH
In keeping with the master planned expansion of our sewer collection
system, we now plan to design and construct the aforementioned sewer
force main. We are requesting to do this as a joint project with
the Public Works Department. Public Works currently has the firm of
Kimley-Horn under contract to design a road -widening project in the
same.area.
ANALYSIS
The cost of the project is estimated to be $250,000.00, with
proposed engineering fees of $20,700.00 (see attached Amendment No.
2 for details of services). This contract will be Amendment No. 2
to an existing agreement with Public Works, entitled Work Order No.
2 (on record with the Clerk of Court). Funding for this project
will come from the Impact Fee Fund.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of Amendment No. 2 with Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.
137 Boor
DEG 111990
DEC I ISM BOOK
Commissioner Scurlock understood that Kimley-Horn was
selected for the road improvement and assumed that they had the
necessary capabilities to do this work also, and Utilities
Director confirmed that they do for this specific project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved Amendment No. 2 with Kimley-Horn and
Associates, Inc., as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
LETTER OF AGREEMENT (AMENDMENT NO. 2) IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
THIRD MODIFICATION TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 WITH
KIMBALL/LLOYD, INC. FOR SURVEYING SERVICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/90:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
BACKGROUND
DECEMBER 3, 1990
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT /.
DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVIC
WILLIAM F. MICA 4
CAPITAL PROJECT E ER
DEPARTMENT OF UT SERVICES
THIRD MODIFICATION TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1
WITH KIMBALL/LLOYD,.INC. FOR SURVEYING SERVICES
In August 1990., the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a modification to Work Authorization No. 1
with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc. The modification was for surveying
services on 82nd Avenue, south of 4th Street, for the installation
of a sewer force main. In anticipation of serving the landfill and e
the state prison, the line now needs to be extended approximately `
13,750 feet.
138
ANALYSIS
We now wish to have the third modification to Kimball/Lloyd's Work
Authorization NQ. 1 approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
(See attached Work Authorization.) The upper limit for this work is
$4,450.00. The funding for this project will -come from Impact Fees
and the Landfill Capital Fund.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the third modification to Work
Authorization No. 1 with Kimball/Lloyd, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously approved
the third modification to Work Authorization No. 1 with
Kimball/Lloyd, Inc., as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
THIRD MODIFICATION TO WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1 IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 - NORTH COUNTY WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT
CONTRACT NO. 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/3/.90:
DATE: _. DECEMBER 3, 1990
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO,
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS E,I
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILIr VICES -
SUBJECT: CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 FOR THE NORTH COUNTY WWTP
CONTRACT NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -87 -25 -SC
BACKGROUND
The new North County Wastewater Treatment Plant is about to come on
line at Hobart Park. A final Change Order for this project has been
negotiated, and we are now coming to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval.
WK
139
t
DEC 11 A90
ANALYSIS t
The
following is a breakdown of additional serviJes required of the
con
1) Concrete sidewalk and steps 2,908.00
2) Additional building steel reinforcemen 456.00
3) Relocate emergency eye wash and 782.00
shower
4) Aluminimum cover over blowers ,400.00
5) Retaining wall at influent 650.00
structure
6) 1" diameter water line extension __. 69.00
TOTAL 365.00
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Change.Order No. 2 with Elkins
Constructors in the amount of $7,365.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 2 with Elkins Constructors in the
amount of $7,365, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
PERMISSION TO BRING JARVIS REZONING (6TH AVE. 8 8TH ST.) BACK TO
BOARD FOR RECONSIDERATION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/27/90:
Utilities --�—
Finance
TO: Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Other
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Robert M'. Keating, AICP 4A4k
Community'Development Director
DATE: November 27,-1990
SUBJECT: RECONSIDERATION OF JARVIS REZONING
As per your request, I checked with the staff regarding the status
of the JARVIS rezoning. According to the staff, no action has
occurred recently, and no discussions have been held with the
applicant.
140
In discussing this matter with the county attorney's office, I was
informed by Charles Vitunac that formal action by the board of.
county commissioners would be necessary to authorize
reconsideration of the rezoning. Either you or another
commissioner would have to request such board authorization. If so
authorized, then a public hearing could be advertised and held.
Until action is taken by the board, the staff cannot proceed with
this matter.•• If you decide to pursue reconsideration of the
board's denial of -this rezoning, please contact me.
TO: Commissioner Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sasan Rohani 5-112 .
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: December 10, 1990
RE: Jarvis Rezoning Request (ZC-292)
On August 14, 1990 the Board of County Commissioners voted 3 to 2
to deny the Jarvis rezoning request to rezone 1.95 acres at 8th
Street and 6th Avenue from RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential
District to CG, General Commercial District. .
In order to reconsider this rezoning, a formal action by the Board
of County Commissioners would be necessary. Upon the Board's
authorization, a public hearing could then be advertised and held.
The applicant has agreed to the following change to the original
application:
To put a conservation easement on the easterly 150 feet of the
property, from 6th Avenue a distance of 150 feet to the west,
before any consideration for the remainder of the property to be
rezoned to CG district. With a conservation easement, there will
be limits on what the applicant can do with this portion of the
property. This portion of the property could be used for
landscaping and a drainage retention/detention pond.
To meet the rezoning concurrency requirement, the applicant shall
provide the following additional documents:
* A new survey for the portion of the property requested to
be rezoned to CG .district; and
* A developer's agreement with the Utilities Department for
satisfying the concurrency requirement.
Although the county cannot approve a conditional rezoning, the
applicant has indicated that he understands that when he applies
for a site plan or any other development order, there will be no
access to 6th Avenue.
cc: Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development Director
141
"
BOOK ,'' „�
A
E C
1
BOOK F',1;E�.
Chairman Eggert
advised that when the Jarvis rezoning was
brought to the Board, it was denied by a 3-2 vote with
Commissioners Scurlock, Bowman, and herself voting against it.
She had said at the time that if certain buffering was set up and
there was no access, etc., she would have supported it. The
applicants now are agreeing to no access and putting in a
conservation easement on the easterly 150 feet of the property to
be used for buffering, and have asked her to ask the County
Commission if they were willing to readdress the rezoning.
Commissioner Bowman raised a point of order, because she
believed that the Board cannot reconsider it before a year has
elapsed, but Chairman Eggert explained that if a person who voted
against it initially asks that it be brought forward, it can be
looked at again in less than'a year. Otherwise, it must wait a
year.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that with the zoning rules
that the County Commission has been operating under, when
somebody comes in, they have one shot to put everything on the
table, and if it fails, they are supposed to wait one year before
they resubmit. He was concerned that this would set a precedent
that would allow individuals to come back anytime within a year
if they can convince one Commissioner to change his/her mind. As
one Commissioner, he would like to see us stick with the one shot
opportunity on a yearly basis. He felt we would be setting a
dangerous precedent if we allow things to be reconsidered just
because of some parlimentary procedure.
Chairman Eggert felt this request stemmed from the fact that
she had prestated her terms.
Reading from the Zoning Code, Attorney Vitunac advised that
the law does not allow a new application to be filed except one
year later. The only way this could be heard is if it is the
same application and if the Board decides that the Board has made
a mistake and would like to reconsider it. If they are doing
something different, then it is a new application.
142
M M M
Commissioner Bird believed the Board had reconsidered other
matters in the past, but not zonings.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding the merits and
drawbacks of following Robert's Rules of Order, and Commissioner
Wheeler suggested that since the Board has never adopted Robert's
Rules of Orders, we allow Mr. Krause to be heard in order to find
out what it is he wants to do.
Vernon Krause, applicant, explained that the reason he
didn't come down from Atlanta the day the Board heard his
rezoning request was because the Planning staff had felt it a
routine matter and expected it to be approved since the P&Z
Commission had recommended the rezoning. He was shocked when he
heard that the Board had turned it down. If he had been here
that day, he would have agreed to Chairman Eggert's conditions
for the 150 feet of buffering and no access. They then proceeded
to start the process again, and he didn't see any harm in
bringing it up for discussion again..
Attorney Vitunac asked Community Development Director Robert
Keating if he considered this the same zoning application, and
Director Keating stated that staff considers it the same zoning
application.
In that case, Attorney Vitunac felt that the majority of the
Board can vote to hear this again if there is proper
advertisement before the year is"out.
Ruth Chapman, 1450 5th Avenue, stated that she had a legal
opinion that the Board could not hear this again until a year had
elapsed, but Attorney Vitunac advised that is true if it is a new
application, but Director Keating is saying that it is not a new
one.
Commissioner Scurlock reiterated his concern that this would
set a precedent for reconsidering the same item before a year
has passed, and that is why he wanted to set some uniform game
rules to go by.
It doesn't have to be Robert's Rules, either.
143
UDEC 111990
DEC 111990
ROOF! !r, FAQ ti
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that one month ago, the Board
did adopt formal rules under Title I, which say that what the
Chairman says goes in routine matters unless questioned by
anyone. Any other matter is settled by a majority vote of the
Commission.
Commissioner Scurlock felt he was going to surprise everyone
by making a Motion that we add the item to a future agenda, but
he intended to vote against it when it comes up again. He still
felt that a uniform set of rules makes it a lot easier when we
have conflict.
Mr. Krause agreed to pay for the advertising and mailing
costs involved.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to schedule a public hearing on February 5, 1991,
to reconsider the Jarvis rezoning request with the
understanding that the applicant will pay for the
public notice and mailing expense.
Mrs. Chapman maintained that the Board had set a precedent
today in agreeing to hear this rezoning again before a year had
passed.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Bird read aloud the following summary of the
meeting of December 6, 1990:
144
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
SUMMARY ,
December 6, 1990
1) Treasure Shores Park
Brad Smith, Parks Consultant, reviewed the conceptual site
plan for Treasure Shores Park. The committee recommended
that the gaps in the vegetation along AIA be closed so that
no one will be able to gain entrance to the park except
through the main entrance road. The committee further
recommended that the entrance on the east side of AlA be
lined up with the future entrance on the•west side of the
road. The committee unanimously approved the conceptual
site plan with the changes as noted.
2) Blue Cypress Lake Agreement; Firing Range Facility; South
County Reqional Park
Reports were given on the agreement with Mr. Middleton at
Blue Cypress Lake, the firing range facility and on South
County Regional Park. The Recreation Director reported on
recreation activities.
3) The committee recommended that Jim Davis take a look at Dale
Wimbrow Park to see what additional space could be used for
parking:
4) The committee recommended that the Risk Manager be asked to
investigate what protection could be taken around the
retention ponds at Dale Wimbrow Park so that children will
not fall into them.
5) The committee will meet every other month in'the future
unless the Chairman feels the need to call additional
meetings.
6) Forestry Supervisor Joe Spataro said the County will be
receiving a letter from the Division of Forestry saying that
they will not renew their lease on Donald MacDonald Park in
June, 1992. Joe is trying to get some grant money to do
some major improvements at the park, but due to budget cuts
they can't support the park after June, 1992.
RNB:aw
xc: Jim Davis
SEBASTIAN RIVERFRONT COMMITTEE REPORT
Commissioner Scurlock, who was appointed as the Board's
liaison to the Sebastian Riverfront Committee at the December 5th
joint meeting with the Sebastian City Council, reported that he
had established with the Committee last night that all requests
for services should be made through him to the Board of County
��t ,..
1 4 � �',tiCt���
DEC 11 WJ NOOK
BOOK
DEC 111990
Commission as the Board authorizes the expenditure of funds and
that Director Davis would be taking direction from the Board in
terms of allocation of staff time and any other monies that have
to be expended. At this point the Committee has two requests.
One is that the Utilities Division prepare a list of all reser-
vations of capacity on the riverfront area, especially noting any
capacity that is reserved in the City. The second reque=st was
made through a Motion, to ask that a final workshop be scheduled
for the Commission and the City Council to give direction to the
County's engineers, who alrea.dy have been hired and are getting
ready to do the actual design. Commissioner Scurlock had
emphasized that if there is any change in policy or anything
else, we need to know it now or else we are going to be incurring
engineering expense to redo things.
Chairman Eggert asked that Commissioner Scurlock inform the
County Administrator before coming to the Board, and Commissioner
Scurlock said that is what he did. What he needs today is a
Motion to authorize the Utilities Division to prepare such a Fist
and attend the Committee's next meeting to explain what we have
in our plans.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
the Utilities Division to prepare a list of reserved
capacity for the Sebastian riverfront area and attend
the Committee's next meeting to explain the County's
plans.
146
i i a
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:20 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
(1
Clerk CV4rman
DEC 111990 147 DOO ��c� r