The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/5/1996 (3)� MINUTES=ACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5,1996 2:00 P.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Fran B. Adams, Chairman (District 1) Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman (District 2) Richard N. Bird (District 5) Kenneth R. Macht (District 3) John W. Tippin (District 4) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 2:00 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (memorandum dated October 29, 1996) (copies of Reports provided under separate cover) 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. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIESACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT T.RA RT AR unT TR c TM e rnv A �.TOU r,p * 11711 TI - - - --- -- - -- aa.. • �u � \..1.i vt' 1ViDt.111V lJ. Meeting broadcast live on: TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast S: 00 p.m. Thursday through S: 00 p.m. Friday Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening BOOK 99 F'Af�E 629 INDEX TO MINUTES November 5, 1996 Special Meeting of BCC CONSIDERATION OF THE IRC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ( EAR) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 INTRODUCTORY ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 SANITARY SEWER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 POTABLE WATER . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 SOLID WASTE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT . . . . . . . . 13 DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 PORT, AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . 18 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Coastal High Hazard Zone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Eliminating the Rural Category . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 Non Roads in Water Control Districts . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Expansion of the Hospital Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 ConservationAreas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Capping the SR-60/58th Ave. Node . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 1 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING Tuesday, November 5, 1996 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, November 5, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht; Richard N. Bird; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. CONSIDERATION OF THE IRC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) Community Development Director Bob Keating promised to be brief in outlining the proposed changes, but he felt it was necessary to go through each element. He wished to thank Planning staff, who have worked hard on this for well over a year, and also to thank the staff members in all the other departments who have coordinated in the effort to prepare this evaluation and appraisal report. Director Keating advised that the report on the Comp Plan covers 2 volumes, more than 1800 pages, 17 elements and sub - elements, and more than 750 policies. The purpose of this review is to evaluate the County's Comp Plan and see how we are doing and see where we need to be so that it can be submitted by January 1, 1997. A draft was reviewed by the Planning & Zoning Commission on October 10, 1996, and a final hearing before the Board is scheduled for December 10, 1996 to review any changes being submitted. After submitting the report by January 1, 1997, we have one year to do the changes that were submitted. Today we will cover the first 10 elements of the Comp Plan and review the other 7 at next week's meeting: 1 NOVEMBER 5 1996 OUOK 99 I'a"I 630 BOOK 99 FACE 3 1) Introductory Element 2) Future Land Use Element 3) Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element 4) Potable Water Sub -Element 5) Solid Waste Sub -Element 6) Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element 7) Drainage Sub -Element 8) Traffic Circulation Element 9) Mass Transit Element 10) Port, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element Director Keating presented staff's recommendations as set out in the following memo dated 10/29/96: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: le � 't i Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Direr r FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S , ) Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 29, 1996 RE: CONSIDERATION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its workshop meeting on November 5, 1996. Background: All local governments in Florida are required to develop a Comprehensive Plan and to periodically review and assess that plan through preparation of an Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). According to state rules, Indian River County must submit its adopted EAR to the state by January 1, 1997. As the county's designated local planning agency, the Planning and Zoning Commission is charged with preparation of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Although the adopted Evaluation and Appraisal Report is not due to the state until January 1, 1997, state law requires that the local planning agency approve and submit a proposed EAR to the state at least 90 days prior to the county's January 1, 1997, EAR submittal date. Accordingly, the local planning agency (the Planning and Zoning Commission) considered and approved the county's proposed EAR at a September 12, 1996, public hearing, and staff submitted a copy of the EAR to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) by the October 1, 1996 deadline. 2 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Since November 1995, planning staff has worked with the Planning and Zoning Commission and other local committees, as designated by the evaluation and appraisal report public participation plan, to prepare evaluation and appraisal reports for each of the 17 elements and sub -elements of the county comprehensive plan. The draft EAR elements were presented to the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of August 27, 1996. At the August 27th meeting, the Board agreed to hold one or more EAR. workshops before its formal EAR adoption hearing. On October 8, 1996, the Board approved two workshop dates, one for November 5, 1996, at 2:00 p.m. and the other for November 12, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. The Board of County Commissioners' EAR public hearing is scheduled for December 10, 1996. ANALYSIS The Board of County Commissioners must adopt the county's Evaluation and Appraisal Report and submit the report to the state by January 1, 1997. Attached to this agenda item is a copy of proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Reports for the 10 elements and sub -elements that will be reviewed at the November 5th meeting. Evaluation and Appraisal Reports for all 17 elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan were submitted to the state prior to the October 1, 1996, deadline. Any additions to the proposed Evaluation and Appraisal Reports since submittal to the state are shown as un 'er i and any deletions are shovm as sfi *vthmt gh. Overall, the assessment of the county's plan indicates that the plan has been successful. Of the 124 plan objectives, 94 objectives were achieved; 21 objectives were partially achieved; and 9 objectives were not achieved. Of the 750 plan policies, 654 policies were implemented; 27 policies were partially implemented, and 69 policies were not implemented. The plan generally guided orderly growth in the county. Among plan accomplishments were expansion of water and sewer systems to serve major Commercial/Industrial nodes, acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands, production of affordable housing units, development of infill properties, provision of services and facilities concurrent with development, and others. At the November 5th workshop meeting, staff will present a summary of the Evaluation and Appraisal Reports for the following 10 elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan: Volume I of the Comprehensive Plan, including the following elements and sub -elements: - Introductory Element - Land Use Element - Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element - Potable Water Sub -Element - Solid Waste Sub -Element - Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element - Drainage Sub -Element - Traffic Circulation Element - Mass Transit Element - Port, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element The Board of County Commissioners should review the Evaluation and Appraisal Reports provided, collect public input, and provide direction to staff. 3 NOVEMBER 5 1996 a BOOK F'r1aE boi;# BOOK 99 PAGE 613 • Board of County Commissioners EAR Comments At its August 27, 1996 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners raised some EAR related issues. The principal concern was related to staffs recommendation to eliminate the R, Rural (up to 1 unit per acre), designation from the future land use map. The Board's position was that there is a need for 1 or 2 acre lots for people who want to live in a low density setting. To address the Board of County Commissioners' concerns regarding the availability of large lot subdivisions, staff has reviewed the county's land use designations, zoning designations, and existing land development regulations. Staff feels that existing regulations allow for the creation of large lot subdivisions. One such method involves creating %i acre or 1 acre lots through the Agriculture Planned Development (AGPD) process. Currently, staff is examining ways to make the AGPD process easier so that an applicant can better use that mechanism. For those reasons, staff feels that the rural land use designation can be eliminated from the future land use map, while still addressing the Board's concerns. �9[ 1 uh�l ►11 _ � . Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review information provided, collect public input, and provide direction to staff. Director Keating presented the following slidefilm graphics, noting that we will be addressing the Future Land Use -Element last. We evaluated all the objectives and policies and we have prepared an overview of what we feel needs to be done. The best thing to do in this review is to look at each objective cluster in each of these elements. INTRODUCTORY ELEMENT EAR PROCESS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADOPTED FEBRUARY 13, 1990 PREPARATION AND REVIEW OF AN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (EAR) FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 1995/96 EAR TO BE SUBMITTED TO STATE NY JANUARY 1, 1997 I EAR BASED COMPRESENSIVE PLAN mmIDimn I TO BE PROCESSED IN 1997 4 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 EAR STEPS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONDITIONS OF THE PLAN AT TeX T1Kr OF ADOPTION FEBRURRt 13, 1995 EAR BASED AKUMM ENTS I ZZISTING CONDITIONS 1995/96 A I I ZYAi.UlITI01t OF THi CHIZV=NT OF M PLAN O&T2CTXVW IDENTIFICATION of AMALTSId FUTURE ACTION EAR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix "A" Evaluation and Appraisal Report Comprehensive Plan Primary Review Groups Priam Review Groups F Elementls) • Economic Development Council CONTENT OF EAR Section 163.3191(2), P.S., lists the major components of an evaluation and appraisal report (EAR). The ENR should address, at a minimum, the following: (a) major problems of development and physical deterioration, Coastal Management and the location of land uses and the social and economic effects of such uses; (b) the condition of the plan when it was first adopted and space its condition at the date of the EAR; (c) a comparison of plan objectives with actual results at Infrastructure the date of the ERR; (d) unanticipated and unforeseen problems and oppott6ities Intergovernmental Which say have occurred since the plan was adopted; (a) the effect on the plan of changes in state law and Mass Transit regulations, as well as the appropriate strategic Ports and Aviation regional policy plan; (f) the need for new actions to be taken to address the Housing planning issues identified in the EAR; (q) plan amendments necessary to implement the needs identi- fied in the ERR; and (h) a description of the public participation process used during preparation of the EAR. EAR STEPS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONDITIONS OF THE PLAN AT TeX T1Kr OF ADOPTION FEBRURRt 13, 1995 EAR BASED AKUMM ENTS I ZZISTING CONDITIONS 1995/96 A I I ZYAi.UlITI01t OF THi CHIZV=NT OF M PLAN O&T2CTXVW IDENTIFICATION of AMALTSId FUTURE ACTION EAR PUBLIC PARTICIPATION PLAN Appendix "A" Evaluation and Appraisal Report Comprehensive Plan Primary Review Groups Priam Review Groups F Elementls) • Economic Development Council Economic Development • Marine Advisory Committee Coastal Management Conservation • Beach and Shore Preservation Coastal Management Advisory Committee • Parks and Recreation,Comaittee Recreation and open space • Planning and Zoning Commission Future Land Use Infrastructure Capital Improvements Intergovernmental Coordination • Metropolitan Planning Organization Mass Transit Ports and Aviation Traffic Circulation • Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Housing • Professional Services Advisory Commitee Future Land Use 5 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 eoboa99 f.a,U,E6:34 B009 99 FAA -35 fi : Long term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. OBJECTIVE: A specific, measurable, Intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. POLICY: The course of action or way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal or objective. Objectives must be evaluated to determine if they have been achieved. Policies must be assessed to determine U they have been implemented. The following table summarizes the current 1995 estimate and the current 2010 projection of resident, seasonal and functional populations of the county. 1995 2010 Resident Population 100,261 135,500 Seasonal Population 22,545 28,863 Functional Population 122,806 164,363 Race and Median Age For 1995, the 1990 Census is the best source of information to determine the age and racial characteristics of the county. According to the 1990 Census, 90% of the county's population was white, while nearly all of the balance was black. The 1990 Census also indicated that the median age of the county's population was 44 years. n NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Economic Conditions The most recent data regarding per capita income in the county are for 1993 and are provided by BEBR. This information indicates that the county's 1993 per capita income was $26,798.00. The 1990 Census indicates that, in 1989, the county's median household income was $28,961.00. According to BEBR, the county's median family income was 37,700.00 in 1995, and is $40,400.00 for 1996. The 1990 Census also indicated that, in 1989, 9.0% of the county's population and 5.9% of its families had incomes below the poverty level. According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS), Indian River County's average annual employment level, in 1994, was 34,800, or about 34% of the county's population. In 1995, the county's average annual unemployment rate was approximately 9.8%; the state's was 5.5%. Current BLS data indicate that the services sector once again employs more Indian River County residents than any other sector. In 1994, 30.2% of employees worked in service related industries. The retail trade and agriculture sectors' employment rounded out the top three employment sectors in 1994. These sectors had 22.2% and 11.7%, respectively, of all cou=y employment. ANALMS OF DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC CHANGES DEMOGRAPHIC CHANGES Actual Growth The population of Indian River County increased from 90,208 people in 1990 to 100,261 in 1995, an increase of 11%. In 1995, the State of Florida's population was estimated to be 14,162,331, an increase of 9.5% since 1990. Indian River County's growth rate outpaced the state's rate by nearly 1.5 percentage points. These population changes indicate that the county is a growing, dynamic area. Proiected Growth Despite the county's relatively high growth rate, the comprehensive plan, based on BEBR projections, had overestimated the amount of population growth that the county would experience between 1990 and 1995. While the plan had projected that the county's 1995 population would be 107,300, the county's actual 1995 population was 100,261. One factor that contributed to the county's slower than projected population growth was the unexpected economic recession in 1990-1992. That recession appears to have affected all of the of BEBR's population projections. This is illustrated by the fact that BEBR's 1994 projection of the county's 2010 population is 5.5% less than the 1987 projection of the county's 2010 population. Conclusions From the growth that has occurred since plan adoption, the following conclusions can be drawn: The average age of the population is increasing. The median age of the population increased from 39.6 in 1980 to 44 in 1990. Additionally, census data indicate that the percentage of the county's population that is 65 years or older has increased from 20.4 in 1980 to 27.3 in 1990. 7 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK BOOK 99 PAGE 637 • The population is becoming more affluent. Per capita income in the county nearly doubled from $13,527.00 in 1984 to $26,798.00 in 1993. In addition, median incomes have risen for both families and households. In the years 1989 through 1995, the county had higher median family and median household incomes than that of the state. This meant the county's residents, on average, were wealthier than those in the state. Finally, poverty rates in the county are decreasing. According to the Census, the percentage of both persons and families with incomes below the poverty level decreased by approximately 25% during the 1979 to 1989 time period. • The average number of persons/household decreased from 2.43 in 1986 to 2.37 in 1995. This decrease is consistent with the first two conclusions, since older and more affluent Populations tend to have smaller households. • The portion of the population that is white is growing faster than the portion of the population that is of other races. Census data indicate that the percentage of the county's Population that identifies itself as white increased from 85.4 in 1980 to 90.0 in 1990. ECONOMIC CHANGES The county's total workforce increased from 34,191 in 1990 to 34,800 in 1994. That represented only a slight increase. The percentage of the county's residents who were in the workforce, however, decreased from 38% in 1990 to 35% in 1994. During this period, the county's average annual unemployment rate remained constant at 9.8% in 1990 and in 1995. The decrease in the percentage of county residents in the workforce can be attributed to several factors. It could indicate that the county's population is either growing older, beyond retirement age, or that the county has a large population that is below 18, and not yet working. According to census information, the county's population is getting older. Between the time of plan adoption and the present, the diversity of the county's employment base did not improve. Compared to 1990 statistics, the top three employment sectors (service, retail. trades,, and agriculture) still dominated the county's employment force by nearly a 2 to 1 margin in 1995. Consequently, the county's economy lacks balance and diversity. In the early 1990's, the county, as well as the state, was affected by the recession that gripped the nation. The county's largest manufacturer went into bankruptcy, pushing the county's average annual unemployment figures from 6.8% in 1988, to 12.5* in 1992. Florida's unemployment rate increased as well, although not as dramatically, from 5.0% in 1988 to 8.2% in 1992. Slowly, the county and the state have been able to recover from the 1990-1992 recession. In 1995, the county's annual unemployment rate aver d 9.8%; the state's, 5.5%. 8 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 FUTURE ACTIONS The county must adopt EAR based amendments which update the tables, figures, and text of the Introductory Element. Much of that update involves the inclusion of new data. State law requires that each local government adopt comprehensive plan amendments based on recommendations contained in the EAR. Those amendments must be adopted within one year of the local government's adopted -EAR due date. Indian River County's adopted EAR due date is January 1, 1997. Therefore, the county's EAR based amendments must be adopted by January 1, 1998. In order to maintain a planning horizon of at least 20 years, population projections must be developed for a target year beyond 2010. For that reason, the county has developed population projections through the year 2020, and the EAR based amendments will add those projections to the Introductory Element. ANTICIPATED AMENDMENTS TABLES AND FIGURES Each of the Introductory Element's tables and figures must -be updated to reflect current data through the year 2020. v Major portions of the text of the Introductory Element must be revised with new data including existing conditions and projections. 9 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 FAU 638 BOOK 99 rvjf 6 SANITARY SEWER SANITARY SEWER New Policy 1.7: adopt connection matrix Policy 3.2 (continuous monitoring of septic tanks, replace with periodic evaluation) Policy 4.2 (county helps cities reuse water) Policy 7.2 (interlocal agreements, vague) Policy 7.3 (combine facilities, not feasible) Policy 7.4 (coordinate w/CVB, completed) Policy 7.5 (coordinate planning, ICE) residential expansion towers health risks commercial/Industrial expansion promotes economic development 10 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 1990 1995 # OF 13,000 23,500 CUSTOMERS - TOTAL 9.5 MILL. 11.2 MILL. CAPACITY GPD GPD TOTAL 3.5 MILL. 6.1 MILL. DEMAND IGPD IGPD New Policy 1.7: adopt connection matrix Policy 3.2 (continuous monitoring of septic tanks, replace with periodic evaluation) Policy 4.2 (county helps cities reuse water) Policy 7.2 (interlocal agreements, vague) Policy 7.3 (combine facilities, not feasible) Policy 7.4 (coordinate w/CVB, completed) Policy 7.5 (coordinate planning, ICE) residential expansion towers health risks commercial/Industrial expansion promotes economic development 10 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 POTABLE WATER POTABLE WATER ,T:rff =. New Policy 1.7: adopt connection matrix Policy 4.2 (county helps cities reuse water) Policy 4.5 (countywide water authority) Policy 4.6 (add to curriculum) Policy 4.11 (investigate incentives, completed) Policy 4.13 (water reuse for new ►_*19pment, redundant) Policy 7.2 (interlocal agreements; Vague) Policy 7.3 (combine facilities," We) - T+Til Policy 7.4 (coordinate planning, -� res. expansion lowers health risks; C/1 expansion promotes economic dev., lower per capita use. Zi NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 FA4.640 I 1990 1995 # OF 17,000 32,000 CUSTOMERS TOTAL 15 MILL. 21.5 MILL. CAPACITY GPD GPD TOTAL 10.2 10.6 MILL. DEMAND MILL. GPD GPD "SMALL LOT" 32 72 SUBDIVISIONS SERVED ,T:rff =. New Policy 1.7: adopt connection matrix Policy 4.2 (county helps cities reuse water) Policy 4.5 (countywide water authority) Policy 4.6 (add to curriculum) Policy 4.11 (investigate incentives, completed) Policy 4.13 (water reuse for new ►_*19pment, redundant) Policy 7.2 (interlocal agreements; Vague) Policy 7.3 (combine facilities," We) - T+Til Policy 7.4 (coordinate planning, -� res. expansion lowers health risks; C/1 expansion promotes economic dev., lower per capita use. Zi NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 FA4.640 I SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE SOLID WASTE 199 8.4 MILL. CU.YDS. 6.4 MILL. CU.YDS. ±25% OF WASTE STREAM BOOK 99 pn, 641 Additions New Policies 4.7 and 4.8: facilitate recycling industrial park Deletions Policy 2.5 (various programs run by Health Department, not county) Policy 4.4 (air curtain destructor acquired) Policy 5.2 (interlocal agreements, redundant) Manor Accomplishments implemented countywide recycling program added capacity Hazardous waste disposal is less of a problem (new equipment and technology) Illegal dumping has decreased is NOVEMBER 5, 1996 � � r 1990 LANDFILL 5.1 MILL. CAPACITY CU.YDS. PROJECTED 5.0 MILL. NEED, 2010 CU.YDS. RECYCLING NO COUNTY- WIDE PROGRAM SOLID WASTE 199 8.4 MILL. CU.YDS. 6.4 MILL. CU.YDS. ±25% OF WASTE STREAM BOOK 99 pn, 641 Additions New Policies 4.7 and 4.8: facilitate recycling industrial park Deletions Policy 2.5 (various programs run by Health Department, not county) Policy 4.4 (air curtain destructor acquired) Policy 5.2 (interlocal agreements, redundant) Manor Accomplishments implemented countywide recycling program added capacity Hazardous waste disposal is less of a problem (new equipment and technology) Illegal dumping has decreased is NOVEMBER 5, 1996 � � r NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT ADD I T I ONS Policy 1.9 Convert SAPROD map t o Policy 2 . 7 iIt i 1 i z e s to rmwa to r f c>.= i rr i ga t i o n Po 1 i c: -y- 3-5 Wa ter Conservation ord i na nc e Po 1 i cy 3 . 6 Expand u s e o f t rea tad wastewater Policy 5 . 6 G r o u n d w a t e r q u a l i t y monitoring DE LET I ONS Policy 2 _ X Open s pa c e requirement f o r clea�velopinent on ACR and Ten Mi 1 e Ridge Po 1 icy 2 _ 2 = nc ant i ve s f or parking pe ry i ou s Policy 5 _ 2 fRank primary recharge area s or acquisition (imp 1 emazited j Po 1 icy 5 . 3 A 1 1 o c a t e f u n d i n g ( implemented ) MAJOR ACCOMPL = SfIMENT5 7_.DR Chapters 926 , 931 Sc 934 Adopted Expanded u s e o f treated wastewater e f f 1 u ant Established point cost share program with the S JRWMD t o P l u g abandoned f 1 ow we 1 1 s An add i t i o na 1 1 0. 0 0 0 acre s of - agricultural converted to 3 - del ncl irrigation methods 1 ow - f 1 ow 13 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 F,4u 642 BOOK 9 pnq .043 - DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT ^nnl•rloxs Policy 2,9 C omp t e t e i n v e n t o ry o f W t o r m w a t e r m a n a g e m e n t r ac i 1 i t i® s Policy 2 - X0 E s t a b l i s h G. I_ S_- b a s e d inventory Po 1 i cy 4 _ 7 C o o rd i mate with the S JRWMn t o e s t ab f i s h c ont ac t wi th Water C o nt ro 1 D i s t r i c t s Pot icy 4 _ 8 Adopt S t ormwa to r Master Plazzs Pot icy 5 . 5 Achieve FEMA CRS ••Class B.. rat i ng Policy 7.X3 Adopt L_ O_ S. s tandards f or Water Qua 1 i ty Po 1 i cy 8 _ 4 Adopt policies t o c omp 1 ement rev i s ed Future Land Us e E 1 eme nt nELET I ONS - Policy 3 - 4 E s t ab f i s h s t o rmwa t e r utility f u nd P o l i c --3r 4_ 2 Meet with S JRWMn o f f i c i a l s P o 1 1 cy 4- 4 C o nt ro 1 d i s c barge s it --C> c a na 1 s wh i c h ou it. ra& X X to the Sebastian River f l oodp l a i n Po 1 3 cy 6 . 1 LDRs 1--c> require pe rc o 1 at i o n From new de v e t o pmo ntt s 1 oc a t ed i n recharge areas MAJOR ACCOMPL I SFIMENTS Revised LDR Chapter 930 - upgraded de s i cgn s to nda rd from 10 year storm event to 2 5 year s t orm event adopted X. -C> -a- f o r roads requires t reatment o :E f i r s t inch o f runo f f Vero Lake Estates drainage improvement s Increased irstergovernmental coordination with the S JRWMn Acqu i red 600 acres o f f loodplairis 14 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Director Keating noted that it has been difficult to get a handle on exactly what we need to do from a planning perspective with respect to drainage and determining who is responsible out there. We have the water management district that has the large scope and then we have the water control districts that actually own and manage most of the stormwater facilities in the urbanized area of the county, particularly Indian River Farms Water Control District. Director Keating reviewed staff's recommendation for deleting Policy 3.4 of establishing a stormwater utility fund which is currently in the Comp Plan. County Engineer Roger Cain advised that we are doing a lot of drainage activities now without any dedicated funding, which gets to be a bit of a problem because the money must come from other sources. A stormwater utility fund would provide a funding source for drainage improvements that are not connected with roadways. Commissioner Tippin emphasized that he receives more calls from residents in his district about drainage than anything else. He felt it is something that has been seriously neglected. Direction was given to staff to retain Policy 3.4 to establish a stormwater-utility fund. NOVEMBER 5, 1996 15 BOOK 99 i'A�E 6.44 BOOK 99 PAGE645 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT Traffic Circulation Element Indian River 1990 1995 Change County Data Daily Vehicle - Miles Traveled 1.25 1.62 30% (VMT), millions Population 90,208 100,261 11 Total Transportation Capital Improvements (from MPO 2020 Long -Range Plan): Traffic Circula on Element Additions, Deletions, and Substantive Revisions to Policies and Objectives _ Delete Obj 1 existing deficiency corrected Revise Pol 1.1 FIHS LOS guidelines Delete Pol 1.3 existing deficiency funded Add Policy (Obj 2) from Economic Development Element Add Policy (Obj 4) Murphy Act, ROW research Add Policy (Obj 4) corridor plans Revise Pol 7.4 Coastal high -hazard Add Policy (Obj 7) land-use/transportation interactions Delete Pol 8.1 MPO established Add Obj transportation safety Director Keating recommended adding Policy (Objective 4) on Murphy Act, ROW research, noting that the Murphy Act has saved the County a lot of money. 16 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 MASS TRANSIT ELEMENT Mass Transit Element Indian River County Data 1990 1995 Avg Daily Paratransit 62 406 Trips Avg Daily Fixed -Route 0 48 Trips Number of Coordinated Service 6 14 Providers Mass Transit Element Additions, Deletions, and Substantive Revisions to Policies and Objectives NOVEMBER 5, 1996 17 BOOK 99 F' ,d 646 PORT, AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT Port, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element Indian River County Data 1990 1995 Annual Trips via related LDRs Scheduled Airline 3,400 29500 (Vero Beach Airport) Adequate Level of Service on Roads Providing Airport yes Yes Access Port, Aviation, & Related Facilities Element Additions, Deletions, and Substantive Revisions to Policies and Objectives Revise Pol 2.2 Continue refining airport - related LDRs 18 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Bou 99 r4u 647 � r i FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT 19 �OpK 99maNOVEMBER 5, 1996 L49Q 1� POPULATION: -County Total 901208 100,261 -Unincorporated 58,175 64,114 (64.48%) (63.94%) HOUSING UNIT&. -County Total 47,128 53,321 -Unincorporated 29,360 33,= HOUSING TYPES (COMM TOTAL -ftee-Family 27,305 31,953 -mm -Family 13,019 13,325 -Mobile Home 61804 71600 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 1990.1995 RESIDENTIAL RESIDE BUILDING PERMITS MW UNITS p NET DMA Municipalities 2,209 21 . 2,188 Unincorporated 4,099 (64.98%) 94(81.73%) 4,005(64.67%) County County Total 6,308 115 6,193 ulvlslhoupop-ovd 19 �OpK 99maNOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 PAGE 64�' FUTURE LAND USE Deletions Policies 1.9 and 1.10 (Rural Land Use Designation) Policy 1.37 (study USA expansion) Policy 2.7 (maintain LOS, redundant) Policy 4.2 (urban land in USA, redundant) Policy 4.3 (activity centers in nodes, redundant) Policy 9.10 (roadway aesthetics, redundant) Policies 10.5 and 10.6 (zoning and land use consistency, completed) Policy 12.2 (1 city/county LDR) Policy 12.4 (annexation) Additions New Policy 1.37: SR 60/58th Ave. Node size limit New Policy 1.38: Ensure land use compatibility New Policy 6.5: Regulate Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants New Policy 16.4: prohibit nursing homes in CHHZ New Objective 17: TND goal New Policy 17.1: TND incentives New Policy 17.2: targets Oslo Road area Major Accomplishments quality of life maintained growth without sprawl ao NOVEMBER 5, 1996 � � r ® - AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED L-1 --_--_--_ I _,_—_�-- I-�rl�l---_—__— 1I TR.13rt TR.14r TRA I I Ri I ,, — — — AG -1 I - a I � I I 1st ST SW p ®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED L-1 21 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 9� PAGE i VINE TREL11� PARKI TREE 4 PARK,1 E UNIT o .� 2 L-2 0 El[dli F 3 ~ I w e F 3 0 H 0 I L J c H J N I TR.121 ,,, R.II4t TR.10 ?R S T- r --_--_--_ I _,_—_�-- I-�rl�l---_—__— 1I TR.13rt TR.14r TRA I I Ri I ,, — — — AG -1 I - a I � I I 1st ST SW p ®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED L-1 21 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 9� PAGE i AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED M-1 ®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED L-2 22 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 PAr, ®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED M-1 Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) Director Keating advised that the policies in the Future Land Use Element are mostly dictated by the infrastructure elements. There are 16 policy clusters within this element and staff is recommending that one additional objective be included relating to "traditional neighborhood design" (TND), which is defined as a design concept of a compact neighborhood "village". The concept makes a lot of sense and it has a lot of advantages. As an objective, we are proposing that 10% of new residential development in the county be TND. We are looking at a couple of policies to provide some incentives for development within the urban service area to come in as TND development. One of these would be to allow a little more of different types of commercial. Currently, we have provisions in our Planned Development ordinance which allow developments to have commercial, but the commercial has to be located in the middle of the development and away from the peripheral work and passing traffic. We are looking at TND incentives particularly for the Oslo Road area with the I-95 interchange being a real good possibility and also the establishment of the waste conversion industrial park. We are also looking at TND for the area between Kings Highway and 74th Street, and staff would recommend that instead of changing the land use plan. Director Keating advised that if the Board feels the TND is workable in the Oslo Road area and a couple of other areas in the county, they will keep working on it. The Board indicated their agreement. Coastal High Hazard zone -- Director Keating explained that the State changed substantially its definition of the Coastal High Hazard Zone (CHHZ). This area, which is subject to evaluation in a Category #1 storm event, actually takes in some property on the mainland north of 37th Street (not including Grand Harbor). Basically, we are proposing that the County adopt a policy that there will not be any intensification of the allowable land uses in the CHHZ. New Policy 16.4 prohibits nursing homes in the CHHZ. He believed that we don't have any care centers on the barrier island at present, but we did receive a request last year for a total care center on the barrier island that would have required a land use change. Eliminating the Rural Category -- Director Keating advised that the recommendation to eliminate the Rural category, most of which runs along CR -510, is because it is not feasible to develop at 1 unit 23 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 F'AuE BOOK 99 PAGE 653 per acre. Infrastructure cannot be put in at a reasonable cost and that makes the cost of the lots too expensive. Staff is proposing that it be changed to 3 units per acre. Eliminating the Rural category from the Comp Plan and making it L-1 will help to increase the densities and reduce urban sprawl. Director Keating advised that in addressing the Board's concerns regarding the availability of large lot subdivisions, staff has reviewed the county's land use designations, zoning designations, and existing land development regulations. Staff feels that existing regulations allow for the creation of large lot subdivisions. Once such method involves creating one-half acre or 1 acre lots through the Agricultural Planned Development (AGPD) process. Currently, staff is examining ways to make the AGPD process easier so that an applicant can better use that mechanism. For those reasons, staff feels that the rural land use designation can be eliminated from the future land use map, while still addressing the Board's concerns. Non Roads in Water Control Districts Chairman Adams emphasized that we have a very serious problem in that the County doesn't have county designated roads along the canals owned by the water control districts. She asked if we are addressing that problem, and Director Keating agreed -that it is a difficult situation. Present laws say that if someone has a parcel or tract that they legally created, they have a vested right to build a house there, which doesn't allow us to impose any requirements that they dedicate right-of-way for the roadway nor provide us with any way to get the right-of-way. Chairman Adams felt we should be addressing that in the plan because the situation is going to blow up in our face. It already is a problem for Public Works. Attorney Vitunac advised that there are legal solutions to all of that. It is a matter of policy and money, but we can work on it if the Board desires. Director Keating stated that staff will look at putting a policy in the plan, or perhaps an objective. Expansion of the Hospital Node Director Keating advised that the hospital node is more than 70% developed now and we are looking at a need to expand it. Staff has been working with Public Works and has come up with a road expansion plan that, hopefully, will facilitate the expansion of the node. The plan would take 10 Court out to interconnect the hospital and 44th Street. 24 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Conservation Areas - We are looking at changing a few areas to Conservation. These are areas that have been purchased by the County or the State, one of which is the Wabasso scrub which is coming to the Board next week. Then, we want to have Conservation designation on the Cairns property that we have closed on, and we also are looking at having the Coraci property changed to Conservation. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins questioned whether we really want to go to 3 units per acre on the east side of the St. Sebastian River because increased densities there would impact the drainage into the watershed that we tried so hard to protect during negotiations with the DCA on the Coraci property where development will be clustered away from the river. Director Keating explained that just above where you see the Conservation Area printed in bold type, it would have all the L-1 characteristics, but it would have a 1 upa limitation. We have not put a specific policy in there, but that would keep it the way it is without referring to the Rural that we had. Chairman Adams suggested that we make it CR, Conservation Residential. - Director Keating explained that the area between the St. Sebastian River and Roseland Road now has a C-3 designation, which is that if it meets the criteria for scrub characteristics, it has a designation of 1 unit per 2-1/2 acres. If it is not considered C-31 it is given a Rural designation. Because we are proposing that Rural be eliminated, it will have an L-1 designation but it will have a density limitation of 1 upa. Commissioner Bird felt the bottom line is that they wanted 1 unit per acre up there and that is what we are trying to give them, and Director Keating replied affirmatively. Warren Dill, 11675 Roseland Road, felt certain his neighbors would tend to agree that they are quite content with the density that is there and that they would not like to see 3 units per acre. Director Keating indicated on the map that the area Mr. Dill is referring to is at 1 upa. 25 aooK 9 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 ��,r� %5- 4 Director Keating noted that this has been a controversial change. This relates to 2 of the Comp Plan amendments that are coming before the Board next week. One is the Banack property and the other is for Wallace Acres to be changed from residential to commercial/industrial. One more change we are looking at in the EAR changes is to cap the node for further expansion. Expansion to the west would encourage strip commercial. County Planning has been besieged daily with requests to change the land use on properties along the SR -60 corridor. He pointed out that even if the node is capped, the Board would have the ability to uncap it, but staff feels there is no place for commercial to go without bumping into residential. In conclusion of his presentation, Director Keating advised that those are the major changes and that there are people here today who wish to be heard on the matter. Chairman Adams asked if anyone wished to speak on this matter. Ben Bailey, 53rd Court, asked if the County has been working with the high-speed rail people about the rail running along the proposed citrus highway. 26 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 PAfaE Capping the SR-60/58th Ave Node - S.R.60 & 58th AVE COMMERCIAL NODE J I _ 28th ST �1 - —JL A-1 A-1 i . R ti.W�n A-i } AM-8 .. {� R s-e > > Ac ft ` ! +may. `j. .:•. M' ,� •'� '��1• I •R9-6' .F� A-i J MCC RMA a. --- 18th _ 6-30-Ai / - - y r 0 500''1000' 1 1 1 � i N- C NODE Director Keating noted that this has been a controversial change. This relates to 2 of the Comp Plan amendments that are coming before the Board next week. One is the Banack property and the other is for Wallace Acres to be changed from residential to commercial/industrial. One more change we are looking at in the EAR changes is to cap the node for further expansion. Expansion to the west would encourage strip commercial. County Planning has been besieged daily with requests to change the land use on properties along the SR -60 corridor. He pointed out that even if the node is capped, the Board would have the ability to uncap it, but staff feels there is no place for commercial to go without bumping into residential. In conclusion of his presentation, Director Keating advised that those are the major changes and that there are people here today who wish to be heard on the matter. Chairman Adams asked if anyone wished to speak on this matter. Ben Bailey, 53rd Court, asked if the County has been working with the high-speed rail people about the rail running along the proposed citrus highway. 26 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Director Keating advised that St. Lucie County has been working with them, but Indian River County is not really affected by the alignment of the high-speed rail. Mr. Bailey had a question about the host plants, and Chairman Adams explained that we are not allowing them in new subdivisions now. Director Keating advised that restriction will be contained in the new Policy 6.5 (Regulate Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants). Mr. Bailey explained that he owns some property just north of Vista Plantation which he thought was L-2 at 6 upa but found it is 3 upa on the land use plan. He understood that area may be changed to 6 upa. Director Keating explained that is one of the proposed changes and that 6 upa would go all the way to Cherry Lane. Peter Robinson, local builder, felt capping the node would be a mistake because of future demand for affordable housing. He believed that at some point the County would be put in the difficult position of having to decide how many tax free credit housing it wants up and down SR -60 or whether it wants taxpaying commercial. Commissioner Eggert asked for a fuller description of the proposed boundaries of the node, and Director Keating explained that the land use around the mall is M-1, up to 8 upa. The Comp Plan envisions that commercial would be restricted to nodes, and between those nodes we would have developments such as Vista Plantation, Lake in the Woods, Cambridge Park, etc. To the extent they are built out consistent with the 8 upa density, we have a more viable transportation corridor where we can have transit. We have the ability to have a pretty significant number of people living where they can walk to the mall, maybe walk to work. We think the land use pattern makes a lot of sense, but we are being inundated with requests for land use changes. What we are saying is that the Board can take a direct, specific action and say that we have enough commercial in this node, that we don't want strip commercial, and we don't want to encroach on residential areas. Director Keating pointed out that this is a workshop and the final decisions would be made at the December 10 meeting. Mr. Robinson felt the Board may want to consider the fact that a big chunk of land across from Indian River Square is going to be purchased by Indian River Community College. He suggested the Board may want to look at the strip of residential that runs from the canal by 16th Street out to SR -60, because he didn't see that developing as residential. Warren Dill, attorney representing Peter Rodriguez of Vero Holdings and owner of a 17 -acre parcel of A-1 by the college, 27 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 BOOK 99 Ma 656 r -1 BOOK 99 mu 6 -57 pointed out that the policy section says that the County should limit the node to 316 acres. Since the node's current size is 296 acres, this policy would allow only very minor expansion in the future. Mr. Dill explained that Mr. Banack owns a 15 acre tract and Wallace Acres is 5 acres and added together those two would take up all the slack. He felt it is unfair to the people who have been holding their property waiting for the 70% rule. Mainly, he believed the concept of capping may be illegal. There are a lot of people who are very concerned with what is going to happen in this particular item in the land use plan. He felt the LDRs presently in effect are doing an acceptable job. He was pleased to see the SR -60 corridor plan coming along. They just want a chance to come in and apply and show what they can do on those 17 acres. His client's property abuts the back units at Sixty oaks and IRCC's dorms are behind that. Mr. Dill didn't feel it is fair to pull out the welcome mat at 70% and he urged the Board to consider this matter very seriously before adding a cap to the plan. He advised that they will be in with an application prior to this evaluation report being adopted, but they would like to see it included in the node. It would make a logical place to finish out the commercial in that southwest corner of the node. Commissioner Macht pointed out that the 70% rule doesn't say that you "will", but rather that you "may". - Mr. Dill asked that his client's property be included in the node now before it is capped. Commissioner Bird felt the solution is not to set a cap and look at applications on a case by case basis. Attorney Vitunac cautioned that calling it a cap makes everyone rush to get it now or never. That is the difficulty. The Board always has the ability to look at any application to see if it makes sense to put in commercial. CONSENSUS -- The Board indicated their desire to not set a cap at this time, as they wished to consider each application on a case by case basis. Barbara Bonnah, resident of Pine Creek Condominiums, was delighted about the node going no further than 66th Avenue on the north side of SR -60. She recalled that for years it has always been the Board's desire to not have the entrance to Vero Beach develop into strip commercial but to keep it residential and green. 28 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 � � i There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:16 p.m. ATTEST: J. Barton, Clerk Minutes approved 29 NOVEMBER 5, 1996 Fran B. Adams, Chairman BOOK 99 PAGE 658