The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About11/12/1996 (2)MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA - A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12,1996 3:00 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 3:00 P.M. CONSIDERATION OF THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT (memorandum dated November 5, 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 DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING_ Meeting broa cas TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroad h S: 00 p.m. Friday Falc e - rebroadcast Friday evening Tuesday, November. 12, 1996 SPECIAL MEETING The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in special session in County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, November 12, 1996, at 3:00 p.m. to consider the second set of elements in the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report. Present were Fran B. Adams, Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert, Vice Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order and advised that Commissioner Bird would be a few minutes late. (He arrived at 3:05 P.M.) Community Development Director Bob Keating briefly reviewed Memoranda of November 1 and 5, 1996: TO: The Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners Jim Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP � /I . Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: November 1, 1996 RE: DRAFT COPY OF THE COUNTY'S EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT FOR THE NOVEMBER 12TH WORKSHOP Attached please find draft Evaluation and Appraisal Reports for the 7 elements of the county's comprehensive plan that will be reviewed at the November 12th meeting (3:00 p.m.) At the November 12, 1996, workshop meeting of the Board of County Commissioners, staff will provide the Board with a brief overview of these Evaluation and Appraisal Reports. 1 November 12, 1996 Boa 99 785 BOOK 69 PnE 786 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 0.41" P t�& *"'I Robert M. Keating, CP Community Developmen rirector FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP <� �- Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: November 5, 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 12, 1996. 1 -- -"_M. 01jeffinflixul 1 1 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. On November 5, 1996, the Board considered the Evaluation and Appraisal reports (SARs) corresponding to volume I of the county's comprehensive plan. The November 12th meeting is the second part of the board's workshop for consideration of the EARs associated with the second volume of the county's comprehensive plan. 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 remaining 7 elements of the county comprehensive plan that will be reviewed at the November 12th meeting. The Board already reviewed Evaluation and Appraisal reports for the other 10 elements and sub -elements of the county's comprehensive plan on November 5, 1996. 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 MAerlifted and any deletions are shown as At the November 12th workshop meeting, staff will present a summary of the Evaluation and Appraisal Reports for the following 7 elements of the comprehensive plan: 2 November 12, 1996 Volume H of the Comprehensive Plan, including the following elements and sub -elements: - Housing Element - Conservation Element - Coastal Management Element - Recreation and Open Space Element - Economic Development Element - Capital Improvement Element - Intergovernmental Coordination Element The Board of County Commissioners should review the Evaluation and Appraisal Reports provided, collect public input, and provide direction to staff. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review information provided, collect public input, and provide direction to staff. Director Keating advised that Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani had supplied a package of information which will be included in the overheads for today's presentation. He explained how the report was structured, that he will use the ELMO and review the objectives for many elements, commenting on those which have been achieved or not achieved and advising why or why not. He will also address the policies for each element and try to determine whether to maintain those policies, or whether they should be revised, deleted, or others added. (At 3:05 p.m., Commissioner Bird entered the meeting.) Recreation and Open Space Element Because Vero Beach/Indian River County Recreation Director Pat Callahan was in the audience, Director Keating took this element first. He then reviewed the following statistics: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT # OF 1990 OBJECTIVES: 12 # OF OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED: 9 # OF OBJECTIVES PARTIALLY ACHMM: 3 # OF OBJECTIVES NOT ACHIEVED: 0 3 BOOK 99 PAf 78°7 November 12, 1996 Boa 99 fAu 7$8 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE MAINTAINED 2 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE REVISED 10 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE DELETED 0 # OF NEW OBJECTIVES TO BE ADDED 0 OIPIOBROSMX # OF 1990 POLICIES: 43 # OF POLICIES UMMUMM. 34 # OF POLICIES PARTIALLY VdPLENENTED: 3 # OF POLICIES NOT DHPLEII+IENTED: 6 # OF POLICIES TO BE MAINTAINED 14 # OF POLICIES TO BE REVISED 22 # OF POLICIES TO BE DELETED 7 # OF NEW POLICIES TO BE ADDED 5 IIVISIPOLSOSMM Director Keating stressed that the State's requirements under level of service standards (LOS) are part of the concurrency requirement. He explained in detail the evaluation and appraisal procedure used by staff concerning this element and the struggles they have had concerning LOS and a timetable for creation of new regional parks. He specified that the major struggle is whether the County should focus on large regional parks or provide smaller neighborhood parks. With that in mind, Director Keating advised that staff has recommended changing Objective 1 as follows: Objective 1 • Adequate Parklands Objective achieved and retained. Revise Policy 1.1 to set new countywide standard of 4 ac/1000. Minor revision to Policy 1.3. 2 new policies: - Needs Assessment; and - North County Park. 4 November 12, 1996 _I M M M Director Keating advised that staff had worked closely with Director Callahan in forming their recommendations. Chairman Adams questioned the use of an 81,000+ population figure, and Director Keating explained that was the 1990 census figure; the 1995 figure is 122,000. Concerning beach parks, Commissioner Eggert wondered whether there would be a need for additional ocean or river parks for quite a while with all those presently in place, and Director Keating advised that the State did not require them to break out LOS by specific types of parks, although it had been done in 1990 because those were the types of parks at that time. He thought what might be needed would be river access in the south county, on the mainland side. He pointed out that the plan for the Oslo Park boat ramp is being eliminated due to sea grasses and an inability to dig a channel. Commissioner Bird agreed that the county was in good shape.on,., beachfront parks, and that the improvements planned for Round Island would help the south end of the county. There was a need to improve the channel and car and boat trailer parking for the river in the south end as well. Commissioner Eggert believed that some parks would be more popular if there was more playground equipment in place. Director Keating requested more direction as to whether the Board wanted "Charles Park -type parks" scattered around the county or if they wanted to focus attention on larger regional parks which might provide ball parks and so forth. Commissioner Bird recounted his 14 -year history of achievements in parks and recreation, telling of the little parks scattered around originally and of the difficulties in maintaining those small parcels. He stated that the Parks and Recreation Committee had taken the position of concentrating on larger/regional parks. Now that the larger parks have been established and the population has infilled, he suggested there may be a need to carefully plan for smaller neighborhood parks in higher population areas where there is no regional park. Director Keating advised that the Board would not need to make a final decision this year, but merely give a general indication of which direction staff should proceed. In response to Chairman Adams' inquiry on Policy 1.1 above, Director Keating advised that the recommendation of 4 acres/1000 people was a compromise. Administrator Chandler recalled that a few years ago the City of Vero Beach and the County funded a study, but the final 5 November 12, 1996 k BOOK 99 Face ls9 bou 99 PACE 790 recommendation of creating an independent taxing district was unacceptable to everyone. He also recounted the dilemma of City and County administrators being unable to come to any conclusive recommendations. Commissioner Bird thought the clearest option was for municipalities to develop the facilities they wanted in their area and the County to develop recreational facilities and parks in unincorporated areas with one common recreational staff to administer the programs and some type of joint funding. He predicted the creating of a formula for funding this concept would not be easy. Administrator Chandler advised that was the concept the various administrations were working toward before they broke off their meetings. Chairman Adams felt that a needs assessment should be a priority. Commissioner Eggert felt that a cost analysis was also important when the needs assessment is performed. Director Keating referred to page 22 as an indication of what staff was proposing to do in the needs analysis. New Policiesy In addition to the existing policies under Objective 1, aaetheic two new policiesy-4-9 are needed. The first policy should call for A t4ae needs analysis disette;eQ—in the analysis to be completed by 1999. That The policy should also call for the analysis to include a discussion of the following: • a democrrar)hic analysis and a generalized needs survey to determine the tyre of parks and facilities needed • what facilities are needed; • the quantity of those facilities needed; • where those facilities are needed; • how much parkland is needed to accommodate those facilities; • park district boundaries; • current use of facilities; - survey ef the eemmunity te determine on--whiehfQe l i acs demand , • the park type (community, neighborhood, specialty, etc.) mix; • national standards; and • unique local conditions. Sebastian Creek DrORerty, located on the north side of CR 512 surplussed and leased to the county for the development of a north county mark. Director Keating felt that staff now had the necessary direction in this important objective of this element. R November 12, 1996 M M M E1 Housin! Element Director Keating reviewed the following figures and explained that the population statistics were from the 1990 census which was a drawback in trying to evaluate the Comprehensive Plan's effectiveness. HOUSIN MM Objective 1 ausing Affor� dabl►ity 9biective 4. Honcinu eQ�.�.a..,,e Objective Achieved Objective Achieved Minor Changes to the objective Minor changes to the objective • Delete Policy 1.3 • Delete policy 4.5 Appoint AHAC/preparation of a final report Request to adopt tax on (completed) documentary stamp (completed) • Delete Policy 1.4 • Minor revisions to policy 4. 1. 4.3, 4.4, 4.7, and 4.8 Affordable Housing Study (completed) • New policy to encourge home • Minor revisions to policies 1.1 ownership/provision of DPCC and 1.6 loans through SHIP program • New policy to streamline the Obve Bliuhr ua permitting process a Obiectiv Balan pd Ho ing ]t'�arke* Objective Achieved Objective Achieved Minor changes to the objective/ combine with objective 3 Minor changes to the objective • Delete Policy 5.4 • Delete Policy 2.6 Utilize adopted standard housing Demonstration project (not code (same as policy 3.1) feasible) • New Policy • Minor changes to policies 2.1, 2.4, and 2.5 Working with • New policy to indicate that the community based organization for rehabilitation through county "has designated SHIP program sufficient sites at sufficient density for affordable housing • New policy for creation and preservation of affordable housing and provision of services Objective 3 Improved Propgly Maintenance Objective Achieved Minor changes- to the objective/ combine with objective 5 • Minor revisions to policy 3.2 7 November 12, 1996 nn 900K 99 F'aGE 7J1 BOOK 99 FADE 792 Director Keating pointed out that the county's housing assistance plan is the SHIP program and that almost all of the dollars distributed in that program are in the form of deferred payment loans. He called attention to the fact that recently the County has gotten a couple of income tax credit projects which have added available rental housing. It is a competitive program and developers have been inquiring whether they can use any of the SHIP funds as part of their project. ,Staff and the lending partners of the SHIP program have decided that it is best to focus on home ownership. He thought the Board ought to be prepared as that issue might be coming before them. Chairman Adams recalled that similar requests for special consideration were expressed during the Value Adjustment Board hearings, and Commissioner Bird declared that quite a few developers were interested in coming into the area but had indicated that the County was not competitive due to a lack of affordable housing allowances. Commissioner Eggert recommended that whether or not multi- family developments should receive any assistance from the programs was something the Board needed to continue to consider. Director Keating illustrated how the Housing Element interrelates with the Economic Development Element and also the Land Use Element in the Comprehensive Plan. He believed it important to make sure there is an adequate amount of affordable housing so that economic development in the county can proceed. Also, the State requires that certain objectives be addressed. Director Keating then reviewed the following achievements and mentioned that some of them would be tweaked or changed slightly. He advised that staff is recommending the addition of one new objective cluster concerning Community Development Grant Block funds. Objective 6 necial Ho ting Needs Objective 8. Historic Housing 8 November 12, 1996 Objective Achieved Objective Achieved Minor changes to the objective Revise the objective to set measurable target • Minor revisions to policies 6.1 and 6.2 • Minor revisions to policy 8.2 Coordination Objective 7 EarflLW21crjaftusing Objective Achieved tive 9 Intergovernmental Objective Partially Achieved Minor changes to the objective Minor changes to the objective • Minor revisions to policies 9.1. • Minor revisions to policy 7.1 and 9.2 • New policy regarding utilization of job training and job creation as an economic solution to Affordable Housing 8 November 12, 1996 Sew Objective. Improved Infrastructure and Community Development characteristics • (policy) Inventorying of neighborhoods with inadequate infra- structure • (policy) Securing funding for those improvements, such as applying for the CDBG funds • (policy) Informing public of opportunities for providing improvements • (policy) Providing for more flexible petition paving requirements for neighborhoods with a high percentage of very low and low income households Era 7n. POPULATION- -County Total 90,208 100,261 -Unincorporated 58,175 64,114 (64.48%) (63.94%) HOUSING UNITS: .County Total 47,128 53,321 -Unincorporated 29,360 33365 (6'2.30%) (62.57%) HOUSING TYPES (COUNTY TOTAL} .Single -Family 27,305 31,953 -Multi-Family 13,019 13,325 -Mobile Home 6,804 7,600 ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS 19go-1995 RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL BUILDING PERMITS UNITS NET ISSUED nE nTjgm 1ffm Municipalities 2,= 21 2,188 Unincorporated 4,099 (K98%) 94(81.73%) 4,005 (64.67%) County County Total 6,308 115 6,193 ulvlslhoupop.ovd 9 November 12, 1996 BOOK F'A�a f s 99 FACE 794 1990 CENSQSINCR $ 666 101% S 505 92% $78.800 71 % $28,961 92% EmWf� Overcrowded conditions: Occupied housing with 1.1 or more persons per room 893 1016 Number of units demolished since 1990: 115 Number of units rehabill since 1990: 192 TOTAL 262 Commissioner Bird cited page 44, policy 1. 1, asking County Attorney Vitunac if "impact fees" could be inserted in the first sentence because they had a very direct relationship to affordable housing. He thought it should be reviewed. OBJECTIVE 1 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY By 1990, Indian River County shall secure the means to -reduce the cost of housing development and construction to ensure that affordable housing is available to the 60% of county households in the very low, low, and moderate income groups. POLICY 1.1: All codes, ordinances, regulations, policies and procedures regarding residential development review and construction shall be reviewed to determine their impact on housing development costs. Those components which unnecessarily increase the cost of housing without impairing the health, sanitation, fire safety, structural integrity and maintenance requirements shall be eliminated. This review will focus on zoning district size and dimensional criteria, mandated infrastructure improvements, and review processing time. This review will be conducted as part of the land development regulation update to be completed by September 1, 1990. Director Keating advised that in order to qualify for SHIP funds, staff actually had to do a Housing Incentive Plan and that in that process they had looked closely at impact fees. He apprised the Board that impact fees cannot. be waived for a particular project. If affordable housing is going to be subsidized, the impact fees for those units need to be paid, but the subsidy must come from another source. 10 November 12, 1996 1980 1990 1995 CENSUS -Median Monthly Cost S 331 HOUSING ASSISTANCE: (owner -occupied units) -Median Monthly Rent S 263 Section 8 Rental Assistance 301 427 -Median Housing Value $46,000 Waiting List 100 222 -Median Household Income $15,072 DIRECT ASSISTANCE: n Sub -standard Housing: • Farmers Home Administration 100 200 -Units lacking complete 372 Local Housing Assistance Program — 131 plumbing facilities NIIMHER OF GROUP HOMES 8 14 -Units with no heating 661 (50 facilities additional beds) 99 FACE 794 1990 CENSQSINCR $ 666 101% S 505 92% $78.800 71 % $28,961 92% EmWf� Overcrowded conditions: Occupied housing with 1.1 or more persons per room 893 1016 Number of units demolished since 1990: 115 Number of units rehabill since 1990: 192 TOTAL 262 Commissioner Bird cited page 44, policy 1. 1, asking County Attorney Vitunac if "impact fees" could be inserted in the first sentence because they had a very direct relationship to affordable housing. He thought it should be reviewed. OBJECTIVE 1 HOUSING AFFORDABILITY By 1990, Indian River County shall secure the means to -reduce the cost of housing development and construction to ensure that affordable housing is available to the 60% of county households in the very low, low, and moderate income groups. POLICY 1.1: All codes, ordinances, regulations, policies and procedures regarding residential development review and construction shall be reviewed to determine their impact on housing development costs. Those components which unnecessarily increase the cost of housing without impairing the health, sanitation, fire safety, structural integrity and maintenance requirements shall be eliminated. This review will focus on zoning district size and dimensional criteria, mandated infrastructure improvements, and review processing time. This review will be conducted as part of the land development regulation update to be completed by September 1, 1990. Director Keating advised that in order to qualify for SHIP funds, staff actually had to do a Housing Incentive Plan and that in that process they had looked closely at impact fees. He apprised the Board that impact fees cannot. be waived for a particular project. If affordable housing is going to be subsidized, the impact fees for those units need to be paid, but the subsidy must come from another source. 10 November 12, 1996 - M M County -Attorney Vitunac called impact fees a "true cost" of providing the service to the units. He went on to say that the question then became who should pay for the cost of the low-cost housing: utilities customers, the general fund, or some other source. Director Keating advised they had looked at the possibility of imposing additional local option gas tax and had calculated proceeds by using from 10 to 60, but the committee and Board decided against it. Commissioner Bird stressed that other counties offered more favorable impact fees on land costs to attract developers. Commissioner Eggert recounted the results of a study Tim Zorc had conducted which revealed that other counties had other fees which were not labeled impact fees, but which produced similar costs to developers. Director Keating estimated that 37 of the 67 counties in the state have the traf f is impact fees. He explained that Indian River County is limited to three impact fees which provide basic, necessary infrastructure. Commissioner Macht wanted to discuss again why our county has subsidized housing, because he felt that some people are just milking the system at the expense of hard-working taxpayers. Commissioner Eggert submitted that this was not the time for that discussion. Director Keating pointed out that "county funds" were not being used for housing subsidies. The funding of the SHIP program comes from State documentary stamps and the good thing about SHIP money is that it is a deferred payment loan and provides a lot of benefits, such as construction, housing for people who would not be able to have a house on their own, and increased property taxes. Commissioner Eggert recalled that the last time SHIP was discussed, there was a reduction in middle income recipients. Conservation Element Director Keating reviewed some of the objectives and major accomplishments since 1990 under the Conservation Element using the following guide: 11 November 12, 1996 BOOK 99 F'An 795 I 500K 99 FADE 796 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CONPBEHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT CONSERVATION ELEMENT # OF 1990 OBJECTIVES: CONSERVATION ELEMENT 11 # OF OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED: 6 MAJOR ACCOMP I HMENTS # OF OBJECTIVES PARTIALLY ACHIEVED. LDR Chapters 927, 928 & 929 adopted 4 # OF OBJECTIVES NOT ACHIEVED: 7,000+ acres preserved through I County ELP, State Acquisitions & Conservation Easements # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE MAINTAINED 3 Maintain objective # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE REVISED Minor Revisions to Policies 1.2, 1.4, 8 1.5 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE DELETED 0 Delete Policy 1.1: Annual air quality data # OF NEW OBJECTIVES TO BE ADDED I Delete Policy 1.6: Evaluate stationary UMOBCON.ELM air pollution sources New Policy: Address debris burning INDIAN RIM COUNTY and mulching operations COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT rONSFRVATION ELE� OBJECTIVE 2 - S� aFACE WAT R # OF 1990 POLICIES: QUALITY 83 # OF POLICIES INPLENENTED: Objective not achieved - Revise 68 to set more practical, achievable water quality levels; target # OF POLICIES PARTIALLY DIIPLENENM- specific areas of the IRL 9 Minor Revisions to Policies: 2.1, 2.2, # OF POLICIES NOT IMPLEMENTED: 2.5, 2.7, 2.9 6 Delete Policy 2.10: Maximum depth of created waterbodies (SJRWMD) # OF POLICIES TO BE MAINTAINED New Policy: Encourage SJRWMD to 34 assist SRWCD to inventory basin; # OF POLICIES TO BE REVISED adopt L.O.S. & discharge limitations 37 New Policy: Establish PLRGs, # OF POLICIES TO BE DELETED Address OSDS "priority areas" by 12 sewer expansion # OF NEW POLICIES TO BE ADDED New Policy: Incorporate model 1s policies of the IRLNEP CCMP UIVISIPOLCONJ:LM 12 November 12, 1996 OBJECTIVE 3 -GROUNDWATER QUALITY AND QUANTITY - Objective should be revised to OBJECTIVE 8, RECREATIONAL URESENAIURAL REMIRM Revise Objective by establishing establish a measurable target a more measurable Target Minor Revisions to Policies: 3.3 - 3.6 Revise Policy 8.4: Expand; Include Delete Policy 3.7: Emergency Water Boat Facilities Siting Element of MPP Conservation Plan (SJRWMD) Delete Policy 8.5: Limit ORV use in New Policy: Update SAPROD / upland & wetland habitats Establish Wellhead Protection Zones New Policy: Address management OBJECTIVE 4 FLOODPLAINS and funding for resource-based - parks Maintain Objective 9BJECTIVF OMM� R•r�e�E Minor Revisions to Policies: 4.1, 4.5 NATURei OF o Delete Policy 4.3: Maximum density 3 Revise objective to reflect a more specific measure units/acre in floodprone areas (implemented) Delete Policy 9.2: Administer state regulations for sand mines OBJECTIVE 5 - WETLANDS New Policy: Promote aquaculture Maintain Objective OBJ�TIVE �n SOI FRne�nu Minor Revisions to Policies: 5.1, 5.5, 5.7, 5.9 Revise to emphasize coordination with the IRC Soil & Revise Policy 5.7: Delegation of Water Conservation District Mangrove Regulation Enforcement Minor Revisions to Policies 10.3, 10.7 Delete Policy 5.6: Continue Protection until Wetlands ordinance Revise Policy 10.5: Prohibit Coastal is adopted (adopted) Armoring New Policy: Support CARL Policy 10.8: Establish specific "Blueways" program OBJECTIVE 6 - UPLAND criteria for shoreline stabilization OBJECTIVE 11 HAZeRnn� �e AND VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES Objective should be revised to NON-HA?`eRC�OUS L";TE Revise Objective to state "By emphasize 2010, there will be no cases of management g improperly managed and illegally disposed waste in Indian River Minor Revisions to Policies: 6.1 - 6.4, County." 6.9, 6.10, 6.12, 6.14 - 6.16 Revise Policy 11.1: Decrease illegal Revise Policy 6.8: Nuisance exotic disposal of hazardous waste (identify specific actions) species Revise Policy 11.2: Reduce solid OBJECTIVE 7 - WILDLIFE AND waste volume by 30% (identify MARINE HABITAT - specific actions) Maintain Objective (minor text New Policy: Inventory hazardous revisions) waste & disposal practices Minor Revisions to Policies: 7.1, 7.4, New Policy: Reduce discharge from 7.8 Landfill mWOBJECTIV 1 • RRTARI IS ■ Delete Policy 7.5: Support FDEP TARGET DATE AND SMRE proposal to establish speed zones CONCERNIN ci ��DING ANn eAAdAOEMENT N Fna nG New Policy: HCP ACQUIREn CONSERveT[nu w. m 13 November 12, 1996 BOOK BOOK 99 PACE 798 Director Keating focused on Objective 2, surface water quality, advising that several new policies will be inserted. Staff is recommending deletion of a policy concerning maximum depth of created water bodies which had been resolved by handing it over to St. Johns River Water Management District. With respect to Objective 3, Director Keating declared that once again, the County is subject to State requirements. He advised that staff is recommending revision to set an objective target, and advised that new policy relating to well head protection will be included. Director Keating advised that under Wetlands, Objective 5, staff is recommending deletion of policy 5.6 and addition of a new policy to support the CARL Blueways program. Chairman Adams wanted to know if the change(s) would give the _ Board the opportunity to take another look at the Flynn tract, and Chief of Environmental Planning Roland DeBlois advised that will be coming up following an inter -agency coordination. He declared that SJRWMD's staff has decided the project is worthy and staff is hopeful that issue will move forward. Chairman Adams was pleased to hear Mr. DeBlois' report. Director Keating touched on Objective 6 advising that staff is recommending the target date be set back for the year 2000 and he expected they would be recommending other revisions. He felt the County had made a lot of progress in this area. Director Keating briefly reviewed Objective 7, recommending a new policy to complete a habitat conservation plan, which they feel will be helpful in resolving some problems that have come up regarding endangered species. Staff feels some revision is necessary in Objective 8 to set a manageable target. He thought they will begin seeing initiatives generally with respect to the County's land acquisition and natural resource protection and management. In Objective 9 there will be a new policy promoting aqua culture. Chairman Adams inquired about sand mines, and Director Keating explained that this relates to administering State regulations; that the County still has its own regulations but we try to defer to SJRWMD as much as possible. Mr. DeBlois advised that with respect to sand mines, staff had become aware of some obscure state mining regulations and had been working with the State. The result was really not practical and our sand mining regulations were not affected. 14 November 12, 1996 M M Director Keating addressed Objective 10 saying a need is seen to revise Policy 10. 5, which is a total prohibition on coastal armoring, because there needs to be some flexibility. Chairman Adams and Commissioner Eggert were in favor of pursuing this and wished him luck. Director Keating called their attention to a new Objective 12 relating to the funding issue for acquired conservation lands. Coastal Management Element Director Keating briefly reviewed the accomplishments, objectives and policies as outlined below: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COASTAL M_A_NACEMENT ELEMENT EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT # OF 1990 OBJECTIVES: COAST i MANAGEMENT Ei.FMFIUT 11 # OF 1990 POLICIES: 0 OF OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED: 84 8 # OF POLICIES IMPLEMENTED; # OF OBJECTIVES PARTIALLY ACHnVED: 72 2 # OF POLICIES PARTIALLY IMPLEMENTED; # OF OBJECTIVES NOT ACHIEVED: 6 I # OF POLICIES NOT DI?LEMENTED; 6 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE MAINTAINED 1 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE REVISED 10 # OF-OBJEMVES TO BE DELETED 0 # OF NEW OBJECTIVES TO BE ADDED 0 UIPIOBCMMM 15 November 12, 1996 # OF POLICIES TO BE MAINTAINED 34 # OF POLICIES TO BE REVISED 40 # OF POLICIES TO BE DELETED 10 # OF NEW POLICIES TO BE ADDED 14 UIVISIPOLCM.ELM BOOK 99 PAr. 799 LDR Chapter 932 - Coastal Management adopted Environmental Lands Program acquisitions Archie Carr National Wildlife Refuge established Natural Disaster Planning/Hurricane Evacuation Speed Zones established in IRL Revise Objective by establishing new target date of achievement Minor Revisions to Policies: 1.1, 1.5 - 1.10, 1.13, 1.15 New Policy: Adopt Habitat Conservation Plan Revise Objective - new target date of achievement 2010; set target levels for specific sections of the IRL Minor Revisions to Policies: 2.5, 2.10 Revise Policy 2.1: Adopt State Class II Water Quality standards; target improvements Revise Policy 2.6: Reduce freshwater flow to IRL New Policy: Incorporate policies of the IRLNEP CCMP OBJECTIVE 3 WATER DEPENDENT/ WATER -RELATED USES Revise Objective to make it results oriented Minor Revisions to Policies: 3.4 - 3.6 Revise Policy 3.1: Water- Dependent/Water-Related Uses (include MPP provisions) Delete Policy 3.2: Similar to Policy 1.13 Delete Policy 3.7: Regulations for _ "live aboard vessels" (implemented) New Policy: Incorporate marina/boat facility siting criteria into CME and LDR Chapter 932 16 November 12, 1996 BOOK 99 P,,GE 800 Revise Objective - set new target date of achievement and establish a measurable target Minor Revisions 4.5 to Policies: 4.1, 4.4, Delete Policy 4.9: Cubit Beach Preservation Plan (interim policy) New Policy: Address coastal armoring and beach renourishment �E_C IVES � I„ MITI• "PE (TURES iu TH.- , aT. Z Revise objective to account for new definition and designated boundaries of the CHHA Minor Revisions to Policies: 5.1-5.4 Delete Policy 5.5: Adopt revised SBC (implemented) Revise target date of achievement Revise Policy 6.4: Safe Shelter Capacity (seek state funding for retrofits) Revise Policy 6,7: Prohibit increased zoning densities in the HVZ Delete Policy 6.2: Construct 4 Lane Fixed -Span Bridge (completed) New Policy: Prohibit new ACI -Fs in HVZ Revise target date of achievement Minor Revisions to Policies: 7.1 - 7.3, 7.6 New Policy: Address CEMP revisions Revise title "Public Access" Delete Policy 8.3: Improve Oslo Boat Ramp & Develop Treasure Shores Park New Policy: Provide passive recreation on Conservation lands New Policy: Improve shoreline access facilities New Policy: Enforce Coastal Zone Protection Act Maintain Objective Minor Revisions to Policies: 9.1, 9.6 Delete Policy 9.2: Archeological Survey (completed) Revise Objective to include new definition and boundaries of the CHHA; maintain existing level -of - service standards through 2010 Minor Revisions to Policies: 10.2, 10.4, 10.6, 10.7 New Policy: Public beach renourishment/PEP reef Revise Objective in conjunction with FLUE to state that there will be no increase in density of land use allowed in the CHHA by the current Comprehensive Plan Revise Policy 11.4: Prohibit densities in the CHHZ greater than RS -3 Revise Policy 11.5: Locate development away from CHHZ Delete Policy 11.1: Implement CME policies Delete Policy 11.3: Reduce densities in the CHHZ Director Keating pointed out that Objective 1 should include a policy to adopt a habitat conservation plan. The target date for Objective 2 would be extended from 1995 to 2010. Staff is looking at putting in some of the policies from the National Estuaries Program. Under Objective 3, staff recommends deletion of policy 3.7 concerning liveaboard regulations. It is a State requirement to include manatee protection regarding marina boat facility siting criteria. Staff is recommending a new policy to address coastal armoring and beach renourishment (under Objective 4), to make it easier for the Board to make decisions and to set up some standards/criteria for permits. Director Keating advised that Objective 5 related to the State's requirements, explaining that the State has changed the definition of Coastal High Hazard Zone, and has substantially expanded the geographic scope of the CHHZ to include the evacuation zone for a category 1 storm. Director Keating advised that staff proposed deletion of policies 5.5 and 11.3 and that policies 11.4 and 11.5 be revised. 17 November 12, 1996 BOOK 99 F�r,E 8$)1 i r Boa 99 PnE 802 Staff is also recommending that there not be any increase in the existing Comprehensive Plan land use designations in the CHHZ and explained the reasoning behind it. Commissioner Bird questioned how can we be consistent with Objective 5 recalling various difficulties encountered now, and Director Keating agreed and that was why they were suggesting revision. Director Keating advised that staff was seeing that it needed to be changed and we will keep pumping infrastructure money to support the densities that are already allowed by the Comprehensive Plan. Director Keating thought the State's objective was to reduce the damage in the event of a hurricane. Concerns were expressed about the State calling the shots for a hurricane.evacuation. Based on information that came from the County's Emergency Services, Mr. DeBlois understood that the State sets the category, but the County determines what that means as far as evacuation. County Attorney Vitunac will check into the specifics required under Chapter 163. Director Keating explained the new policy under Objective 10 which supports beach renourishment and the PEP reef. He emphasized that the major thrust with this element is the Coastal High Hazard Zone. Economic Development Element Director Keating reviewed INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT # OF 1990 OBJECTIVES: 9 # OF OBJECTIVES ACHIEVED: 5 # OF OBJECTIVES PARTIALLY ACHIEVED: 2 # OF OBJECTIVES NOT ACHIEVED: 2 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE MAINTAINED 0 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE REVISED 6 # OF OBJECTIVES TO BE DELETED 3 # OF NEW OBJECTIVES TO BE ADDED 1 UIPIOBEDMA November 12, 1996 the following: INDIAN RIM COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT # OF 1990 POLICIES: 52 # OF POLICIES IMPLEMENTED: 49 # OF POLICIES PARTIALLY IMPLEMENT®: 0 # OF POLICIES NOT IMPIMWNTED: 3 # OF POLICIES TO BE MAINTAINED 31 # OF POLICIES TO BE REVISED 18 # OF POLICIES TO BE DELETED 3 -' # OF NEW POLICIES TO BE ADDED 42 18 UIVISIPOLED.ELM ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Objective 1: Low Unem I�oyment Rate Objective not achieved. Revise target date and target unemployment rate. Revise policies 1.1, 1.4 and 1.9 to be more specific. Minor revisions to policies 1.2 and 1.8. Delete policy 1.3 (added to Recreation and Open Space Element). 4 new policies: -new policies should reflect strategic actions 1.1 through 1.4 of the Economic Development Strategy Plan (EDSP). Objective not achieved. Revise method of measurement. Minor revisions to policies 2.1 and 2.2. 5 new policies:- -new policies should reflect strategic actions 2.1 through 2.5 of the EDSP. Objective partially achieved Delete and replace it with objective which directly -relates to economic development. Revise polices 3.1, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 to be more specific. Minor revision to policy 3.7. Delete policy 3.5 (vague policy). No new policies 19 November 12, 1996 Objective achieved. Move objective to transportation element. Minor revision to policy 4.3. 9 new policies: -seven of the new policies should reflect strategic actions 4.1 through 4.7 of the EDSP. -policy regarding commuter airlines. -policy to encourage free trade zones. Cannot determine whether the objective is achieved. Revise objective to be measurable. Minor revision to policy 5.1. No new policies. Objective achieved. Revise objective to reflect objective 3 of EDSP. Minor revisions to policy 6.1 and 6.4. 15 new policies: -new policies should reflect strategic actions 3.1-3.3, 3.6-3.13 and 3.17-3.26 of EDSP. Objective 7: I Sa itary Sewer Facilities Objective achieved. Move objective to the Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. Revise policy 7.3 to be more specific. No new policies. ®o®Ic 99 P n803 Conditions at Time of Adoption Existing Conditions Total Population 90,208 100,261 County Median Age 39.6 44 Indian River County Unemployment 9.80% 9.80% Indian River County Average Annual Employment 34,191 34,800 County Median Family Income $33,569 $37,700 Cost of Living (State Ranking) 10th 11th Percent below the poverty line 12.30%1 8.70% # of Tourists Visited the County 529,000 593,600 Objective 1: Low Unem I�oyment Rate Objective not achieved. Revise target date and target unemployment rate. Revise policies 1.1, 1.4 and 1.9 to be more specific. Minor revisions to policies 1.2 and 1.8. Delete policy 1.3 (added to Recreation and Open Space Element). 4 new policies: -new policies should reflect strategic actions 1.1 through 1.4 of the Economic Development Strategy Plan (EDSP). Objective not achieved. Revise method of measurement. Minor revisions to policies 2.1 and 2.2. 5 new policies:- -new policies should reflect strategic actions 2.1 through 2.5 of the EDSP. Objective partially achieved Delete and replace it with objective which directly -relates to economic development. Revise polices 3.1, 3.6, 3.8 and 3.9 to be more specific. Minor revision to policy 3.7. Delete policy 3.5 (vague policy). No new policies 19 November 12, 1996 Objective achieved. Move objective to transportation element. Minor revision to policy 4.3. 9 new policies: -seven of the new policies should reflect strategic actions 4.1 through 4.7 of the EDSP. -policy regarding commuter airlines. -policy to encourage free trade zones. Cannot determine whether the objective is achieved. Revise objective to be measurable. Minor revision to policy 5.1. No new policies. Objective achieved. Revise objective to reflect objective 3 of EDSP. Minor revisions to policy 6.1 and 6.4. 15 new policies: -new policies should reflect strategic actions 3.1-3.3, 3.6-3.13 and 3.17-3.26 of EDSP. Objective 7: I Sa itary Sewer Facilities Objective achieved. Move objective to the Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. Revise policy 7.3 to be more specific. No new policies. ®o®Ic 99 P n803 Bou 99 PnE 804 Objective achieved. Objective achieved. Move objective to Housing Element. Revise objective to make it results oriented. Revise policy 8.6 to reflect current 3 new policies: procedure. -policy regarding coordination for expedited permitting. Delete policy 8.2 (vague policy) -two policies reflecting strategic No new policies. actions 6.1 and 6.2 of the EDSP. 6 new policies related to tourism He advised that the Economic Development Council had worked closely with staff resulting in a number of whole policy clusters to be deleted and at least one new policy cluster (on tourism) to be added. He explained the thinking behind these changes was to attempt to get more consistency among the 3 economic development documents (Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan, the County's Economic Development Strategy Plan, and the County's Overall Economic Development Plan). He explained the funding/role/use of each. Director Keating explained the objectives dealing with adequate water/sewer facilities, housing, transportation, etc. are important but are covered in other elements of the Comprehensive Plan. He called attention to Objective 1, the proposed change is that the county will have an unemployment rate less than 2% of the state average, which is probably achievable. With respect to Objective 2, Balanced Economic Growth, the county is Looking to the year 2000 having at least 3,000 new manufacturing jobs. The goal is to have both the Economic Development Element of the Comprehensive Plan and the County's Economic Development Strategy Plan comparable and consistent. Commissioner Eggert interjected that the Strategy Plan is going to be carefully studied. The Board held a brief discussion about the increase and types of jobs now available due to the opening of the new Indian River Mall and wanted to get a better handle on the numbers and reasons for unemployment in the county. Commissioner Eggert explained that determining this information was difficult due to the transiency of the population throughout the state. Director Keating offered several complex reasons why this information was very difficult to determine. Commissioner Eggert called Director Keating's attention to a couple of minor changes on pages 7 and 11 and suggested a clarification of the 9.8% figure be inserted on Appendix "A". Director Keating agreed to make the changes. 20 November 12, 1996 Capital Improvements Element Director Keating explained the figures on the following chart. He also explained the importance of the Capital Improvements Element and how closely staff had worked with the Office of Management and Budget in developing the element. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT FISCAL YEAR REVENUE EXPENDITURE FY 1989/90 $84,045,000 $82,181,006 FY 1994/95 $112,726,000 $94,947,482 Percentage Increase 34.00% 16.00% FY 1990/91 -1994/95 $132,570,000 $108,260,000 FY 1995/96 -1999/2000 $191,680,000 $158,700,000 Percentage Increase 1 45.00% 47.00% Director Keating focused on Objective 2, explaining why the High Hazard Coastal Areas are included in this element. Objective achieved, minor revisions. Minor revisions to policies 2.1, 2.4, and 2.5. No new policies. Director Keating also called attention to Objective 5, which is the objective that relates to concurrency in the County's Concurrency Management System. He thought the County has been very successful in the concurrency matters that have occurred, that we have a good -system to track capacity and demand, which is an advantage in dealing with future growth and development. _bili Reaulied _a _T. Facilities Objective achieved, minor revisions. No new policies. Commissioner Eggert observed that this was one of the few areas where objectives have been achieved. Director Keating agreed that staff had done a good job with this element saying there were also fewer policies with which to deal. 21 November 12, 1996 4 BOOK 99 PAGE 805 BOOK 99 PAGE 806 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Director Keating advised that staff had modelled this evaluation and appraisal report responding to the following questions. Who do we deal with? How do we deal with them? What are the issues? Director Keating explained how the Legislature had made far- reaching changes affecting this element and then changed them. Because of those changes, this has been a strange element to track in the last 5 years. By approaching this element in a thorough manner, Director Keating felt that most of the objectives were achieved. A number of changes have been suggested, several of which he pointed out (below) and explained the reasoning. He thought the Board might wish to give additional direction. Objective Achieved Minor revisions to the objective • Delete policy 1.14 Study feasibility to become charter county (study completed, not feasible at this time) • Minor revisions to policies 13, 1.6.1.10 and 1.15 • New policy promoting joint meetings between the Board and other local governments' elected officials • New policy regarding identifying LOS inconsistencies with other jurisdictions • New policy requiring a written report containing specific actions to reduce or eliminate inconsistencies • New policy pass a resolution requesting that the state eliminate Regional Planning Councils The Board concurred that meetings with elected officials of other local governments would be acceptable in order to address specific mutual issues, if warranted, but they were not in favor of meetings being held on a regular basis. Director Keating also advised that an objective cluster related to annexation will be included, and Commissioner Eggert 22 November 12, 1996 M stated that was fine as long as it was confined to enclaves and not jumping over park land. New Objective - Coordination with muni rina hies r arding annexation • New policy- Identification and inventory of parcels, owners, and existing uses of enclaves • New policy- notify enclave landowners to request. annexation • New policy- prepare staff report on enclave annexation results • New policy- other new policies as needed regarding annexation Another new objective staff is recommending is coordination with the School Board concerning developmental planning, specifically criteria for school sites. • New policy- jointly develop and approve school siting criteria • New policy- share information and data • New policy- notify school board of all deve- lopment projects • New policy- bold joint annual meetings Chairman Adams was not in favor of having joint annual meetings with the School Board unless there was a specific reason to do so. Director Keating explained the thinking behind the suggestion, such as the School Board's dependency on the County to the extent of approval of development and identifying areas for growth, to determine that everyone has an understanding of what will happen. Commissioner Adams was not convinced and again spoke against having annual meetings in the Plan because other groups, such as the hospital, also would be requesting joint meetings. Commissioner Tippin thought there should be more frequent and periodic communication with the School Board using as an example the recent multi -family developments on Indian River Boulevard. Commissioner Eggert and Commissioner Bird agreed that information could be imparted under periodic staff notification rather than having a big meeting of the two Boards. Director Keating then specified the final new objective was identification of dredge spoil disposal sites in the Comprehensive Plan as required by the State. 23 November 12, 1996 BOOK 99 PAGE 897 J BOOK - 99 PACE 808 • New policy- to ensure involvement of the navigation and inlet districts and other appropriate state and federal agencies and the public in providing for or identifying dredge spoil disposal sites. • New policy- to utilize the conflict resolution process through the coastal resource interagency management committee's dispute resolution process to resolve conflicts between the county and a public agency seeking a dredge spoil disposal site. In closing, his presentation, Director Keating predicted that the December 10, 1996 Public Hearing would be brief because the two workshops were held. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 4:47 p.m. ATTEST: J. arton, Clerk Minutes approved on !%;) -/-1 9 6 24 November 12, 1996 Fran B. Adams, Chairman