HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/1999MINUTES`TTAC"'
HED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N D A
SPECIAL MEETING
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14,1999 - 9:00 A.M.
County Commission Chamber
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3)
Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn, (District 5)
Ruth M. Stanbridge (District 2)
John W. Tippin, (District 4)
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
BACKUP
PAGES
9:00 a.m. 1. Discussion of Planned Development (PD) Projects
(memorandum dated October 7, 1999) 1-65
2. Discussion of Agricultural Planned Developments
(memorandum dated October 8, 1999) 66-85
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
x meeting.
Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 — rebroadcast various times
throughout the week
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening
�OGI� PAGE 01
October 14, 1999
SPECIAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special
Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25 h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on
Tuesday, October 14, 1999 at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R Macht, Chairman; Fran
B. Adams, Vice Chairman; John W. Tippin; Caroline D. Grin; and Ruth Stanbridge. Also
present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia 'Tr' Jones, Deputy Clerk.
CALL TO ORDER
Chairman Macht called the meeting to order.
1. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD1 PROJECTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 7, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keating, AICP
Community Development D'
,46-
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
DATE: October 7, 1999
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -1- BOOK III PAGE 02
BOOK III FACE 03
SUBJECT: Discussion of Planned Development (PD) Projects
This information is to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners for its October 14,1999
workshop on planned developments (PDs).
BACKGROUND:
The Planned Development (PD) process is an optional development form through which special
negotiated regulations are approved that allow developers additional flexibility in teams of project
design as long as certain minimum standards are met and compatibility with adjacent area is
provided. In addition to providing developers with more design flexibility, the PD process also gives
the Board of County Commissioners more project approval discretion, compared to conventional
subdivision and site plan projects.
At its July and August 1999 public hearings on the Citrus Springs PD rezoning proposal, Board
members expressed concerns about PD ordinance allowances. At that time, the Board instructed
staff to set-up a public workshop at which various PD issues could be discussed. Staff has set-up
such a workshop and over the last several weeks has invited the Planning and Zoning Commission,
interested citizens, design professionals, developers, and property owners to attend. During the
workshop, staff intends to present graphics and pictures of certain existing projects to illustrate
characteristics of typical PD projects as well as characteristics of conventional projects. At the
conclusion of the workshop, the Board should make a determination as to whether or not changes
to the PD regulations need to be initiated
■ Indian River County Planned Development (PD) Regulations
I. History of PRD and PD Regulations
In 1985, the county adopted its first PD type regulations in the form of a Planned
Residential Development (PRD) ordinance. That ordinance contained most of the
provisions that are in the current PD regulations, including public hearing
requirements, the opportunity for waivers from standard setbacks and lot sizes,
special requirements for perimeter compatibility and recreation space, and an
allowance for accessory neighborhood commercial uses. That ordinance applied to
residential projects only and involved the special exception use process on property
already zoned for residential uses. Sixty Oaks, Catalina Oaks, Garden Grove, and
portions of Grand Harbor and Sea Oaks are examples of development projects that
were reviewed and approved as PRDs.
In 1991, the county's PRD ordinance was re -written as the Planned Development
(PD) ordinance (LDR Chapter 915). That ordinance is in effect today. In addition
to incorporating all of the PRD allowances and requirements, the PD ordinance
allows for both residential and non-residential PD's and allows for PD rezonings.
With a PD rezoning, a site may be rezoned to a unique zoning district specially
created for that particular site. Examples of projects approved as special exception
PDs are: Windsor, Oak Harbor, Hammock Lake Estates, Island Club, and portions
of Grand Harbor and Sea Oaks. Examples of projects approved as PD rezonings
include: Wal-Mart, Hedin Commercial, and MAGI mini -storage.
Currently, most local governments in Florida have planned development (PD)
ordinances (see attachment #3). Thus, PD ordinances have become commonplace
planning tools that are used in most jurisdictions.
0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -2 0
-
•
Comprehensive Plan Policies
Because the PD ordinance allows for design flexibility and extra county control, the
PD ordinance is the principal tool for implementing several comprehensive plan
policies that require project design flexibility and special controls. For example,
Coastal Management Element policy 1.2 provides for the protection of
environmentally sensitive lands by allowing property owners to transfer density from
sensitive lands to upland "receiver" sites. The increased density on receiver sites is
allowed only through the PD process, because the PD process allows compatibility
measures to be addressed on a site by site basis.
Other comprehensive plan policies dependent on the PD process include Land Use
Element policies relating to mixed use ("new town") projects and traditional
neighborhood design (TND) projects. These types of projects require approval
through the PD process to ensure compatibility and special county controls over a
wide variety of issues that cannot be addressed through conventional site plan and
subdivision reviews. Such extraordinary issues include: special perimeter setbacks
and buffers, streetscapes, provisions for public uses (e.g. schools, parks), clustering
of development, and aesthetic standards.
Besides those policies referenced above, comprehensive plan policies relating to
affordable housing density bonuses and residential development in agriculturally
designated areas also require PD project approvals. Through the PD process, such
proposals are reviewed and considered by the Board of County Commissioners at a
public hearing. Thus, the PD process is integral to several important comprehensive
plan policies.
Purpose and Intent
The PD ordinance specifies eight purposes for the PD regulations. In summary,
those reasons are as follows:
1. Provide incentives for designs that preserve environmental areas.
2. Allow for diverse uses, structures, facilities, and housing types.
3. Allow for clustered residential development in agriculturally designated areas
4. Encourage innovative designs that cannot be accomplished under
conventional standards.
5. Ensure compatibility with surrounding areas.
6. Encourage more efficient use of public services with designs not achievable
under conventional standards.
7. Encourage preservation of environmentally sensitive areas through transfer
of development rights.
8. Encourage affordable housing through density bonuses.
PD Procedures
The conventional subdivision and site plan review/approval processes allow
"permitted" and "by right" uses and standard layouts. The PD process is an
alternative to the conventional process and is an option available to land owners and
developers.
Because the PD process is optional and because no one must apply for PD project
approval to obtain an economically viable use of his land, the PD process is not
subject to the strict legal requirements applied to standard development applications
associated with uses allowed "by right". While a site plan application for a permitted
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -3- BOOK iii pnc 0
BOOK iii PAGE 0
(by right) use must be approved by the county if all applicable LDR requirements are
met, there is no similar obligation for the county to approve a PD project application.
PD project requests are either special exceptions or rezonings. In both cases, a site
plan is required to accompany the request, and the' site plan is reviewed by the
Technical Review Committee (TRC), the Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC)
(at a public hearing) and the Board of County Commissioners (at a public hearing).
This process is longer than the conventional site plan and subdivision approval
process, which requires TRC and PZC (no public hearing) review only. Typically,
PD plan information requirements are more involved than conventional site plan and
subdivision applications. Due to the public hearing process and discretionary control
of the county, the PD process is also less predictable than the conventional approval
process. In summary, the PD process is longer, more costly, and less certain than the
conventional approval process.
Degree of Flexibility
Conventional development standards for lot size, lot width, setbacks, and right-of-
way width are designed to apply to tract housing type of development, where
relatively uniform lots are spread evenly over an entire development site. Such
standards are necessary for the thousands of existing, individually -owned
conventional lots in the county.
For undeveloped land, however, the PD process offers a more flexible approach that
can better preserve and amenitize natural and manmade features, allow for a variety
of residential and non-residential product type, and allow for innovative designs that
simply cannot be anticipated by or accommodated under conventional standards.
The PD process provides this kind of flexibility.
Degree of Control
Such flexibility as described above is tempered under the PD process via greater
county and developer control. As structured, the PD process is controlled by the
comprehensive plan in regard to uses and densities. While the comprehensive plan
and the PD ordinance set overall PD limits, the Board of County Commissioners has
almost unlimited use and design control on individual PD projects. Such control
allows the county, through an involved public hearing process, to define uses on a
project site more narrowly than conventional zoning standards, and to control a
variety of design issues beyond conventional review standards. Such design issues
may include: special setbacks and buffers, preservation of natural features, building
location and mass, architectural design and colors, required provision of common
amenities such as recreation and pedestrian areas and facilities, a variety of
compatibility measures, and other relevant measures as determined on a site by site
basis. Also, through the public hearing process, designs are refined and improved to
the point where over 90% of all PD applications that are processed are ultimately
approved by the Board of County Commissioners.
A developer's "unified project control" is the key factor in making a PD project work
better than independent lot by lot development within a conventional project. In
essence, a PD project is designed as a whole, versus a conventional design that has
the simple goal of producing relatively interchangeable "one size fits all" lots. In
addition, all fimu+e ownerstresidents of a PD project are aware up -front of the overall,
approved design and waivers. Therefore, deviations from conventional standards
allowed in a PD project are known to buyers up -front, and future changes to the
project -specific standards are allowed only via Board of County Commissioners
approval at the end of a public hearing process. Thus, the PD process provides for
0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -4-
•
more county control and requires more project improvements than the conventional
development process.
PD Compatibility Requirements
The existing PD ordinance requires all PD projects to meet or exceed the following
compatibility requirements:
Twenty-five foot (2S) perimeter setback.' all residential PD projects require
a minimum 25' setback. No building or roadway pavement is allowed within
the 25' setback, although pool and patio improvements are allowed within the
setback.
Required buffers and transition areas: based upon a buffer/transition area
table in the PD ordinance, buffers are required along perimeters of PD
projects. The type of required buffer is based upon the land use designation
of the PD site and the designation of the adjacent site. Buffer requirements
are greater where PD projects abut sites with a less intense designation.
Transition areas are alternatives to buffers where the perimeter of a PD
Proles is designed to match the conventional lot size/dimension standards of
an adjacent site's designation or zoning. The PD buffer/transition area table
is shown in attachment #3.
These compatibility requirements are designed to ensure that a PD project fits in with
the existing development patterns in the area where it is proposed. That fit is assured
by making the PD project's edge compatible with adjacent property.
Reasons Developers Choose the PD Process
Uses defined in the zoning ordinance as "permitted" on a site and standard layouts
can be approved through the conventional site plan or subdivision development
process. Such a process approves development "by right", with no special
requirements applied. By contrast, the PD process is an option for the developer.
Generally, developers choose the PD process over the conventional process for one
or more of the following reasons:
• To transfer development rights (TDR) from environmentally sensitive land to
preserve such lands while retaining development potential.
• To preserve natural upland areas by clustering the total site's allowable number of
units in other area of the project site.
• To obtain a density bonus in return for providing affordable housing.
• To develop agriculturally designated lands with residential units.
• To allow a specific commercialYindustrial use or mix of uses not allowed under any
single conventional district or under a site's current zoning.
• To allow multi -family units to be sold -off with small or oddly shaped fee simple lots
with reduced setbacks.
• To allow a single-family product on smaller lots with smaller setbacks and reduced
right-of-way widths (trading conventional private lot area for common open space).
Each type of project referenced above proposes a trade-off between the developer and
the county. The developer obtains desired design or use flexibility and/or the
benefits of a particular incentive, while the county obtains extra design and use
control, public benefits (e.g. preserved natural open spaces), and creation of
innovative development products that meet market demands.
OCTOBER 14, 1999
-5-
BOOK Ill PAGE
•
BOOK M PAGE 0
Summary of PD Projects Approved/Denied
Since the PRD ordinance was first adopted in 1985, the Board of County
Commissioners has considered 56 PRD/PD projects. Of those 56 project
applications, 52 were approved with conditions, while 4 were denied. Of the 52
projects approved, only 5 of the projects were never built. Thus, 90% of the
approved PD projects have been built in part or in whole or are active in terms of
construction and/or permitting.
As indicated by the attached PD location maps, PD projects have been approved
throughout the Urban Service Area of the county on sites ranging in size from 10
acres to over 600 acres. PD projects have been approved in a variety of land use
designations at various densities, with a wide range of approved waivers and required
compatibility measures. Characteristics of approved PD projects are summarized by
land use designation in the table contained in attachment #4.
ANALYSIS:
■ PD Projects Approved/Denied to Date
An analysis of PD projects approved/denied to date indicates that the greatest degree of variation
(waivers) from conventional standards occurred on sites with higher land use designation densities
(e.g. L-2 (6 unit/acre) and M-1(8 unitlacre) areas] such as Sixty Oaks and Grand Harbor and on low
density golf course projects such as Windsor and Indian River Club. Therefore, PD projects with
a greater degree of variation (waivers) from conventional standards have been required to provide
a greater degree of buffering and/or separation from project perimeters than other PD projects. Thus,
the county's policy has been to have compatibility measures correspond to the degree of requested
waivers.
Given the number, variety, and location of PRD/PD projects over the last 14 years, it is obvious that
the PD process is popular and useful throughout the county. Overall, there have been few
complaints from neighbors of PRD/PD projects. And, over time, most projects seem to be
responsive to market demands. Therefore, the PD process seems to be successful overall.
■ Basic Trade-offs Analysis
In reevaluating the county's PD process, the Board needs to decide whether or not it wants to
continue to have the ability to make some basic trade-offs.
Is res urce protection worth the granting ofw� aiwxz?
This type of trade-off involves preserving a natural area by transferring all
development out of that area onto other portions of a project site. For example, on
a 100 acre site that contains a 30 acre hammock, the PD process could ensure total
preservation of the hammock in return for allowing on the remaining 70 acres the
number of units allowed on the total 100 acre site. Such clustering of units on the
remaining 70 acres could be accomplished only by allowing smaller than
conventional lots on the 70 acres. Thus, waivers would be necessary.
Under the conventional development process, the entire site would be "cut-up" into
standard sized lots, rights-of-way, and stormwater tracts. While up to 100/a - 15% of
the hammock might be preserved to meet the county's upland set-aside requirement,
the developer most likely would opt for the county's fee -in -lieu of set-aside
preservation option and develop lots over the hammock area Eventually, as lots
developed, the hammock area would be depleted.
0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -6-
•
If the referenced clustering is mitigated by buffers or other perimeter compatibility
measures, then the trade-off is a win -win-win situation. The developer "wins" and
gets her units; the project residents "win" and get the benefits of an adjacent
hammock and smaller yards to mow, and the county and adjacent neighbors "win"
and get habitat preservation and the visual benefits of permanently preserved open
space.
Therefore, the county should retain its ability to trade-off waivers for resource
protection through the PD process.
Is allowing market llexibi ft worth the granting12f-waivers or allowance for .gpeczl
uses?
"Market flexibility" is a term that covers a broad range of innovative designs and
housing types, as well as allowances for special uses. Examples of PDs with
innovative designs include: the Windsor villages and beach cottages; various phases
of Grand Harbor, including Oak Harbor units and the associated ALF facility, and
the harbor area units; and the Pointe West TND. Examples of PDs containing
housing types that deviate from conventional standards (units with reduced setbacks
on small lots) include: Indian River Club, Sea Oaks, Sixty Oaks, Catalina Oaks, and
Garden Grove. Examples of PDs containing special uses include: Hedin Commercial
PD (located in a CL zoned area with a mixture of uses) and the self -storage, office,
and resident manager uses of the MAGI mini -storage project which is also located
in a CL zoned area.
These PD projects contain exemplary elements and designs and mixtures of uses that
could not be achieved under conventional development processes. The success of
these projects illustrates that flexibility is necessary and desirable. The fact that
there have been few compatibility complaints from neighbors of these existing
projects indicates that adequate controls are in place to mitigate adverse impacts from
the granting of waivers and allowances of special uses. Therefore, trading -off
waivers for market flexibility allows needed creativity and satisfies market demands
without creating incompatibilities.
Isgreater commonefface and recreation area worth smaller�rivate vards?
This trade-off relates to where on the project site green space and recreation area
should be provided. "Open space" consists mostly of green space, although the
LDRs allow up to 30% of any conventional or PD project's open space requirement
to be satisfied by waterbody area PD projects are not allowed waivers that would
decrease minimum open space standards. In many cases, PD projects are required
to have more open space than is required for conventional development projects.
Generally, PD designs take green area from individual yards and create or enlarge
common green areas within park tracts, along pedestrian paths, or along lakefront
common areas. Although conventional projects have no requirements for common
recreational area, the PD ordinance requires all PD projects containing more than 60
units to provide 522.72 sq. ft. of common recreational area per unit. Under the PD
ordinance, creditable recreational areas include: playgrounds, recreation fields, golf
courses, tennis courts, exercise trails, recreational buildings, picnic areas,
boardwalks, and pedestrian paths.
Thus, the PD ordinance requires provision of common recreational areas and
facilities and ensures that overall open space minimum standards for PD projects
meet or exceed conventional minimum standards. Therefore, trade-offs allowing
smaller private yards for more common green space and recreation area is
worthwhile since it results in equal or greater overall open space and provision of
recreation areas and facilities that are not required under conventional development
processes.
OCTOBER 14, 1999
-7-
BOOK ill FAGUE
C
ON
800K Ili %b 0
■ The Current Compatibility Approach
Compatibility is a key factor in evaluating the PD process. As structured, the PD ordinance's
compatibility requirements focus on the project perimeters. The basic principle of the existing
process is that providing adequate compatibility measures on the perimeters insulates adjacent
properties from the interior of the PD project where maximum flexibility is allowed. In theory, this
principle is logical since the only project interface with the surrounding area is along the perimeters.
In practice, special buffers, setbacks, and transition area seemed to have provided adequate
compatibility. There have been few compatibility -related complaints from neighbors of existing
PRDs/PDs, whether "high end" or "middle market" projects. Staffs conclusion is that the current
approach works: if the perimeters are made compatible, then the entire PD project will be compatible
with its neighbors.
■ Density
Density is an issue that is often scrutinized during PD project reviews- As structured, the PD process
does not allow densities to exceed the density limits of the comprehensive plan. The PD process,
however, can help a developer achieve the maximum density allowed on a site. For example, the
Hammock Lake Estates PD is located in an RS -3 area. Under conventional subdivision
development, a density of up to 2.7 units/acre might be achievable. The approved Hammock Lake
Estates PD design, however, yielded a density of 2.99 units/acre. Thus, the PD process can allow
for density maximization.
Is density maximization a worthwhile trade-off for the various benefits of PD projects? It is as long
as the maximum densities allowed under the comprehensive plan are appropriate. The
appropriateness of a particular maximum density in a given lion is the very underpinning of the
land use plan. In fact, maximizing densities is part of the purpose of the PD ordinance which states
that PDs are needed to "... encourage efficient use of public services...". This is true especially in
relation to water and sewer utilities where there appear to be certain threshold densities for making
water and sewer improvements economically feasible. In the context of the PD process, the county
has all the controls it needs to ensure that a given development is appropriately designed for a given
area at or below the maximum density allowed under the comprehensive plan. Since maximum
densities are to be achievable under the comprehensive plan, the best way for the county to control
densities that approach the maximum is through the PD process.
:ecause
Flexibility vs. Certainty
the Board of County Commissioners has broad discretion in regard to project design and
mitigation of potential incompatibilities and adverse impacts, the PD process affords flexibility to
the Board as well as to the applicant. While the PD process need not be as predictable as the
conventional development process where county discretion is limited, there needs to be some level
of certainty for the development community with regard to the PD process. As stated by Board
members at the Citrus Springs PD hearings, it is important that the PD ordinance reflect the Board's
desires so that the PD process has an acceptable degree of certainty.
CONCLUSION•
The PD process gives the county more control than conventional development processes. It gives
the county the ability to make trade-offs that obtain public benefits and meet public policies. It also
gives developers necessary and desirable flexibility. Without such flexibility, many successful PD
projects that are in existence today simply would not exist within the unincorporated area of the
county. The balance of control and flexibility in the existing PD process has resulted in projects that
seem to have "worked" and have been developed without adverse impacts on neighbors. For these
reasons, the PD process should be retained and should actually be preferred over the conventional
development process.
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -8-
•
•
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Determine whether or not it wants staff to initiate any changes to the existing PD
regulations.
2. If it is determined that changes are needed, direct staff to make changes to specific
PD elements and provisions.
Community Development Director Bob Keating stated that staffs' report is now
available on the Internet and can be located at: www.onebahamas.com/indianriver (the
County's current test site). He reviewed the Planned Development (PD) process as (1)
identify any problems; (2) discuss the advantages and disadvantages; (3) determine the need
for changes; and (4) consider any differences in the process for agricultural PDs. Zoning
was first regulated in the County in 1957, with the PD Ordinance being adopted in 1985 and
the first changes in 1991. There have been 56 PD applications since 1985, with 52 of those
approved.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard with
regard to this matter.
Frank Coffey, 5045 Fairways Circle, complimented staff for their efforts but felt the
process needs further review and clarification for developers. He referenced the recent
Citrus Springs application which had been approved by Planning & Zoning and staff. Once
that application was presented to the Board, it was revised to reflect the Commissioners'
comments and concerns, brought back before the Board and still got voted down. He
OCTOBER 14, 1999 _9_
BOOK 111 PAGE ��
r
BOOK III PAGE 11
believed the Board should be required to put any objections in writing and that the ordinance
should reflect the Board's preferences. He noted that the Board has competent staff and
believed if the Board provided proper guidelines, these problems would not occur.
Peter Robinson, 315 Bridgeway Road, believed that part of problem is that the Board
is looking at the tree and not seeing the forest. He believed the current land use plan
encourages high density and people do not want high density. He felt that there is a chance
now for the County to set its own local regulations and come out with a land use plan that
more accurately reflects what people want.
Peter Jones, 1924 5' Avenue SE, a local architect and President of the American
Institute of Architects local chapter, noted that local architects look to the policies established
for their guidelines. He believed the mechanics of the process work but the master plan
needs a more measurable policy.
Deb Robinson, Vice President Laurel Homes, asked the Board to please consider the
cost -to -benefit ratio and to remember who is paying those dollars. She inquired whether
grocers and dress shops will also be required to furnish more open space if developers are
required to do so. She asked that the Board remember that someone pays for each decision
they make.
Bob Swift, 6450 Glendale Road, Manager of the Indian River Club, felt that the
process may not be perfect but it works fairly well. He felt the biggest problem was that
developers must have some assurance that their investment will pay off and their plan will
be approved if they follow all of the regulations and requirements.
0 OCTOBER 14,1999 -10-
•
•
Chip Landers, 180 14'h Avenue, with the new homes division of Coldwell Banker,
felt that affordable housing must be provided in this area amd that changing the process
because we don't want smaller lots will not solve the problem. The PD process allows for
a product that fills a need but the developers need a solid set of rules to go by.
Chuck Mechlin, On -Site Management Group, expressed his frustration with trying
to do something with land within the existing rules. With a PD, they can sit down with staff
and get a project that is appropriate. He suggested a more relaxed atmosphere in which to
meet with the Board to go over the rules to avoid having a project denied at the last minute.
Craig Fletcher, 2345 Avalon Avenue, Code Enforcement Board for the City of Vero
Beach, did not want the Board to give up its control over this process. He did not believe
the process should be changed.
Pat Brown, 1740 21" Street, felt the neighbors are better protected through this
process but did also feel that the developers should be notified earlier if they are on the
wrong track.
Dave Knight, of Knight & Associates, stated that staff has done a great job in the
whole process and they do the best they can to anticipate what the Board wants. He
suggested that a closer relationship with staff during the process might alleviate some of the
problems.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that the PD process is a legislative one, not quasi-
judicial. The developers can meet individually with the Commissioners.
OCTOBER 14, 1999
-11-
BOOK 111 PAGE 1
I
9001 , , fAU
Peter Robinson noted that Orange County first has a meeting run by staff with the
public invited to the presentation.
Commissioner Adams left the meeting at 10:25 a.m. for a prior appointment.
Director Keating felt that a general consensus had been reached that everyone liked
the process but wanted more certainty to the project characteristics. Staff needs to know
whether the Board does not want 40 to 50 -foot lots at all, or just not in certain land use
designations. Are they all right under certain circumstances and not others?
In response to a question about any pattern to the denials, Director Boling responded
that perhaps the application for 600 new homes in an area where everyone is accustomed to
Larger lots could have been the impetus for the denial of the Citrus Springs project.
Chairman Macht commented that the objections of neighbors is not always a reason
for denial. His own objection to the Citrus Springs project was the location and the
illustration of a standard home with overhangs. He had seen several projects in Orange
County and felt they were "as ugly as homemade soap". He did not feel they were
appropriate for Indian River County. He also noted that these opinions are very subjective
and not objective. The PD process is fine and needs little, if any, changes.
Commissioner Tippin noted that he had helped give birth to the process and it was a
little like "giving breach birth to a porcupine". He did not think the process is broken and
was thrilled to hear the Commissioners can sit down with the developers in advance of a final
public hearing. He felt the more communication early on the better.
Commissioner Grin thanked staff for a very fine presentation. She intended to stand
on her platform of low density but that does not mean we cannot have zero lot lines or 50 -
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -12 0
-
foot lots. It does mean we have to watch the density. She would like to see no greater
density in a PD than in traditional zoning. She felt the stormwater management practices do
need to be reinforced. Yesterday she was at a PD and their stormwater lake is filing in and
is overgrown with weeds. This is a critical issue which will not go away, it must be dealt
with. She also felt that Citrus Springs' open space was down to 20% while the mean open
space in the County is 40%. That needs to be looked at also.
Commissioner Ginn then questioned whether density bonuses were given for the
Fairways development, and Director Keating responded that they were not.
Commissioner Ginn emphasized that her concerns were density transfers and bonuses
and open green space. The main reason she objected to Citrus Springs was that most of it
was surrounded by stormwater ponds. She agreed that being notified earlier of the projects
would be a welcome opportunity to voice her objections prior to the final public hearing.
Director Keating stated that staff will establish a process to notify the Board when a
PD application comes in and that the issue of stormwater ponds will be investigated on a
County -wide basis.
In response to a question by Commissioner Stanbridge regarding the St Johns River
Water Management District permits for stormwater ponds, Public Works Director Jim Davis
stated that these are usually 5 -year permits, with requirements that the ponds be inspected
periodically, depending on the type of pond.
After further discussion, CONSENSUS was reached that staff will work on a
mechanism to notify the Commissioners when a PD project application is filed.
Commissioner Gin commented that she did not want to see any density bonuses being
given, and Director Keating responded that they are only allowed with an affordable housing
project.
OCTOBER 14, 1999
-13-
BOOK ill Mut- 1
BOOK ill mn 15
2. AGRICULTURAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (PD
PROJECTS
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 8, 1999:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
obert M. Keating,AIC
Community Development irrecto
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP / G
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 8, 1999
RE: Discussion of Agricultural Planned Developments
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County
Commissioners at its workshop meeting of October 14, 1999.
INTRODUCTION
Agricultural Planned Developments (PDs) are residential subdivisions located on agriculturally
designated land. The county's comprehensive plan and land development regulations require
residential subdivisions of two or more lots (other than a one time lot split) on agriculturally
designated land to be approved as Agricultural PDs. Within Agricultural PDs, and PDs in general,
special negotiated regulations allow developers additional flexibility in terms of subdivision and lot
design (to meet market demand), as long as certain minimum standards are maintained. In addition
to providing developers with more design flexibility, the PD process also gives. the Board of County
Commissioners more discretion, compared to regular subdivision projects, with respect to project
approvals.
One of the requirements for Agricultural PDs is to cluster residential lots or homesites on a relatively
small portion of the overall project property. The remainder of the site, regardless of its ownership,
must remain in open space (either as natural; agricultural; or to a limited degree, recreational, areas)
for as long as the property retains an agricultural land use designation.
In recent months, several proposals involving Agricultural PDs have been considered by the Board
at public hearings. In reviewing those proposals, the Board questioned whether residential
subdivisions located on agriculturally designated land outside the urban service area should be
required to cluster lots together, as required in the County's comprehensive plan (Future Land Use
Element Policy 5.8).
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -14-
Issues raised at those public hearings include the following:
• Should clustering be required for Agricultural PDs?
• Is there any benefit, generally, to the clustering of residential development on agriculturally
designated land? and
• If there is a benefit generally, does that benefit apply to small tracts?
At the October 14's workshop, the Board will consider future development options for the county's
agriculturally designated lands. Based upon that consideration, the Board should identify any
needed changes to the county's policies and procedures regarding development of agriculturally
designated lands.
Requiring residential projects in agricultural areas to cluster residences is intended to achieve the
following goals:
1) Preserve and accommodate active agricultural operations;
2) Preserve open space;
3) Reduce agricultural/residential incompatibilities;
4) Accommodate long-term growth, including potential urban service area expansion; and
5) Protect private property rights.
The analysis section of this staff report discusses how the county's clustering requirements achieve
those goals.
When the comprehensive plan was considered for adoption in 1990, the county adopted certain
goals, including discouraging suburban sprawl, protecting open space, and preserving agriculture.
With respect to the development of agriculturally designated areas, the county determined that there
are three alternative ways to achieve those goals. Those alternatives (exclusive agricultural zoning,
extremely low density residential development, and clustered residential development) are described
below.
Exchisive Agd=&..a1 Zoning, This alternative limits uses in agricultural areas to traditional
agricultural uses. Exclusive agricultural zoning is an effective strategy to reduce development
pressure, and residential encroachment into agricultural areas. The county, however, determined that
exclusive agricultural zoning adversely affects financing for active agricultural operations and
adversely affects private property rights. Due to these conflicts, the exclusive agricultural zoning
approach was not used.
Extremdy L.ow Density Residential DMWL12nment. This alternative limits residential development
to extremely low densities such as 1 unit/40 acres. As with exclusive agricultural zoning, this
alternative would severely limit land use options and thereby raise property rights issues. For that
reason, this alternative was not chosen.
Clustered Residential Devel ,nment This alternative allows slightly higher residential densities,
such as 1 unit/5acres, but requires clustering of residential lots or homesites. By implementing
project design requirements, such as those incorporated in county policies, the county has been able
to protect active agricultural operations, preserve larger expanses of open space, and protect private
property rights.
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -15- BOOK ill ME 16
I
800K I ill PAGE 17
The requirement that lots and/or homesites in residential subdivisions on agriculturally designated
land be clustered and be approved as Agricultural PDs has been in the comprehensive plan since its
adoption in 1990. The first Agricultural PD was approved in 1994, and there have been one or two
Agricultural PDs approved each year since. In all, ten have been approved, and six have been built.
Attachment 1 shows the location of both the built and the unbuilt -but -approved Agricultural PDs.
The six that have been built contain a total of approximately 177 acres and 33 lots. Only one of the
built Agricultural PDs, located adjacent to the urban service area boundary, has connected to the
county water system. None has connected to the county wastewater system. All ten of these project
sites are located within one mile of the urban service area boundary, five in the south part of the
county and five in the central part of the county. These projects, all within the AG -1, Agricultural -1
(up to 1 unit/5 acres) land use designation, range in size from 15 to 70 acres and from 3 to 9 lots.
Although the county's clustering requirement allows several types of clustering, each of the
approved Agricultural PD projects has been approved with the same clustering method: five acre lots
that contain one acre homesites, with the homesites "clustered" along an internal road. Other
clustering methods could include smaller lots with a large open space area. That open space area
could be owned by the developer, a property owners association, or an individual (perhaps a fanner
or a rancher).
Indian River County is not alone in requiring residential projects in agricultural areas to cluster. In
fact, most other Florida counties, including St. Johns, Charlotte, Madison, Jefferson, Volusia, St.
Lucie, Palm Beach, Hillsborough, and Orange, have comprehensive plan provisions which
encourage or require clustering of residential development in agricultural areas. Although these
provisions vary widely, Indian River County, in many respects, is typical among Florida counties
in terms ofwhen clustering is required, how much open space is required, overall density allowed,
and the provision of public services.
Some counties require clustering only of larger developments over a certain threshold in size (e.g.,
20 units or 100 acres). Others offer clustering incentives such as density bonuses or streamlined
permitting. In Palm Beach County, clustering is required in order to achieve maximum density in
certain agricultural areas.
County Property Appraiser data from November 1998 indicate that many "ranchette" type lots
already exist outside the urban service area. A computer search at that time indicated that 476
parcels (904.26 acres) of less than 200,000 square feet (4.59 acres) existed in the agriculturally
designated areas east of I-95 and those agriculturally designated areas around the City of Fellsmere.
The results of that search are shown in Table 1 below. Of the 476 parcels, 257 (439 acres) were
being used for residential purposes (231 contained a single-family house). Another 183 parcels (404
acres) were available for residential development (e.g., vacant land, pasture, citrus groves, and
similar uses).
Table 1! AG -1 Designated Lots That Are 4.59 Acres Or Less INevemher 19981
USE
# OF PARCELS
# OF ACRES
Single -Family
231
405.48
Mobile home
19
19.20
Other residential
7
14.36
Vacant land, pasture, citrus groves, & similar uses
183
40426
snace uses
36
60.916
TOTAL
476
90426
OCTO0 BER 14, 1999 , -16-
0
Nearly all of the 476 lots are located near an urban area, in one of the three following areas:
• near the City of Fellsmere (201 parcels);
• along 66" Avenue between 33'd Street and 85'h Street (142 parcels); and
• between 43'd Avenue and 82"d Avenue, south of 16" Street (133 parcels).
Of the 275 parcels not in the Fellsmere area, 112 are concentrated within a mile of an urban service
area boundary, near 66* or 58h Avenues, between 45`h Street and ? Street, S.W. The concentration
is particularly high between 58`h and 70 Avenues, south of 16`h Street. That area contains 84 lots,
51 of which contain a residential building. The remaining 33 lots are classified as either vacant
residential or citrus groves.
Besides these properties, there are hundreds of acres of agriculturally designated five to ten acre lots
in the county. South of the City of Fellsmere, for example, land known as the "Kahn" property
consists of 888 acres of five and ten acre parcels, and most of the ten acre parcels are being split into
five acre tracts. That would create 177 five acre parcels on the Kahn properly alone. When those
lots are combined with the 183 available lots mentioned above, the result is that 360 agriculturally
designated lots of five acres or less are currently available for residential development, even if no
lot splits occur on land other than the Kahn properly.
Through the comprehensive planning process, the county has the opportunity to prepare for long
term growth and development, even beyond the 2020 planning horizon of the current plan. This is
important with respect to the development of agricultural lands adjacent to the urban service area
because those lands are the logical location of potential future urban service area expansion. Current
projections, depicted in the chart below, indicate that the county's population will grow from its
present 110,000 persons to 154,000 persons by the year 2020.
source: inns rionaa zimmucai Aosum
Those projections were made in the early and middle 1990s, when the county growth rate was
relatively low. The projections reflect a projected annual compounded growth rate of 1.63% for the
2000 to 2020 time period. That rate suggests that the county will grow at a much lower rate than in
the previous 20 years. Because growth rates have been increasing in the late 1990s, it is likely that
future projections will also show. increased growth rates.
OCTOBER 149 1999 -17PAGE
-
•
F,
Historically, residential land within the urban service area has developed at a density significantly
less than the maximum allowed by the comprehensive plan. This is due to several factors including
market preferences, and land set aside for non-residential uses. Such uses are usually recreational
(e.g., golf courses and parks), institutional (e.& places of worship, schools, and public facilities),
conservation, or infrastructure (e.g., roads and stormwater management tracts).
By applying existing density levels to vacant residential land within the urban service area, the build-
out threshold, in terms of number of residential units, of the urban service area can be determined.
Using recent annual residential building permit information, staff determined that the urban service
area will likely become built -out sometime between 2035 -and 2045. Build -out could occur even
sooner if the rate of growth increases.
Reviewing land absorption trends is also useful for evaluating future land use needs. According to
Indian River County Property Appraiser's data, the number of acres of land classified as vacant
residential within the urban service area has decreased 1,242 acres (approximately 400 acres/year),
from 18,220 acres in August 1996 to 16,978 acres in September 1999. If that absorption rate and
the amount of land within the urban service area remain constant, then the county has an
approximately 40 year supply of undeveloped residential land within the urban service area.
When considering the long tern development of the county, the Board of County Commissioners
must consider how the county will grow beyond the year 2020, when the current urban service area
approaches build -out. As part of that consideration, the following issues should be addressed:
• Is agricultural preservation important?
• Should the county promote agricultural preservation?
• Does clustering promote agricultural preservation?
• How should the agriculturally designated area of the county develop?
• Under what conditions, if any, should the urban service area be expanded?
• Should the county begin planning now for potential future urban service area expansion?
Agriculture is a key component of the county's economy, history, and character. County Property
Appraiser's data from August 1996 indicate that 182,454 acres of the county were used for
agricultural purposes at that time. Citrus accounted for 81,484 of those acres. Although market
conditions ultimately will determine the viability of agriculture in Indian River County, particularly
east of I-95, one purpose of clustering is to protect and conserve agriculturally designated lands for
agricultural uses.
As generally implemented, clustering protects agriculture by restricting the amount of land within
Agricultural PDs that can be used for residential purposes and by limiting uses on the remaining land
to agriculture, open space, and limited recreational uses. As structured, the county's clustering
requirement allows (but does not require) the open space area of an agricultural PD to be owned by
a single entity such as the developer, a property owners' association, or a farmer. As a result, most
of the land within an Agricultural PD project can be consolidated into an expansive open space area
that is large enough for, and available for, agricultural uses.
For example, in Indian River County, most of the land outside of but abutting the urban service area
has been divided into 40 acre tracts. While some of those 40 acre tracts have been split or
subdivided, many others remain intact. The residential density assigned to most of that land by the
comprehensive plan is 1 unit/5 acres. Therefore, eight lots can be created on those 40 acres.
Clustering those eight lots on eight contiguous acres (one acre lots) leaves 32 acres available for
agricultural uses. Clustering them on four contiguous acres (half acre lots) leaves 36 acres available
for agricultural uses.
0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -18 0
-
•
In contrast, unclustered residential development in agricultural areas involves large tracts of land
being divided into many individually owned parcels, each as small as five acres. With the exception
of some specialty farms, such individual parcels are generally too small to be farmed profitably and
cannot be assembled in whole or in part into significantly large agricultural tracts. The resulting five
acre parcels generally are useful only for residences and accessory uses.
In Indian River County, clustering has been broadly interpreted and applied. For that reason,
Agricultural PDs have been designed in a manner that results in "unclustered" five acre lots with
homesites "clustered" near a road. The large open space area owned by a single entity is not present.
Because the open space areas are divided into relatively small individually owned lots, the
agricultural use of those open space areas is not viable. As a result, bona fide agricultural uses do
not exist within any Agricultural PDs. Because the county has broadly interpreted clustering, thus
allowing Agricultural PD designs that do not provide large open spaces owned by a single entity and
tightly cluster homesites, Agricultural PDs have not been a successful agricultural preservation tool.
As presently applied, clustering does not and will not work to preserve agriculture. Therefore, if
clustering is not defined less broadly, the clustering requirement serves no agricultural preservation
purpose and should be eliminated.
The county's existing adopted comprehensive plan is not a build -out plan. It has a time horizon of
2020. While the plan does not address post 2020 growth and development issues, there will be
growth after that time.
Currently, growth projections indicate that the urban service area will be built -out sometime after
the twenty year time horizon of the existing comprehensive plan. For that reason, the county needs
to determine how it will develop when that build -out occurs. Essentially, the following three
development options exist:
• No expansion of the urban service area;
• "Leap frog" expansion of the urban service area; and
• Incremental expansion of the urban service area.
Option 1: no expansion of the urban service area
One development option is not to expand the urban service area beyond its current boundaries, even
when the urban service area is built -out. Map 1 depicts this option. This will likely result in the
creation of five acre lots filling the entire area between the current urban service area and I-95.
Option 2: "leap frog" expansion of the urban service area
Another option is to continue to allow five acre lots in the agricultural areas, but expand the urban
service area when it reaches build -out. Map 2 depicts this option. This will likely result in many
five acre lot subdivisions being created at the outside edge of the urban service area over the next
20 to 40 years. Then as the urban service area approaches build -out and growth continues, its
boundaries would be expanded to "leap frog" over the five acre lot subdivisions to include further
out agricultural lands.
Leap frogging the urban service area would be necessary because adequately sized tracts near the
existing boundary would likely have been developed with five acre lots and because residents of
those lots would likely oppose any increase in density in that area As a result, a ribbon of five acre
lot subdivisions would separate two areas of more intense urban type uses.
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -19- BOOK i1i PAGE
•
I
BOOK FAv
The type of spread -out, low-density development pattern, that would result from implementing
Options 1 or 2, would likely increase the cost of providing county services, particularly for roads,
schools, police and fire protection, emergency medical service, libraries, and recreational activities.
Additionally, compatibility problems would increase if Options 1 or 2 were implemented. Those
problems would be attributed to increased interactions between residential and agricultural uses.
One factor contributing to the increase in those interactions would be the longer, less distinct
boundary between those uses.
Option 3: incremental expansion of the urban service area
A final option is to require or encourage development in the agricultural area to cluster one acre lots
with common open space, rather than one acre homesites on private five acre lots. This option is
depicted on Map 3. Currently, land outside of and adjacent to the urban service area consists mostly
of undeveloped tracts of 20 or more acres; such tracts are viable not only for agricultural uses but
also for future inclusion in the urban service area (development), if necessary.
That land could be added to the urban service area in relatively small increments of one or two
hundred acres at a time. I4 prior to being added to the urban service area, that land is developed in
a pattern consisting of clustered homes and open space, that land will contain undeveloped tracts of
adequate and appropriate size to be added to the urban service area That land will also contain
residential development at an urban density. Past experience shows that those residents are less
likely to oppose expanding the urban service area to include themselves and nearby land.
In contrast, five acre lot subdivisions, besides not integrating well with urban uses, develop a "built
in" opposition to urban service area expansion. By preserving large open areas, Option 3 will allow
the urban service area to be expanded as needed, in small, targeted increments. Even when applied
to small Agricultural PDs (e.g., less than 20 acres or 4 lots), Option 3 increases urban service area
expansion alternatives.
Summary
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that clustering residential development on agriculturally
designated land has the following benefits:
• Clustered development preserves agricultural uses. In contrast, unclustered development
eliminates the possibility of agriculture as a primary use on a site; and
• Clustered development accommodates urban service area expansion. In contrast, unclustered
development ensures future suburban sprawl.
Since the broad interpretation of clustering currently implemented by the county does not contribute
to agricultural preservation, nor does that interpretation facilitate the eventual integration of
agriculturally designated lands into the urban service area, the clustering requirement should be less
broadly defined or eliminated.
Land within the urban service area eventually will be built -out. The county has the opportunity to
plan now for that occurrence. By requiring development outside the urban service area to cluster on
one acre lots with common open space, the county can prepare for the gradual, incremental, and
compatible expansion of the urban service area.
Additionally, clustering promotes agricultural preservation. The county's broad interpretation of
clustering, however, negates the attributes of clustering that promote agricultural preservation. The
broad interpretation of clustering also limits the county's future growth options. For those reasons,
the clustering requirement should be less broadly defined or eliminated
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -20-
•
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Determine whether or not it wants initiated any changes to the existing Agricultural
PD regulations.
2. If it is determined that changes are needed, direct staff to make changes to specific
Agricultural PD provisions.
Map#1
No Expansion of Urban Service Area
0 1 2 Miss A%;
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -21-
nem
indary
0
e�� p
1
I
y �
Mr. IR
as
S �
iiia"�°:, �i:■:
a
` n
1
r ?
_.�a�m ��M�aKaOt. •1
Map #3:
Incremental Expansion of Urban Service Area
2 0 2 Miles
OCTOBER 14, 1999
-23-
BOOK Ill PAGE 2
I
BOOK W PAGE 25
Director Keating stated that the first agricultural PD was approved in the County in
1994 and 10 have since been approved, all within one mile of the urban service area. These
were all 5 -acre lots with 1 -acre homesites. The Comp Plan has a year 2020 time horizon and
the County does not have any policies after the year 2020. It is important to consider now
these developments which will be there for 50, 60 or 70 years. The County has a population
Of 109,587 people now and in 2020 the population should be 154,000, using a low rate of
growth. There are 3 options for developing in agricultural areas: (1) exclusively agricultural
zoning; (2) extremely low density, and (3) clustered options. The County could (1) not
expand the urban service area; (2) allow a "leap -frog" expansion of the urban service area;
and/or (3) allow an incremental expansion of the urban service area. He suggested an
agricultural lot inventory to assist in determining whether to narrowly interpret clustering or
eliminate it.
Commissioner Stanbridge questioned the "leap -frog" concept concerning a "new
town" designation, and Director Keating responded that the use of that designation is not
considered to be leap -frogging. A "new town" has to be almost entirely self-contained and
must have a 6 -mile separation from another "new town" development.
In response to questioning, Director Keating believed the new development in
Fellsmere would not be a "new town" but a standard residential development.
Pat Brown expressed her concern about the character of the community. She is a
horse rider and a taxpayer and realizes that low-density land use growth will cost a lot. Also,
as a business person in the urban service area she has been impacted by the utility
assessments and has been told her property is more valuable because of these services.
0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -24-
George Hamner, Jr. believed that clustering should be eliminated and each project
should be examined on its own merit.
Deb Robinson noted that we do not live in an urban community but in a rural
community. The quality of life is the biggest reason people move here.
Will Collins, 6150 69'h Street, commented that he has a masters degree in urban
planning and did not believe clustering would drive up the cost of services. He felt that the
County might need less landfill area because these residents would have 55 -gallon drums for
compost, there would be no stormwater impact, and no recreational impact because they
could enjoy their own property.
Larry Putney, 780012 Street, was in the process of purchasing property outside the
urban service area and had been advised that his 2 40 -acre parcels could be split once into
4 10 -acre parcels. He questioned whether an individual purchasing a 20 -acre parcel could
split that parcel into 210 -acre parcels.
Director Boling responded that such an individual purchasing a 20 -acre parcel outside
the urban service area would have to apply for an agricultural PD to divide the property into
210 -acre parcels.
Director Keating noted that the County has a 40 -acre exemption but believed this is
a "big picture" issue and the Board really needs to think about how the County's growth
should proceed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Tippin,
SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, that clustering
requirements be deleted from Agricultural Pds.
OCTOBER 14, 1999 -25- BOOK III PAGGE
BOOK i1i FACE 27
Chairman Macht suggested that staff could summarize the suggested changes and
bring them back for consideration before the Board and the Planning & Zoning Commission
Commissioner Grin agreed that time and space to digest and reflect on the discussion
would be helpful and withdrew her second.
Commissioner Tippin accordingly withdrew his motion.
Dan Culbert, County Extension Agent, suggested that the Agricultural Advisory
Committee would also be interested in examining this issue.
Pat Brown believed the urban service area is already large enough and there is a
supply of land available for development. She felt the basic purpose of agricultural zoning
is for agricultural use and that the urban service area boundaries tell people where the County
wants them to build.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There
being none, the Chairman closed the public hearing.
CONSENSUS was reached for staff to review the suggestions and comments and
bring the subject matter back in January, 2000, for another workshop with the Agricultural
Advisory Committee and the Planning & Zoning Commission.
0 OCTOBER 14, 1999 -26-
0
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the
Board adjourned at 12:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
J. K. arton, Clerk
Minutes Approved: ki— 7 / 9?g
OCTOBER 14, 1999
-27-
BOOK W PAGE
LI