The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About07232008ISBA Joint WorkshopJOINT WORKSHOP INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CITY OF SEBASTIAN CITY OF VERO BEACH CITY OF FELLSMERE TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES TOWN OF ORCHID AGENDA WEDNESDAY, JULY 23, 2008 - 1:00 P.M. SEBASTIAN CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS 1225 MAIN STREET, SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA RE: INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT (ISBA) CALL TO ORDER -Mayor Coy 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. INTRODUCTIONS BY AGENCY CHAIRS FOR THE RECORD 4. OPENING COMMENTS -City Manager, AI Minner 5. PRESENTATION OF INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT (ISBA) POINTS OF CONTENTION A. ISBA EXHIBIT "D " -SEBASTIAN SPECIAL PLANNING AREA 1. Presentation by Sebastian 2. County Viewpoint B. ISBA EXHIBIT "F" -FELLSMERE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES 1. Presentation by Fellsmere 2. County Viewpoint 6. PUBLIC INPUT 7. ELECTED OFFICIAL DISCUSSION ON CONSENSUS FOR DIRECTION TO ISBA WORKING GROUP A. Reserve Area Boundaries B. Fellsmere Development Guidelines C. Sebastian Special Planning Area D. Other issues 8. ADJOURN HEARING ASSISTANCE HEADPHONES ARE AVAILABLE /N THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR ALL GOVERNMENT MEETINGS. _~h::c1u!ed f:_~i ._h;•e ~?~~~:--~_-~,;` ._r7 _. ~:r.c.a[ ,:~I~,,,-. 5 ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL ANY DECISION MADE WITH RESPECT TO ANY MATTER CONSIDERED AT THIS WORKSHOP WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS AND MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE HEARD. (286.0105 F.S.) IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA), ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING SHOULD CONTACT THE CITY'S ADA COORDINATOR AT 589-5330 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THIS MEETING. _~ ~a ~i ~.~ ~~ '~^ ~__._. Q ~ ~Y ~ ~~-~ o ~..~ o o ~~ Q~Q ~ Psi I- ~'-~ 3 ~ ®_ ~ti,~ ;~ ~_~~ l~ ~ ~ ~ ' Lil '~D [s$ i ~~ Isl ~ "- ~ ~ ~I ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~' YJ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ ~~ `s-' L'i Ltl ~ ~ ~ ~L~~ ~ ~ ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~d~ ~ ~ !sl ~~~ ~~ ~- <~. ~~~ 4~ s~ _- ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~~~ ~~ P ~ ~ ~ u [~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ C ~,s, ,~ ~ a ~ _ "~ ~ ' Y4 ~ ~ ~ r(' I " r ~ ~ ~ } ~' }} ' ~ • ,1~ ~ 11 ~~ ~ ~ ~ . ~~ 1 I ,~ 9'N ~ r~ ~L1 ~ r r:~+`''• w '•~ +'rr I ~~ ~I ~ ~ ~'~ is ~ 1 ry ~/ ~ ~~ O o o~ ~.' c :~ ~" ~1~ ` ~ ~ ~ ~- ` /~ y~ r~ J ~ '+~""-""'1~f LI~1 p}~ m l ~ G--, 1 I r ,- m~1~ 17 ti ~- ~~ ~ ~ G f 1;;~! '~`~ ~r~ ~, r f _ ls1 w,, ~ n-- ~ r~ ~' ~~~~ ~ ~~ ~ ' Z ,~ E ~ ~ ~ r., 3 ~~ ~ 5~ '~ "tO tL ~'S p"'~~wa~~s ai ~~ i ~ G 7 ~ ~~ ~y `~ ~ ~ ~ ~t ~ LU © __~ ~~ ~ I l.I~~` ~'R @i ~~ ~R J ~i~y~ f-.ar ~_ ~ ~ G ~ ~ ~ r m- ~ ~ ~~ ~S ~~ y~~ li 1tA LL ~ .!~i 1t~. 11 ... r~ [- ~ ~ ~ ~ [i d ~I 03R4/O8 An Interlocal Agreement Among All Local. General-Parpose Governments in Indian River County Under the Authority of Chapter 171 Part II Florida Statutes Relating to Annexations, Land Use Changes, and the Urban Service Boundary. This Agreement is made the date Last written below by and between Indian River County, the Cifiy of Vero Beach, the City of Sebastian, the City of Fellsmere, the Town of Indian River Shores, and the Town of Orchid (the "Parties'. WITNESS: WHEREAS, the undersigned Parties wish to protect the quality of life in the entire county by restricting future height and density increases for certain property now in the non- urban area, without unduly restricting the rights of municipalities to annex land when consistent with good growth management practices; and WHEREAS, the Parties also wish to ensure that lazger annexations are consistent with good growth management practices relating to the provision of municipal services to the axea proposed for annexation, and thus feel that it is appropriate and beneficial to create a committee of appointed representatives from the Parties to review these proposed annexations; and WHEREAS, the Parties have an interest in ensuring that development in rural areas does not result in urban sprawl, and therefore have an interest in the pattern of development that occurs regardless of whether the Land has been annexed or is still part of the unincorporated area of the county; and WHEREAS, such Land use regulations governing multiple local governments may be adopted in Florida by charter, special act of the legislature, or agreement of the local governments; and Page 1 of 14 ~' C:1DoewttaNt and Saring~lfccfronxtII.aea1 Staingt\TevQarary Tut~a Pdrt10LK29lFINALbRAFT ISBA 4I0.UB.dx 1 7 1 Attachment 1 03/24/06 WHEREAS, the Parties desire to adopt appropriate good growth management regulations by agreement rather than by charter or special act; and WHEREAS, the Parties are empowered to enter iota cooperative agreements by Section 163.01 Florida Statutes, the "Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969"; NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained the Parties agree as follows: SECTION 1. Adoption of the Interlocal Service Boundary Area Map The "Interlocal Service Boundary Area Map", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted as the official guide for future municipal annexations in Indian River County. No municipality may annex property that is outside that municipality's Annexation Reserve Area as shown on the map. SECTION 2. Adoption of Urban Service Area Boundary. The "Urban Service Area Boundary", as shown on Exhibit "A", is hereby adopted as the delineation between the area of the unincorporated area of the county which generally is non- urban and that area which is urban. SECTION 3. Form for Voluntary Annexation Ta provide uniformity for reviewing voluntary annexations, each municipality shall use an annexation application in substantially the form provided on Exhibit "B" attached and incorporated herein. SECTION 4. Urban Services Advisory Committee. a} There is hereby created the "Urban Services Advisory Committee ("USAC" or "Committee")," which shall be composed of an elected official of each Party and an alternate appointed by the governing body. The chair of the USAC shall be the County representative, Page 2 of 14 C1Dacumenrs and SettmpVccha~estVaeal 3Utinas\Tey Satana Pda10LK291FMAL DRAFT' ISBA 4I0.08.doc 112 03/24/06 who after consultation with County staff shall be responsible for caking the meetings, providing all notices and the taking of minutes, and ensuring that required reports are written. To constitute a quorum the representatives for the County and the annexing municipality shall be present together with at least two other Parties. The County and the municipalities shall each have one vote. The USAC shall have the powers and duties as described in this agreement. The USAC shall operate under the rules of procedure attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit "C". The USAC may amend the rules of procedure from time to time to accommodate any change in circumstances. b) When any matter is referred to the USAC, it shall review and comment on all issues relevant to the matter and shall issue a report approved by majority vote of the committee and written by the chair or chair's designee. There may be one or more minority reports if the minority so chooses. c) The USAC report(s) shall be submitted to all the Parties pursuant to the procedures contained in this agreement. d} The cost of USAC report shall be paid by the izutiating Parry and such cost shall be based on the number of hours spent creating the USAC report at a rate established by the Indian River County Human Resources Department for the median hourly salary of a "Senior Planner" or its equivalent. In no event will such cost exceed $3,000. The median hourly rate of a "Senior Planner" shall be available upon request. SECTION 5. Notice of Proposed Annexation to be provided to all Parties Any municipality which has received a request for voluntary annexation, or which plans to undertake an involuntary annexation pursuant to provisions of Florida Statutes Chapter 171, Part I, must provide notice sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all Parties within Page 3 of 14 F:lAttanayK'iwrge GlmnlDocvmmts~DocsUSHAtexhibitsiFGlA1. DRAFT ISBA ¢tU-0e.doc ~ ~ A 03!24/08 ten (10) days of the receipt of a completed application or at least 10 days before the first reading of an Ordinance for involuntary annexation. Any Party wishing to request a meeting in accordance with subsection 6b) shall do so within 30 days after receipt of the notice. SECTION 6. Annexation of Property within the Urban Service Area a) Unless the provisions of b) or c) apply, a municipality may proceed, after giving the notice required by Section 5, to use the methods provided by Florida Statutes Chapter 171, Part I, to annex land that is included in that municipality's Annexation Reserve Area when such land is wholly within the Urban Service Area. However, pursuant to Section 171.204 Florida Statutes, the Indian River Shores Annexation Reserve Area lying East of the Indian River Lagoon and North of the Town of Orchid, the Northern boundary of the Town of Orchid and its Annexation Reserve Area shall be considered contiguous to the Town of Indian River Shores for annexation purposes. b) If the property proposed for annexation is greater than 10 acres, but Less than 160 acres, any Party may request in writing and within the 30-day notice period, that, before the annexation occurs, there be a meeting among the County, the praperty owner, any requesting Party, and the annexing Party to discuss and make recommendarions regarding the merits of the proposed annexation. This meeting shall be held within 30 days of receipt of the notice requesting such meeting. The issues and recommendations discussed at this meeting shall be reported to the annexing municipality by the requesting Party, after which the governing body of the annexing municipality may take whatever action it deems proper concerning the annexation request. c) If the property proposed for annexation is 160 acres or larger, no annexation shall occur until the proposal has been reviewed by the USAC. The USAC shall hold a review ~Q J Page 4 of 14 ~./ C:1Doeutnents atW SadegsV~ch~esttLocal Setdngs~Tamporvy Internet Files10IX29~FINAL DRIFC tSBA a.t0.O8.doc 17 4 03l24/QS meeting within 30 days from the date notice, as provided i:r Section 5, is received b/ ti;:~~ County. The USAC shall issue a written report(s) within 30 days after its review meeting, Prior to scheduling the first reading of an Annexation Ordinance, the annexing municipalit~~ shall first hold an advertised public hearing for the sole purpose o f addressing the GSAC report(s). The governing body of the annexing municipality shall publicly respond to the reconunendations of the Committee at such hearing and may then take what action it deems proper concerning the annexation request. SECTION 7. Annexation of Prot~ertYOutside the Urban Service Area Boandary. If the property proposed for annexation is outside the Urban Service Area Boundary and within the municipality's Annexation Reserve Area, no annexation shall occur until the proposal has been reviewed by the USAC in accordance with the procedures in subsection 6c), except that when the property to be annexed does not exceed 10 acres in size, any review shall be in accordance with the procedures in subsection 6b}. The above notwithstanding, there is no review at all when the annexed property consists of existing platted lots of record. All annexations shall be in accordance with Florida Statutes Chapter 171, Part Y. SECTION 8. Height and Density Change Restrictions for Annexed Property within a Municipality's Annexation Reserve Area and Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary. a) If the Property to be annexed is within a municipality's Annexation Reserve Area, but outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, the property, if annexed after the effective date of this agreement, may not thereafter have its height or density limits increased unless otherwise changed as provided in Section i2. Page5of14 G\Docernents and Segingatkehacest\Lowl Settings+Temposary Internet Files\OLK29\FlNAL DRAPT iSBA 4I0.0S.doc ~ ~J asnaas b) Notwithstanding the limitations provided for in subsection a), Fellsmere may increase heights and density for property within its Annexation Reserve Area, but outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, if that increase is in accordance with the County's New Town Policy as those policies exist at the date of annexation. If the County amends its New Town Policy after the date of annexation, Fellsmere may elect to utilize the amended New Town Policies if the amended policy would apply to the annexed property, if that property were still in the unincorporated area. However, no height or density increase shall occur unless the property is developed in full accordance with the County's New Town Policies. c) Notwithstanding the limitations provided for in subsection a}, development of that portion of Sebastian's Annexation Reserve Area outside of the Urban Service Area Boundary shall be in accordance with Exhibit "D" attached and incorporated herein. SECT'IUN 9. Chances by the County to the Urban Service Area Boundary and Comprehensive Plan Chances for Land Qutside the Urban Service Area Bonndary a) Proposed changes by the County to the County's Urban Service Area Boundary shall first be brought to the USAC for review and comment. The Urban Service Area Boundary shall not be moved unless approved by the procedure in Section 12 of this agreement. Should the Urban Service Area Boundary be moved, the height and/or density for such newly included land shall not thereafter be changed unless approved by the procedure in Section 12 of this agreement. b) Unincorporated land outside the Urban Service Area Boundary maybe designated by the County as a County "New Town", and that designation shall not sluff or be construed to shift the Urban Service Area Boundary. Land with a County "New Town" designation shall be entitled to develop as permitted by the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan, but in no event Page 6 of 14 C:~Donuna,n and Sem~U~chanatU.ocel Setti~c~Tertiporay Inuma Filas\oL1C29~FINAL DRAFT ISBA 4-1Q-OB.doc ~ "J 03!24/08 shall such lievelopment exceed two (2) units per acre or exceed a height of 3~ feet for residential structures and 65 feet for non-residential structures, plus 1 ~ feei for architectural embellishments, provided no portion of the IS feet may be used for human occupancy. See Exhibit "E" attached and incorporated herein, for criteria for such County "New Town" designation. c) Except as provided in Subsection 9.b) above, the review provisions of this Subsection c) shall apply to all Future Land Use Map (FLL'>vi) or text amendments by the County to the Comprehensive Plan that increase the height or density for land outside the Urban Service Area Boundary after the effective date of this agreement. The FLUM or text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall first be brought to the USAC for review and comment prior to the public hearings to be held by each Party in accordance with Section 12. The report(s) by the USAC shall be presented to the County at an advertised public hearing called for that purpose by the County. The Board of County Commissioners shall publicly respond to the recommendations at such hearing. Thereafter, subject to any changes to the FLUMs or text that may be made as a result of the USAC report(s) by the County, the amendment(s) must be approved by the procedure in Section 12. The County shall provide the USAC with the complete amendment package, including supporting data and analysis pursuant to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Admizustrative Code, that would be considered by the County for action at any transmittal or adoption public hearings. SECTION 10. Review of Comprehensive Pian Amendments For Annexed Property within the Urban Service Area Boandary. a) The review provisions of this Section shall apply to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of any municipality that changes the Future Land Use Maps (FLU~Is) for Page7of14 C:\Daxima~n and Sarin8slkcharest~iocal Sdtiogs\Tanpowry Internet tF7ea\OLK29\FINAL bRAFf ISBA 4-10.08.doc ~ ~J ' J 0312M08 any area annexed after the effective date of this agreement, within the Urban Service Area Boundary, except as provided for in subsections d) and e} of this Section. b) The review provisions of this Section shall apply also to text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of any municipality that increase density or height limitations, for any area annexed after the effective date of this agreement, within the Urban Service Area Boundary, except as provided for in subsections d) and e) of this Section. c) The amendment of the Comprehensive Plan shall first be brought to the USAC. The municipality amending its Comprehensive Plan FLUMs or text shall not hold a transmittal hearing until a subsequent meeting following the meeting at which the USAC written report(s) were presented. The report(s) by the USAC shall be presented to the municipality amending its Comprehensive Plan at an advertised public hearing called for that purpose by the amending municipality. The governing body of the municipality amending its Comprehensive Plan shall publicly respond to the recommendations at such hearing and may then take what action it deems proper concerning the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The USAC written report(s) and the local governing body's response to the report(s) shall be included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment package to be submitted to DCA and other appropriate reviewing agencies- d) Any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that provides for a FLUM designation or text amendment for the annexed property that contains the same residential density or a reduction in residential density when compared to the County FLUM designation or text provision either as of the date of annexation or any future County FLUM designation or text provision that would be applicable to the annexed property, if such property were still in the unincorporated area, whichever is least restrictive, shall be exempt from the review provisions of this Section. Likewise, to be exempt, the maximum building height for residential structures Page8of14 j' C:~Docwnenis and SoitusBaViceharecAT.aca1 Setn~elTetntxxary Internet FIa~OLIQ9~FQ9AL DRAFT ISBA 4tQ-OB.doe ~ ~ ^ o3nvas sha?1 not exceed that allowed by the County's regulations either as of the date of annexation or as allo~,ved by the County for the annexed property at any future date, if the property were stilt in tl5.e aruncorporated area, whichever is higher. T'nis exemption does not apply to a Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation or text amendment for annexed property that changes to a nonresidential use. ~) Small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187(1)(c) Florida Statutes that do not increase the height above 35 feet for residential structures and 6~ feet for non-residential structures, plus 15 feet for architectural embellishments, provided that no portion of the 15 feet maybe used for human occupancy, or increase the density in excess of two (2) units per acre for annexed properties, which properties are within the Urban Service Area Boundary, are exempt from the review provisions ofthis Section. f) Changes to the City of Fellsmere's Comprehensive Plan, initiated after the adoptiori of this agreement that provide for a FLUM designation or text amendments} for property annexed between May 22, 2007 and the effective date of this agreement in excess of 100 acres shall be brought to the USAC. Such text amendments to the Future Land Use Element to assign a land use classification for a specific FLUM designation shall be consistent with Exhibit "F" attached hereto and incorporated herein. The City of Fellsmere shall provide the USAC with the complete amendment package, including supporting data and analysis pursuant to Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code. The USAC shall hold a review meeting and issue its report(s) within 45 days of receiving the proposed Comprehensive Plan FLUM or text amendment and supporting data and analysis. The City of Fellsmere shall not hold a transmittal hearing until a subsequent meeting following the meeting at which the USAC written reports} were presented. The report{s} by the USAC shall be presented to the City of Fellsmere at an Page 9 of 14 f I C:~Dxurtunts ~d SdCnplkcheresttLoeal SettitKs~Temporery Intebat Files~OLK29~FIIdAL DRAR'1' 1SHA 410-08.doe 17 9 03/24!08 advertised public hearing called for that purpose. The City Council shall publicly respond to the recommendations at such hearing and may then take what action it deems proper concerning the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. The USAC written reports} and the City of Fellsmere's response to the report(s) shall be included in the Comprehensive Plan amendment package to be submitted to DCA and other appropriate reviewing agencies. SECTION 11. Review of Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Anne$ed Property Outside the Urban Service Area Boundary. a) The review provisions of this Section shall apply to amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of any municipality that changes the FLUM for any area annexed after the effective date of this agreement, outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, except as provided for in subsections d) and e) of this Section. b) The review provisions of this Section shall apply also to text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan of any muzucipality that increase density or height limitations for any area annexed after the effective date of this agreement, outside the Urban Service Area Boundary, except as provided for iri subsection d) and e) of this Section. c) The FLUM or text amendment to the Comprehensive Plan shall first be brought to the USAC for review and comment prior to the public hearings to be held by each Party in accordance with Section 12. The report(s) by the USAC shall be presented to the municipality amending the FLUM or text of its Comprehensive Plan at an advertised public hearing called for that purpose by the amending municipality. The governing body of the municipality amending its Comprehensive Plan shall publicly respond to the recommendations at such hearing. Thereafter, subject to any changes to the FLUM or text that may be made as a result of the USAC report(s) by such governing body, the public hearings requu-ed by Section I2 shall be Page 10 of 14 ~~ C:~eumrnts mid SatiegelkcharestlLoeel Settusgs\Te~o~ery Intcmet Fik510I,K291fiINALbRAFT ISSA 410-08.doe ~ ~ n mi2aos held. The municipality shall provide the USAC with the complete amendment package, including supporting data and analysis pursuant to Chapter 9J-~, Florida Administrative Code, that would be considered by its local governing body for action at any transmittal or adoption public hearings. d} Any amendment to the Comprehensive Pian that provides fora FLU1Li designation or text amendment for the annexed property that contains the same residential density or a reduction in residential density when compared to the County FL(J1~I designation or text provision either as of the date of annexation or any future County FLUy1. designation or text provision that would be applicable to the annexed property, if such property were still in the unincorporated area, whichever is less restrictive, shall be exempt from the review provisions of this Section. Likewise, to be exempt, the maximum building height for residential structures shall not exceed that allowed by the County's regulations either as of the date of annexation or as allowed by the County for the annexed property at any future date, if the property were still in the unincorporated area, whichever is higher. This exemption does not apply to a Comprehensive Plan FLUM designation or text amendment for annexed property that changes to a nonresidential use. e) Small scale amendments pursuant to Section 163.3187{1)(c) Florida Statutes for annexed properties which are outside the Urban Service Area Boundary that consist of existing platted lots of record shall be exempt from the review provisions of this Section. SECTION 12. Restrictions May be Changed by Unanimous Agreement. Amendment of the provisions contained in this agreement, changes to the Interiocai Service Boundary Area Map, increase in height and/or density for annexed land outside the Urban Service Area Baundary (as required by Section 8), changes by the County to the County's Page 11 of 14 `~J C:1Dacumanta and SattinQaUteharestlloca! Settingsll'ernpomiy intemat Ftla10LK29tFINALbRAFT IS9A 410.08.doe ~ $ ~ 03/24/08 Urban Service Area Boundary (as required by Section 9}, increase in height and/or density for land brought by the County into the County's Urban Service Area Boundary {as required by Section 9), increase in height and/or density by the County for Land outside the Urban Service Area Boundary (as required by Section 9), changes to the FLUMs or text of the Comprehensive Plan or change to a nonresidential use for annexed Land outside the Urban Service Area Boundary (as required by Section 11) and any revisions made pursuant to the periodic review provisions of Section 15 may be made only by unanimous agreement of all the Parties. The governing body of each Party shall hold an advertised public hearing and vote thereafter as to whether to make or approve any such changes or revisions. All actions shall be by resolution. A certified copy of the adopted resolution shall be presented to the chair of USAC who shall thereafter advise every Party as to the vote of alI other Parties and whether there was unanimous agreement to make or approve any proposed change or revision. SECTION 13. Right of Enforcement All Parties to this agreement shall have the legal right to enforce the provisions of this agreement as provided in Section 171.212 Florida Statutes {2007}. Nothing herein should be construed as a waiver to any other right granted by law. SECTION 14. Execution of Multiple Copies. This agreement may be signed in multiple copies, each of which shall be deemed an original. SECTION 15. Term. a} This agreement shall be for a term of 20 years and shall be reviewed every f ve years after its execution date. In addition, as required by Section 171.203(12) Fla. Statutes (2007) this agreement shall be reviewed 18 months before its termination date. Page 12 of 14 C:~Da and Sen+ngaUccAmesdLaeel Sattings\Tertgwrery 1Nanet Faa10LK29~F4YALDAAFT [SBA A•10.OS.doC V 03/24108 o) This agreement represents a unified effort '~y Parties to regzlate annexations and land f~s~s within Indian River County without resorting to a ceunty home rule charter form of =~c~~~ernment. To continue with this agreement while an attempt is made to establish a charter fora. of government, would be inconsistent with the puzpose for which this agreement was vreatAd. Therefore, notwithstanding the 20-year term provided for in subsection a), this agreement maybe terminated by any Party by adopting a resolution calling for su:.h termination upon the occurrence of any one of the following: 1) The appointment of a charter commission either following the adoption of a resolution by the Board of County Commissioners or upon the submission of a petition to the county commission signed by at least fifteen percent (15%} of the qualified electors of the county requiring that a charter commission be established, in accordance with the procedures set forth in Section 125.61 Florida Statutes. 2) The adoption of an ordinance by the Board of County Commissioners proposing a charter form of government in accordance with Section 125.82 Florida Statutes. 3) The passage of a bill by either House of the State of Florida legislature to create a special law relating to a charter form of government for Indian River County. The resolution calling for the termination of this agreement may be adopted at any time. The resolution shall set forth which of the items above has occurred, with documentation attached and the effective date upon which this agreement shall terminate and, thereafter, shall have no further force or effect whatsoever. SECTION 16. Effective Date. This agreement shall become effective upon filing with the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Indian River County pursuant to Section 163.01(11) Florida Statutes (2007). Page 13 of 14 C:1Dawnents aad SeaingslkchmastU.acal Boning:\Tmgtorary IntmKt Fila10LK29U'WALDRAFT ISBA 410A8.doe ~ ~ ~] 03P1A1O8 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties hereto have set their hands and seals as of the date written below. / Page 14 of 14 l L C:~Documentt and SaruigsUccMratV.oeal Settings\Tcmporery Intema Fd~10LK29~fINAL DRAFT ISBA 4-1011&doe i ~ ~ ~.;- ? Exhibit "B" APPLiCAT10N FOR VOLUNTARY ANi~~XATION TNas APPUCATtON, to be filed with the Department, shall be complete and all required documents attached Fees shall be paid at fhe lsme of submittal. The Applicant ~xiU be notified of the Public Nearing dates to be scheduled before the City Council. The City and Applicant shall adhere to the i=lorida Statutes Chapter 171, Part regarding annexation procedures. NAME OF APPLICAi~tT: ADDRESS: PHONE: FAX: EMAIL: AaDRE~S OF PRQFERTY TO BE ANNEX>rD: LEGAL.AESCWP'F:ION.OF FIZOPERTY TO $E ANNEXED: SEC'ftON:.... ... T0INNSHIR: RANGE:... ...._ .. . 5UBDMSION: ............. BLOCK: LOT(PARCEL: PLAT BOOI{tPAGE: TOTAL ACRFJ~GE: DIMENSIONS: . .CURRENT.USE: . PRESENT~OUNTYZONINGCLASSIFICATION: ~~ ~ ~ ~~~~ _ PRESENT COUNTY FUTU13E LAND USE CLASSIFICATION: REQlIES1'EDZON1tVG CL~ISSIFiCATION: REQUESTED FUTURE LAND USE CLASSIFICATfON: . REQUIRED EXHIBtTS/QUEST~ONS: A. Check fiir'Appiication fees: - {insert Fee Schedueej B. $ Deposit for Professions! Services Escrow fees. Aft actual fees are required to be paid by the applicant. (Insert ifApplicai4lej (Only to be paid 1 time for combined applicattons.~ C. A County Property Appraiser's map showing the exact property and Location. D. A copy of the most recent recorded Warranty Deed. E. A Certified Survey prepared within one (1) year Itefore the date of Appf3caNon of the subject properly wifh legal description.artd.acreage. Efectroni~c version o#.SutveXartd.iegal.SleS~-Rtiap,j~ re~igR~c~..... .. . .... .. F. Notarized statement(s) from atI property owners listed orittiewa~rarrty deed who are~authorccing sor-ieone other than themselves to act on their behalf as the applicant. G. GertiBcate of Title from an Attorney or T`~fle tnsurarne Company (0 and E Report} prepared within sbr (S) months before date of Application. H. Certificate of Good" Standing for corporateltim€ted fiabr~ify companylpartnership~ owner, copy of Arttc[es of fncarporation for Corporationlcopy of Articles of Organization for IlCJcopy~ of Partnership Agreement for Partnershiplcopy of document creating other entities. 1. is there a lien(sumortgage{s) against the property? Yes No [f yes, please attach a fetter of authorization from all the lienhotders. _~ J. Describe the existing use of the property. K. Describe the intended use of the property. tconfmueo fln nextpagej G~OCA~t Ft>tRVOtkUB6Plr>l~Ttf~ -t~et ~z- ~~ C~~~a~ds~a~yp~eoyuse~,unrowr~.~,~,ron taus mrse,~ araeos~e 186 lCor~frwedrromPagel.) E%hlbit "B" The undersigned understands that this Application must be complete and accurate prior to advertising a public hearing. The undersigned further understands that this Appliafion may be required to be reviewed by the Urban Services Advisory Committee created by lntertoca[ Agreement between Indian River County and alt municipaliffes wtfhln the County before it is presented to the City Counai. STATE OF COUNTY OF i, being first duly swum, depose and say that am the owner of ttie subject property, or if a c~rporafiort/fimmited liabibty companylpartnership, 1 am the officerlmanaging memherlgeneral partner au>harized to sign this Application. 1 am the legai represenfaSve of the owner of the subject property of Phis Application. (If the property is not owned a owned ontyirt-part-by-the-appfccant~a-notarized-leffer-mustacoampan~theApp~cat'ron~ixing_written~onseid_by~lt.propert~owners_of_ the subject.property unlessthe applicant is the.Attomey. fa ii)e owner,} . ALL THE ANSWERS TO THE t~UE$TIONS 1N THIS APPUCATION AND ALL SURVEYS. SKETCHES AND DATA ATTACHED TQ AND MADE. APART OF THIS AP_PLICAT1Qf~ A_ FtE TRU> Aft CORI'2i;.C.T T4 THE.. BEST 0~ MY KNOWLEDGE A~If3 $EI"1EF: Dated: STATE OF CQUNrr OF " fAppBcere's SmneGrre) (PmrrtNameof~) lr"~~1 The foregoing insfrtrment was acknowledged before me this day ofi __ 24 by who [ ] is personalty known to me or [. j has produo~i a _as identification. . [Notary Sea !] Notary Publk -- Cammisslon No. Printed Name: My Cornmissiort Expires: FOR CITY OF USE ONLY; EiTI! OF _. _ ~ - ANNE~AFION'NfJMBER: ~ . - _ ._ , _ :... .:.. _ ... . ..._...._._. _. FEES PAID: Rs*CEiPT NUMBER: PZILPA i4~.Ei=~iNC DATEIACTION: . CITY COUNCIL MEETWGfACTION: SIGNATURE di= PERSON ACCEPTING APPLICATION: DATE: s~~~~ -Pape 2 oft - C'tDm~entrmdSe7Xcgr~Pi~~avSR9~AnnemrranApprremra,F~d~rauBrorSaeoxlaeadoe 1 V 1 EXHIBIT "C" RULES OF PROCEDURE FOR THE URBAN SERVICES ADVISORY CONIlI~IITTEE `TO BE SUBMITTED AT A LATER DATE. 188 Exhibit "E" Indian River County New Town Allowances 1. Size, Density, and Height Requirements in New Towns These three factors must work together to provide a sufficient greenbelt area and to create sufficient area for a sustainable new town population and level of commercial activity. A minimum build-out population for a small new town is about 5,000 persons, which translates to about 2,500 residential units. A. Minimum size east of I-95: 2,000 contiguous acres . Minimum size west of I-95: 4,000 contiguous acres B. New Town designations shall not permit more then 2 units an acre gross density C. Height shall be limited to 35 feet far residential structures and 65 feet for non-residential structures, plus 15 feet for architectural embellishments. 2. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) New Towns should be receiver sites for development rights sent from conservation or agricultural preservation areas located outside the Urban Service Area and west of I-95. Sending areas should be defined and shall be stripped of developmen# rights as part of the new town approval. 3. Integration into the major street grid New towns need to have multiple connections to major roads, and extend majoz roads planned to traverse the rural area in which the new town is located. This requirement ensures adequate circulation for new town residents and also makes the new town a convenient attraction for residents within the rural area that surrounds the new town. 4. Land use mix New towns need a proper mix of land uses that result in a sustainable small town rather than merely an amenitized residential community. A. Required land uses: 1. Residential area for single-family and multi-family units, including residential units behind or over businesses. 2. Shopping areas. 3. Work areas that provide employment for new town residents, including: office, educational, industrial, resource management and tourism, agricultural uses and related industries. 4. Public facilities and institutional uses including schools, firelpolice stations, cultural and community facilities, and places of worship. 5. Recreational uses with passive and active recreation facilities. 6. Natural open space and agricultural areas. ~U 192 Exhibit ='E" B. Standards for land use mix; 1. Commercial, office.... 3 to lU acres per I,UCU residential units 2. Public facilities (schools, parks, fire%police stations)... S% of entire new town area 3. Residential development areas.,..15°'~ (minimum) - 35?0 (maximum) of entire new town area 4. Employment areas (industrial, business, oftice)....1 % of entire new town area. C. Timing of land uses: Commitments must be madA at the time of row town approval as to the timing of developing work places anal non-residential uses. Initial job-producing and non-residential uses should be developed up front to prevent creation of a de-facto residential only community and to ensure development of ajob-producing "anchor tenant" to sustain the new town's economy. 5. Upon space At least fifty (50} percent of the entire New Town area shall be preserved or provided as common open space. Open space areas shall be retained as natural areas, used for agricultural purposes, used for recreational purposes, used for stormwater management ponds, used for similar uses that complement the rural nature of the area. At least seventy (70) percent of the minimum required open space area shall be located along main project boundaries and shall function as perimeter greenbelts or shall be in the form of a large compact block of land. If a proposed new town shazes a boundary with land identified as conservation either through easement or by comprehensive land use designation, then the required greenbelt perimeter/ open space block shall have a contiguous boundary. If a New Town shares a boundary with multiple existing conservation areas, emphasis should be given to connect the areas, but the greenbelt/ open space block shall always be contiguous to the larger conservation area. For purposes of this 50% requirement, such green space shall not include conventional private yard areas and shall not include any areas already in conservation, but may include: • agricultural azeas (crops, pasture, equestrian) • parks and recreation areas • conservation and natural areas (uplands, wetlands, re-created natural areas} • waterbodies (not to exceed 30% of the open space requirement} [Note: For all types of open space (including private yards}, the county requires a minimum of 60% open space in AG-1 and 84% open space in AG-2 and AG-3J 6. Form The new town shall have a perimeter edge and a center. A significant greenbelt shall be provided along the perimeter edge and may consist of natural areas, agricultural areas, and/or "na-build" areas designated on Large acreage parcels. A ~~ 193 Exhibit "E" project center shall be established for the concentration of residential and commercial uses. Major roadways should run through the project center. Traditional neighborhood design (TND) principles, such as those contained in county FLUE Policy 18.1, shall be required. Project design principles shall provide standards that require the following: • A network of interconnected streets in a grid or modified grid pattern that are ungated and open to the public. • An interconnected pedestrian sidewalldpath system that serves and integrates residential and non-residential units. • A "walkable community" with appropriately sized blocks and pedestrian improvements that provides a layout that maximizes residential development in clusters around town centers. Town centers are defined to include but not limited to public squares, parks, commercial centers, employment centers. • Wide sidewalks, street trees, and on-street parking in the town center. 7. Affordable/Workforce Housing Provisions far affordable/workforce housing shall be required to ensure that there is housing available within the new town for the workers employed in the new town. At least 10% of the total housing units shall be affordable and/or workforce housing units as defined by county regulations. ~~ 194 ISSUE: SEBASTIAN EXTENDED PLANNING AREA ISBA E~ibit "D" July 23, 2008 Joint Meeting ~3, ~~ '~gIIIIl~Dit cs~» Sebastian Ext,~nd~d ~l~.r~~in~; ~~~-ea The Sebastian Extended Planning Area (SEPA) is that portion of its Annexation Reserve Area located outside of the Urban Service Area Boundary. To address the unique needs of Sebastian, future development of the SEPA will be governed under distirct guidelines applied across Three geographic areas. ~. Western Ema~loyznent Center (WECI. Sebastian has been prevented from fulfilling its Comprehensive Plan provisions concerning job-producing land uses as a result of the only two privately-held industrial tracts of a significant size being purchased by the public for ~yor.~servation uses. The western most area is intended to become an employment center, with a Unix of commercial and light industrial uses providing a core for adjacent multi-family residential workforce housing. The guidelines for development within the WEC are: 1. Locatao~a. The WEC will emanate from the future corridor of Citrus Highway (82na Avenue) at one or more intersections with an east-west arterial or major collector roadway. The City reserves the flexibility to determine tb.e specific boundaries for the WEC in order to address efficient provision of services and development patterns. 2. Size. The City will designate a maximum land area of 1000 acres for the WEC. 3. IL,and YJse 1V1i~c. The WEC will require a proper mix of land uses that minimizes transportation and other public service burdens. A. Required Land Uses: i. Work areas that provide employment including: office, educational, industrial, resource management and tourism. ii. Shopping areas. iii. Residential areas focused on multi-family units and work force/affordable single-family housing. iv. Public facilities and institutional uses including schools, fire/police stations, cultural and community facilities, and places of worship. v. Recreational uses with passive and active recreation facilities. vi. Natural open space. B. Standards for Land Use Mix: i. RetaiUconsumer services .... 3 to 10 acres per 1,000 residential units. ii. Multi-family Residential development areas....15% (minimum) to 25% (maximum} of total WEC area. iii. Single-family housing .... Upon meeting criteria to be developed, work force/affordable housing will be allowed at a density of five units an acre. Maximum density for other single-family areas is two units per acre. Total maximum single-family area is 20% of WEC area. iv. Employment areas (industrial, business, office)....must be equal to land area designated for single family residential uses. C. Timing of Land Uses: Commitments must be made at the time of WEC designation as to the timing of developing work places and non-residential uses. Initial job-producing and non-residential uses should be developed up front to prevent creation of a de- facto residential only comrr:~~:nity a;~d to ensure development of a job- ~ ~J ~~fl~Dllt ~'9 producing core for the WEC. Final approval for residential areas cannot exceed land azea actively under developYnent for employment generating uses. D. Residential Recreation/Open Space: i. Multi-family parcels must have minimum 50% total recreation/open space; no less than half of which must be significant passive-park and/or conservation tracts. ii. A minunum 10% of work force/affordable single-family housing parcels must be significant passive-park and/or conservation tracts. iii. A minimum 25% of all other single-family housing parcels must be significant passive-park and/or conservation tracts. 4. )(mtegrataon lnat® lb~lajor Street Grad. The WEC shall have multiple connections to major roads, and extend major roads planned to traverse the rural area in it is located. This requirement ensures adequate and convenient circulation for both residents within the WEC and other citizens employed in the job-producing core. S. Form. The WEC shall have a buffered perimeter edge, with a central core of employment generating uses surrounded by residential uses. Shopping and consumer services districts will be located convenient to significant intersections in areas that compLment the flow of traffic from the residential areas to the central core. Residential areas shall be based upon project design prunciples shall that provide: A. A network of interconnected streets in a grid or modified grid pattern that are ungated and open to the public. B. An interconnected pedestrian sidewalk/path system that serves and integrates residential and non-residential units. C. Promotion ofmulti-modal transportation options. lip. l~lat~nrag)l;xtensao~n ®f Sebastian 1~1en~aab®rh®®ds. When. the Sebastian Highlands is built-out sometime within the next twenty years, there will be children and other family members of Sebastian residents that want to live in the type of neighborhoods they have grown to Iove. To address this, the City will develop the portion of the SEPA located north of Hobart Road (77`h Street) that is not within the WEC at a maximum density of three units per acre m a manner compatible with existing Sebastian residential and commercial developments. Neighborhood commercial uses shall be encouraged at key intersections for serving residential needs. Consideration will be given to more intense commercial uses at intersections of arterial and/or collector roadways. Any tract in excess of 100 acres requesting densities greater than one unit per five acres shall be required to apply as a Planned Unit Development. Design principles for all land uses within this portion of the S1rPA are: Connected street grid to promote multi-modal transportation options. 3 Variety of housing choices creating a mix of price points. Developer contributions for open space, recreation, schools, public safety and/or other municipal amenities. Develop overlay district requirements promoting Florida vernacular architectural styles. ~ (v ~~~ ~~~19~D~$ 66~,f `v~'lule it is anticipated that most of "tze land ~~lthin the reserve area will ne~rer act~:all~~ x .~,~ ~~t,, the City and develop this way, thy, City will have the flexibility t:~ ~c~~~~ide f~.~r ~Y~;~ a~5i~aa extension of the existing Sebastian neighborhoods. ICI. Sebastian Transatio~al :area. The remaining areas of the SEPA will be considered for residential uses at a maximuz~z ~ensi?:y r.~f one unit per two acres. Any tract in excess of 1t~U acres requesting densities treater than one ?znit per five acres shall be required to apply as a Planned Crnit Development. A3t~ernati~ue ~Etinod ®f I~ev~lopane~at Iri the alternative to the development program set forth above, °he City of Sebastian n~a,/ ~~tilize Indian River County's "Villages" concept for development so long as he tract ~~~.;IY, Yd is a minixnum of ftve hundred acres. ~~ ~~ o ,..~ "~~~N W7 !ti/ o {°"~ 6~ o ~~ ~1f J ~~~ i~ ` 9 "~a~n w ~.i __ / _ :[ !l L7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ~`~ r5 ~ J .l ? ~y j ~~ ~ ,• ,JOE 4;+... y~' ~~'f ~~"~•~ ,.,,_~ - ~ LEI I.i _ r~- r a {-• ~ ~' ~~ ~~ Tay ~_ ~ i ~ ~ L•! v ~ © ~.' ~= ~y' ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ r, ¢ u r L '°~~~ ~ ~ ~ _+ -i ~~ ~ I J ,r., ~- ,---o ~ ~ ~- ~ y ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ ~. ~ ~- 4~~ ~`~ ~ b y ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ v7 ~ °-' Isi LC !~ ~ ~_'S L. ©- ~ ~ ~ "~ Ltil L~ r~ ~ ~~i'~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ L~'~ ~ [L ~ ~ ~ a ~, w ~ ~ j ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~L ' ~ ~ ~/~ ~' ~I \""'t 0 ~~ ~I c9 d LJ e ~~ ~~ i tI 1 ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 6..~ r ~~ W ~,~~ ~~ ~~ W v ~ ~~ _:;;•~' i ~~. ~~ ~(t~! ~, ~~ N ~tl ~~ LJ -j } ,~~ q~. J 0 S- F-- ~.^ '1 3 s ~ ~ ~. ~ S s; ~~ a~~ E~ ~ d ~ ~ ~ w L ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ ~ ~ 4~ ~" ~{ T ? ~ ~~G3 V Bss7 ~ V ;i 1 . ,. . ~-yl ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ r ..~ ~ ~~ ~ yl ~ u .~ ~ R W d y c m c 0 a E 0 v d m L t 30 ~~ ~ U ~ w Q ~ ~ ~- . ~ ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ '_' ~ a ~ o o '~ ~ ~ ~ ® ._ cn O _ ^ V / ~ ~ / ` (' ) ~/ O O ~ W X ~ ~ -/ /~ L ~ . o ~ ~ ~' a~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ z z For the past forty years, growth in the City of Sebastian has essentially been a process of infill for the lots within the massive Sebastian Highlands subdivision created b~~ the General Development Corporation (GDC). Annexations have been modest. It is clear, however, that at some point in the next twenty years, the Highlands will be built-out and even modest growth will not be accommodated. Unlike our sister cities in Indian River County, there are severe restraints on the ability of Sebastian to provide for reasonable growth. Besides the Lagoon to the east, expansion of Sebastian to the north and wept is blocked by settled areas (Roseland and Vero Lake Estates) and extensive conservation tracts. This leaves only the south as a viable reserve area for Sebastian. Unfortunately, the County Urban Ser-~~ice Area boundary virtually sits at the City's southern border. Two considerations factor into the need for Sebastian to maintain flexibility in its ability to annex lands over the next twenty years: 1. ~~e~ f®Il• ~Il~p~®yIl~eIl~~ ~~ng>}Il~~s. Bedroom communities face an increasingly daunting future, yet the City has limited opportunities for commercial and industrial development. The GDC industrial area and the only other significant privately-held industrial tract were both purchased by the public and converted to conservation uses. The two primary commercial areas - along US 1 between the railroad and the riverfront, and the Sebastian Boulevard corridor -both lack sufficient depth to accommodate many of today's commercial endeavors. 2. ~x~ernsn®® ®ff ~InaIl-act~Il~IlS~IlC S~~as~n~~n I~~Ilg~nb®u~-n®®a~s. While it is currently in vogue to trash classic suburban development, many in Sebastian feel the city holds a certain quaintness. When the Highlands fills up, there will be children and family members of Sebastian residents who want to live in the type of neighborhood they have grown to love. While most of the land within the reserve area will never actually annex into the City due to pre-existing uses, the City needs the capability to maximize those opportunities that are presented. Above all else, Sebastian considers itself to be a unique area in Indian River County, with a character and feel all its own. While "New Town" cluster development may be appropriate for other areas of the County, the people of Sebastian consider the town to be a distinct community, wanting people to realize when they have arrived in Sebastian, and when they are no longer in Sebastian. The boundaries of Sebastian should be more than a line on a map; they should be the entryway to our hometown. ~1 0 F- N C O ~+ V ~~ O c 3 0 V 3~, V V 0 ~ ~ ^~ ® ~ ~ ^~. o ® ~ Q ~~ ~ ¢.. L o ^ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ (~ a~ a (~ (n _~ ~N ~ O ' ^~ V J N '~ a~ O ~ ~ Q ~ ~_ ~~ ~~ o~, ~~ a~ ~ U ~ ~ i . i~3 ~ O ~ U C ~ ~ ~ C .+~ ~~ N ~ Q U ~ Q ~ .,~ ~ O ~ O ~ O ~ ~ 4~- ~ • ~ Q ~ ~ O ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~m ~ ~ •~ (n .~ o ~ o ,~, a~ c~ ~ ~ o o ~ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~_ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d. tQ~ ~ ~ W (~ L .~ .~ O O Q U 0 .~? O U L N o° I L c~ .~ N c~ .~ O N U .~ l.~ T 0 0 .j 0 Q Z N ca a~ O c 0 0 U Q 0 ~ a~ ~ ~ L ~ ~ .. CC3 Q -~ - U ~ s ~ ~ 4- .~, ~ ® ~ ~ o® ® ~ C~3 a ~. ~ ~ C, ~ ~ ~ ® ~ -W o- ~ ~ o ~~ ~ .,~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ W .~ .. ~ -~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ L ~ - ~ O ~ ®C~ }+ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ W ~ O O ~ U~ U v O C~ C~ .~ s O O U o -~-~ ~ o ~~ ~ ~ ~ _~ s ~ ~ ~ - C~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -~ c~ ~ ~ ~- o c~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . _ ~ t~ ~ ~ ~ s w W ~ ~ U ®~ ~ c~ ~ 33 c w ea d N c 0 .y C d ~+ K W L ~i.+ ~~ 34 a c 0 r L Z .~ Z U CCU .~ .~ c~ 0 _~ ~L .~ U -1--+ ^~ W ~. _~ ^> W U y= .U ,~ 0 O (6 2 ~. -1--+ ^~ i V -- .~ I- O U .~? 0 O U '~- x C6 O .> 0 a~ 0 L 0 -f--+ ^^~ ~i1 L W -1--+ O CAS C~ U a~ 0 U 0 0 0 U -1--+ .~ L... U c~ a~ 0 ^^~ ~.l a~ .~ ® ~~ ^~~ }~ W nn~ L W ^ ~ L ~ i 9 ! e ~ C~ ~ ~ ~ .~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C~ •- ~ ~ ~ ~ L. ~ ~ .~ O ~ c~ ,® ~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ O s ~ ~ ~^~/~ ~~~11 0~ ~^1 W W W ~ ~ ~ ~ ~". v - ~ 4) ~ Q Z I- 00 ~ 3~ ISSUE: FELLSMERE DEVELOPMENT GUIDELINES ISBA Exhibit "F" July 23, 2008 Joint Meeting 3~~ 38 ~~lI~~DIlt s6T.~99 Feld:~inErs point Ventures (F,IV) a;a~i Rn-F~fl Oeaaeral L~evelop:~~e.nt OudEl~Ps 1, Size a~ad naini~na~~n popa~lati®n These two factors must work together to provide a sufficient greenbelt area an3 to -create sufficient area for a sustainable Village and LD~iIXN population and level ~tif commercial activity. Development shall be of a sustainable nature offering a :nix of uses which may include residential, commercial, office and agricultural uses designed in such a manner as to reduce off-site Lmpacts ~. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) The FN and Ro-Ed lands may be receiver sites for development rights sent from conservation or agricultural preservation areas located outside the Urban Ser<rice ;area. Sending areas should be defined and shall be stripped of development rights. Any TDR program shall be predicated upon the mutual agreement of the property owner, City, and County. 3. Integration imt® the pnagor street grid The Ro-Ed and F~V developments need to have aultiple connections to major roads, and extend major roads planned to traverse the rural area in which the Village and LDMXN is located. This requir~nent ensures adequate circulation for residents and also makes the Village/LDM~C1V a convenient attraction for residents within the rural area that surrounds the Village/LDMXN. County agrees to work cooperatively with City regarding the planning and provision of additional east-west and. north south transportation facilities as well as an overpass and/or a new I95 Interchange. 4. Land nse lnix Development shall be of a sustainable nature offering a mix of uses which may include residential, commercial, office and agricultural uses designed in such a manner as to reduce off-site impacts. 5. ®pen space (site specific Open space requirements shall be in accordance with the respective annexation agreements and the Land Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan of the City of Fellsmere. 6. Form Village and LDMXN design principles shall provide standards that require the following: ® A network of interconnected streets in a grid or modified grid pattern that are not gated and open to the public. © An interconnected pedestrian sidewalk/path system that serves and integrates residential and non-residential units. ® A "walkable community" with appropriately sized blocks and pedestrian improvements that provides a Layout that maximizes residential development in clusters around town centers. Town centers are defined to include but not ]irnited to public squares, parks, commercial centers, employment centers. hide sidewalks, street trees, and on-street parking in the town center. 7. Aff®rdable/W®rkf®rce ~onsing Provisions for affordable/workforce housing shall be based on a needs analysis. 3q X95 o ~~ ~~ o~ ~~ ~~ Q~ ~., ll~ ~%~:1 ~~ '~~ j ~' ~ a~ ~~~ ' ~' I~• o ~ ~ r x .Q ~ '~~~~ a ~ J ~~ a u w ~ ~ ~ ~.~ ~ ~+ u ~ ~~ ~_,~ ~~,~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ u ~ ~ .~~ u ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ J ~~ ~ ~ l~ G W ~s ~~ Cis ~5~ "L~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ _-,~~-i v`39 ~ ~ ~ ~ V ~3 ~ ~ ~ ~~ !-- ''~ ~ ~ a- ~ €~3 IC `1 LJ f+ ~ ~ C ~ ~ ~ s~ V ~ ~+ W ~~ O v/ ~ w L d ~ y O - V ~ ^® ^~ ~1~ U ~ .~.. _N"' ~ r V ~ + ^^,, W -1-. ~ ~ Qj ~ Q, _ ~ '~"~ o O o -1--+ >+ nj O Q N ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Q 4i 0 ~"~ ~ ~ n, .0 O c~ UW •'' ... ~ ~ ~ C~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ...., ~3 c~ ~ ~ ~ Q) C~ ~ ~ ~. ~ . c~ ~ O O ~ tJ~ ~- ~ ~ w ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ L- s e a ~ ® ® Q~ ~ ~ ~+ ® ~-®+ :~' ~ o ~ o ~ ~~~c~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ a~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ ~~ c~ V -~--~ -~--~ 4) a~ c~ U ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ^^L,, W ~ ~ I ~ ~ ~ C~3 ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ ~ -~ ,~ (n L ~--' ._ ~ ~ ~ ® ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ® c~ Z ~~ ISSUE: RESERVE AREA BOUNDARIES ISBA Exhibit "A" July 23, 2008 Joint Meeting ~{~ ~~ ,~ t~ - ',~ - ~ '~'1 D ~ r . 'r;,: v^': ,: -?~: ~, z ~~esa5~ y{{{{y,,~ee}} Y,,~ ' ~ iv •• ~' ~l ~l.l ~ A~Iy1 ~ '~ ` VV ! ~+ ~ ' / ~ ~~ ~P"-. ~. E ~ y I ~ ~p ~, ~+ tM "' I ,~ 1 ~ ~ yy----~~ ~~ l..i4~ _ ~"Y' ._~ A~ v ~~ i>M~ J I T 1~ _ ~I iJ -~ ~I _ ppj 1 -r ,., 1 ~` .. i ~ ~ itl -' ~ a 1 J? y = - ,~ ,a '~ r,~ ~ .~ •]I IJ 1~ r .: \ ?~I !~ it IJ it A4 _ :l`. i~ 4 Lf :nt _ i'41 .d :L L~ ~~. <~ c G it ~:: `i~ 't' V s - - - J % r~, ~1 `~ ,~ T) .f~j =, a _ __ ~. ~, ~ - ~.~ ....~. _._._,_....._.~_._.:.__~.__..__ .~~ _..~ __ _ _~~~_.__. _ ~,__..~.__.___ _.__ . _ .r ._ . ~. _ _ _ _____ ~ _ : _ .___ -- -- ----a.a. ~~ ~ i = i ~~ ~ ~ G ;. W ,. ~~ a~ o ~' ~~ ~,r o ~+ ~~(~`~ ~'rY ,~ r *., s`Y j~ y~ a;,. -. +~ ;- a f` 9~I~, ern'.. ~~7c '~ ; ,r, u ~=' .~~ E 5i ~ -r ~ c:~ .,, r ©. w CC~i ~* 0 s ~ ~} I~.~,1 r ~• ~'-- ~ ~ ~a a ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~-~ ~ W ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ C~ L~; CZ ~~ ~-~ ~~ r.~j s gy Isl -~ ~~ ~: 3 ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ i ~~ ~ ksj w~ ~. u ~~ r~ ~- o d~ ~~ ~--~,, u , ~ ~ ~ , a y0 f ^~i ~ W ~ ~~~ ~ rf /`" (' ~ ~~ o- I I I ~ a I~i~ ~~ ~ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~t~ ~~ .'- ' __ _ ~- __ ;~ }~ , - ~,.~- -_ _ ,~ ,~ -t~. , -- ~---~ ~,. ~ ~''°' [.fip~~6 V I~ - p`f ~~~ ~ ~ ! ~' ~ ~--~ _ L' I-- ,1 tii ~li~ P a,.l.. ~-''~~ ~~ ~~~~ 3~~, fY7 !~ ~ © ~L ~ d n~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ a u ~ ~~~~//• ~~ ~ ,.. ;.' ~ ! ~~ ~~. ~~ :>: L i ~ '7 ~ 1~7 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ~ K~ !r G ~- LJ ~ ~ rn ~5 i- u r~ ~~ ~` o ~- o rJy ~` ~ W o ~- y8~ :~ s ny~ ~~~ .I i~ ~~ ~~~ /'~ _ - - f~ J ^ ~- 1- ~r G. 4 Y G G dS.~ ~~ ~ ~r~i ~! ~ ! ~! Is! ~~ ~, ~ ~ ~ '~ ~ 3 ~ ~' ~ L i ~ e~ LLI ~ ~~ _ _ ~ _-- ~_ ,. ~ ~9 ~~ ~ ~~1 _ _ _ fr 1 ~~ f Fes' ~ _ 1~ ~ ~ ~ ~ G I• ~ , E-1 L _~' `~ ~ _ s ~ L. ~°° i- ~~ ~- ~ ~ ~ - ~ i ~ ~ ~' . - ~,~ /' ~~ it ~ % • " ~_,,,fi - - - ~..~..w .. _ __ ,~, ~~l ~~, ~--_~ n 0 a ~~ G ~ i ~~~ 1 X~ r ~ ~~ +r ~ ~_ ~ f P.. ~ 3 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~ ,~ ti „ ~: ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ t~ a r"/ ~~ ~~~ "J ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ i !__ ~; a~~ ~' ~- ~ ~.~.,- ~ ~-~ '~i ~~ L`] _ i • -•' ~~I 3 ~ L ~ Ur ~ ~ _' ~- ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~d °~~ r~ o~~~ ~'~/ ~-~'. \(~°'~I ~~ `~ t~ f O r~r ~~ o \°~1 ~. i ~~~~ .~" a, .~ ~~~ ~~ W ~' ~ '~~~F~ ~ J ~r ~'' 't/~ u L!~ ~~~ r .a /I•' .1l . ~ i'~`-'~ a ' ~ O t ~ I s ~ o~ a ~~ ~ ~ 4 ~ - o t ~.. .. .":~~ i t -= LU r~ r-- fr ~~ ~ ~ I ~ w P ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~C ~ ~~ ~ ~ TY ~ ~~ Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~' u ;~~ ~ ~, c., ~ a u ~`~' L ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 4'~ ~' ~~ I~~I,V~ ,~ I V ILI!' I ~ ~~~ L~ ~ ~~ ~ ~P r ~ ~ © ® ~1 ~ Qsf'~ t~~ ~~ ,~ r ~~ i"~"'9 4~J Q~Q ~ Cpl /~ V d o~ o ~' .._ _ _ ._.. _.,~ _ .., ~r~~ _~..~~ _. . M. _.~ ._ __,...::~.. w ~r ~> ~ ~ ``-~ it ~ UI - .~ ~ ~ ' W ~rr1 ~C ~ n ~ r ~~ ~''~ ~ .! ~~ ^' ~ ~ .1!. P ~ ~ tam ...w+- ~: Il r!„rr ~ I ~a~s ~L~" r ~~~~ ~~ ~ :~ , ~ ~ ~ ti ls.l a~ { 5IJ .""' N ~~ a Dui U !fl ~. 'ms's ~ -~~ ~ ~ ~ L:! ~~ ~~ L~ ~ ~ny1 _ _ _~ ~ l I r I I _~ J W ~_ LL W ~5 ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ V ~ ~ 47 ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~. u ~ ~y ~ ~ ~y ~ ~ G c~ ~~ q~ Si `1,..".' o~ o ~1 r °'°~ o ~, ~~ ,; "~ ~~ ' ~,I o~~j~~~ ~~ (~ -~ L ~i ~C -~ ~~ d ~ ~~ ~' J' g L-~ ~ Ed a ~~~ ~ ~ , ,fir i~' `ti ~ _ 9 W ~~ ~`~ ~ j ~ -- -~' ~, =, ~ ~ r~~ !'f ~ 4r y„-I sff ,,'''^~' ~ ~-' ,,~'I~~~I ~ c~7 ,_-" : ~ i J >' ~ ~ ~;. ~='mo't-- L~.! ,.. ,~-s_ CI ~,_I ~ ~ . ~-:~°r ~. w L~'"~ ~ ~ ~ "** +. ~ ~ ~, ~`, ~ ;~~ r ~ t, ~q ~ ~ ~ ~~~` I f ~1 ~~ ~ ~ V , ® ~~ ~' ~~ ~ ~ .r' `~~ ~~ ~~ ~, ~ ? ~ ~~~ ~~ IJ ~J i~ L fl ~ po J d ~~ C, P,r ~~ ,? ~ r, ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~ i W ~ ~~ ~~ ~[ a`- ,~f- C ~ ~ s I I ~~ L~t~ J ^~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ V ~ I ~~ ~ -' %~ ____ ~ ~~~p .. ' [1~ ~/ LJ .7~• i~ ~'~~'~ ~ ~ , s • o ~~ z, ~I . ~.. .~.F , •pY f~q ! ''~y L• I 1 ~ ~. J ,_ ~;J ~~.~~~ ~ _~,7 C~//~ I~ CCJ4. ~1 ~~ < ~ ~ ~1{1 ~~ 1~ ~ . i, i~ f ,,Fig{ 7 ~~ ) r , ~ f~.i ~~A ~ 1 i ~ + F ;~ , _.. 7 .1 u ~~ ~f~ L ,t~~ Is7 -. ~ `~ A 3 ~~' 1 +~~, J i ~° ~, Ii ~ -, ~. ~ _ ~ ( ~' f h~~ - ~" ~` ~ ^ r "1 __ ~ 9 ~~"~ . .. 6f.1 !.ri CL' r ~.. ~ k ~. L J ~ 4 0~ 6'. +~ ~1 `~h ~ r C{ IqI~'' ~ I ~' r G .4' v I ~~ tl~ 4~ ~ { 1 ~f ... ay ~1 `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ u ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~- u 531 o ~+ r-~ 0 ~~ I^'..'~ ,, o ~~-- ~~ ~~---d ~~ ~1 ~V ~-`=~ ~ ~',a"'~"'w' I~ w ~~-. M,~1 [~ _ _ _ ~ ~3 ~ t I _ ~ ~ o ~o ~ ~ ,r i ti ~ e+ ,7- r! i ~ ~ ~ P `- ~ r~ I}--~~r.+s..ras ~ Lptiq ~ ~{ ~ ~ ';! ~ ~ u ~. a ~ ~. ~. i `~, ~ I ~' ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ w ~ `~ ~ [a"~ t ~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~ w , ~ u _ ~._.~ 4.,~ u .~~..._.._.~.._. ~ `i ~ ~ ~ w ~ ~ w _~ ~ ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j.~ ° ~i `--~__~~~~ ~, ; tai ~~ ~}~ U `~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ® ~ ~3 ~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ J L ~ -~ ~ ,_ W ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~`i r ~ ~ ~ / d J ~~ ~~7 5~ SP1!:CIAL CALL JOINT MEETING OF liYDIAN RIVER COUNTY, CITY OF VERO BEACH, [NllIAN :RIVER SHORE>, SE6.1ti I I.aN, F'EI.LSdiF.RE :AND ORCHID IvI1N1J'I'ES THURSD.I.Y', JUNE 19, 2008 - 1~);!)U A,~l. THE RICIIARDSON CENTER, 6155 COLLEGE LAN1''., VERO BE~~C:H, FLORH)~ Ci'iY OF VERO BEACH: PRESENT: Mayor T'om White, present; Vice Rlayor Sabe Abel(, present; Councilmember Ken Daige, present; Councilmember Bill Fish, present and Councilmember, Debra Fromang, present Also Present: City Manager, Jim Gabbard; Git~y Attorney, Charles Vitunac; Planning and Development [)hector, Tim VlcGaiYy; City Clerk, Tarnmy Vock and Deputy {~'ity Clerk, Sherri Phi1o LYDI.:1N RIVER SHORES: PRESENT: Mayor "Thomas Cadden, present; Vice ~~Iayor E. Wiliian- Kenyon, present.; Council Member William Ahrens, present; Council Member Frances Atchison, present; Council Member David Becker, present Also Present: Town Manager, Robert Bradshaw CITY OF SEBASTIAN: PRESENT: Vice Mayor Sal Neglia, present; Council Member Eugene Wolff, present; Council Member Dale Simchick, present and Council Member AI Paternoster, present Also Present: City Attorney, Rich Stringer; AICP Director, Rebecca Grohall, and City Manager, Al Minner CITY OF FELLSMERE: PRESENT: Mayor Sara Savage, present; Council Member Cheryl Hampton, present and Council Member Fernando Herrera, present Also Present: City Manager, Jason Nunemaker and City Attorney, Warren Dill TOWN OF ORCHID: PRESENT: Vice Mayor Susan Joyce, present Also Present: Town Attorney, Anthony Garganese; Town Clerk, Terri Wallace and Town Manager, Deb Branwell; INDIAN RIVER COUNTY: PRESENT: Commission Chair Sandra Bowden, present; Commissioner Joseph Flescher, present; Commissioner Gary Wheeler, present; Commissioner Peter O'Brien, present and Commissioner Wesley Davis, present Also Present: Assistant County Attorney, George Glenn; Assistant County Administrator, Michael Zito and Community Development Director, Bob Keating 1. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Tom White called today's meeting to order at 10:00 a.m. 1 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council 5~ 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Elected Officials and the audience present for today's meeting joined together in the Pledge of Allegiance to the flag. 3. OPENING COMMENTS Mayor White stated that one year ago they started to look at annexations that the City of Fellsmere was doing and there were conversations about Charter Government. He reported that after the City of Vero Beach learned of the new Florida Statute regarding Interlocal agreements, they formed a Task Force made up of Indian River County City Attorneys, County Attorneys, the Indian River County Administrator and all the City Managers. The Interlocal Agreement in front of them today is what has transpired over the past year (on file in the City Clerk's office). He felt that if they could not come to some sort of an agreement, they would be looking at Charter Government. 4. DISCUSSION OF INTERLOCAL SERVICE BOUNDARY AGREEMENT - Charles Vitunac, City Attorney/City of Vero Beach Mr. Charles Vitunac, City of Vero Beach City Attorney, stated that staff has been meeting on this agreement every two weeks for the past year. He then asked staff to introduce themselves. The staff that has been working on the agreement are: Town of Orchid Town Manager, Deb Branwell; Town of Orchid Town Attorney, Anthony Garganese; Indian River County Assistant Attorney, George Glenn; Indian River County Assistant Administrator, Michael Zito; Indian River County Community Development Director, Bob Keating; City of Vero Beach City Attorney, Charlie Vitunac; City of Vero Beach City Manager, Jim Gabbard; City of Vero Beach Planning and Development Director, Tim McGarry; City of Sebastian City Manager, Al Minner; City of Sebastian City Attorney, Rich Stringer; City of Fellsmere City Manager, Jason Nunemaker; City of Fellsmere City Attorney, Warren Dill and Town of Indian River Shores Town Manager, Robert Bradshaw. Mr. Vitunac felt that all the municipalities should be proud of the representation they had working on this agreement. He then showed in his presentation the five municipal boundaries of Indian River County from the mid 1990's and the boundaries as they are today (please see attached). He said that any city is allowed, under law, to undertake an annex procedure if they wish. After Fellsmere's annexation, staff began working on this Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Rich Stringer, City of Sebastian City Attorney, stated that the growth issues have been a focal point in Indian River County for the past seven or eight years. In the give and take on those issues Charter Government became a question and some of the cities who were less involved realized that Charter would affect all the cities. At that point, there were meetings of the Mayor's of each of the municipalities and they discussed a 2 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council 5~ new State Statute that allows [nterlocal Service Agreements. They decided to initiate a process to try to come up with alternatives to Charter Government. Guidance wars ~ivUn by the local municipalities to have their staff work on an Interlocal ~~greement. During this process a Stand Down Agreement was put in place, which meant that there wo+.rld not be any annexations while Chapter 171 Part II Florida Statutes was being explored. Mr. Anthony Garganese, Town of Orchid Town Attorney, explained that Stat Statute Chapter 171 Part II was a new Statute that was adopted in 2006. The intent of this Statute is to encourage local governments to jointly determine how to provide services in the most efficient and effective manor while balancing the needs of the entire community. The Legislature provided a more flexible process for adjusting municipal boundaries to address a wide range of effects that annexation causes while they occur. The Legislateire encouraged intergovernmental coordination in the planning level with respect to delivery of services and boundary adjustments by agreement. The Legislature also intended to reduce intergovernmental conflicts, to promote sensible boundaries, to reduce cost to local government, to avoid duplication of services and increase political transparency, and to prevent inefficient service delivery. Generally speaking, an Interlocal Service Boundary Agreement is a negotiating process. The process begins when an initiating Resolution is adopted, which was done by the City of Fellsmere, and it ends with an agreement or an impasse. If there is an impasse, the Legislation provides another process, which is the Governmental Dispute Resolution Act. If there is an agreement reached by all parties, the Statute requires that the agreement be implemented by Ordinance and by Comprehensive Plan amendments. He explained that the maximum term of this agreement is 20 years. He said that government agencies have to review the agreement periodically and make adjustments as necessary. Mrs. Sandra Bowden, Indian River County Commission Chair, asked how many successful agreements have been signed. Mr. Stringer reported that at the last Florida Municipal Attorney Association meeting, it was reported that one had been signed and another one was in the works. He said that took place about one year ago. Mr. Mike Zito, Indian River County Assistant Administrator, said that Sarasota was the first to engage in an Interlocal Agreement. Mrs. Bowden requested a copy of a signed Interlocal Agreement. Mr. Bob Keating, Indian River County Community Development Director, showed in his presentation, the Urban Service Area. He said the Urban Service Area was established by the County in its Comprehensive Plan in 1990 and functions both as an Urban Service Area and as an Urban Growth Boundary. He explained that the Urban Service Area was an important component of this Agreement. The purpose of an Urban Service Area is to identify the area where urban services will be provided. It is also to designate the area where urban growth will be allowed. The most significant purpose of an Urban Service Area is to limit urban sprawl. It also has the benefit of protecting agriculture uses outside 3 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council ~~ the Urban Service Area and is designed to maintain the rural look outside the Urban Service Area. He showed in his presentation where the Urban Service Boundary is located. He explained that this includes the recent annexations of the City of Fellsmere. Currently inside the Urban Service Area there is a little more than 123,000 acres and outside the Urban Service Area there is almost 250,000 acres, but about 90,000 acres is conservation land. Mr. Tim McGarry, City of Vero Beach Planning and Development Director, explained that the Agreement establishes intergovernmental framework procedures and requirements for review and approval of changes in the Urban Service Area Boundary, changes in the density, height and land use of annexed areas both inside and outside the Urban Service Boundary including density and height changes proposed by the County outside the Urban Service Boundary. A major element of the Agreement is the Interlocal Service Agreement Map, which is Exhibit A. Basically, that depicts the boundaries of each municipality's future annexations. The Agreement also creates an Urban Services Advisory Committee (USAC) consisting of one representative from each municipality. This Committee would review most annexations, comprehensive plans, land use changes, etc. and makes recommendations to all six municipalities in the Agreement. He explained that. the Interlocal Agreement requires unanimous agreement by all six parties. It does provide exceptions from unanimous agreement, which are shown in Exhibits B and D. Mr. Gary Wheeler, Indian River County Commissioner, asked if they had a breakdown on the number of acreage inside the Urban Service Boundary. Mr. Vitunac said they have the information for each City. He explained that over the last two months the staff of each City and County was suppose to go over the proposed Agreement in detail with their Elected Officials. Staff met last week and went over the feedback from the Elected Officials. At that meeting, they came up with three issues that were unresolved. Today's meeting was really for staff to get some direction from the elected officials on those issues. The three issues that they had were: 1) Annexation Reserve Area Boundaries, 2) LDR's for land recently annexed by Fellsmere and 3) LDR's for the 4,000 acre Sebastian Reserve Area outside the Urban Service Line. The boundaries shown on the map in his presentation was each city's choice of a reserve area. They were not bargained for with the other cities. They also were not blessed by staff as they felt it was a political decision. This is a major issue and staff needs direction from the elected officials. He then showed in his presentation the existing boundaries in the City of Vero Beach and their reserve area. Mr. Jim Gabbard, City of Vero Beach City Manager, explained that when they started this process, they were all trying to determine what the elected officials wanted them to accomplish. So they tried to determine where they might be in the next 20 years. They received lots of feedback from their elected officials as well as from the public. There has been a lot of reporting of this by the media referring to their efforts in land grabs. He assured them that this was not the purpose. They were only trying to determine where they could logically annex and provide urban services. He then went over the City of 4 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council ~~ \~J Vero Beach's existing service area for electric, water and sewer. Their justification for this area was that they are the ones who would best be able to provide services to the resi~~e.nts of that area. '~%Ir. Keating did not have any objections with the City of Vero Beach's area, He felt that this was a good reasonable annexation area. iVirs. Bowden asked fvr an explanation on why they would want an Interlocal Agreement. She asked for a formula for the cost factor, not duplication of service, on how they would come up with services that you would be providing citizens in the new area more cost effective than are presently. She asked how they came to terms on the new services that they would have to provide when they expand their borders. ~~Ir. Vitunac explained that the City of Vero Beach already provides service in virtually all of that area. There will be some areas that is in the City, but the County is providing one of the services, and vice versa. He said that they have such a good working relationship with the County that he hoped they could sit down and come to an agreement on who is best able to serve, how they would transfer assets, who pays for what, etc. He reminded everyone that this is not a land grab. In fact, the City could annex the land today without the County's permission. What the cities are doing is giving up rights to annex outside these boundaries. What they get for that is a say in the annexation policies of every other city and they would assist the County in keeping rural outside the Urban Service Area alive for the next 20 years. Nlrs. Bowden asked how the taxpayers would benefit. Mr. Vitunac said that he was only speaking for the City of Vero Beach. He reported that they recently enlisted an outside professional financial analysis to look over tax consequences for any annexations they would do in the future within this reserve area. So, before the City even proposes an annexation they will have a study showing exactly what the tax consequences would be. Mr. Gabbard explained that they also would have to go to referendum. Mrs. Bowden said every municipality has different rules that they operate under and the City of Vero Beach is very strict in what they do and a lot of what they do has to go to referendum. Mr. Zito explained that Chapter 171 Part II of the Florida Statutes contemplates specifically that the parties identify provision of all services. Mr. George Glenn, Indian River County Assistant Attorney, felt that it was contemplated when the annexations come in that there is a review available to the municipality and to the property owner. Therefore, he felt that the agreement contemplates doing a cost benefit analysis at a later date. 5 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council / f~ Mr. Wheeler said what brought this about was the annexation by the City of Fellsmere. He said the City of Vero Beach has a Charter that if the City wants to raise height or density it has to go before the voters. He asked if any of the other municipalities has the same restrictions. Mr. Stringer said that the City of Sebastian does not. Mr. Jason Nunemaker, City of Fellsmere City Manager, said that the City of Fellsmere does not. Mr. Anthony Garganese said that the Town of Orchid does not. Mr. Robert Bradshaw, Town of Indian River Shores Town Manager, said that Indian River Shores does not. Ms. Dale Simchick, City of Sebastian Councilmember, said that her Council agreed to attend today's meeting only because services have not been discussed. She said that only the boundaries have been discussed and they can't get past the boundaries and this is one year later. She said that it does not make any sense to discuss services when they can't agree on the boundaries. Under the Florida Statute, there are seven plus services and one that was important to her was the water. She said that they are a long way from where they wanted to be on this Agreement. Mr. Vitunac said the choice of annexation areas was dependant in part on who could best provide the services. To get down to fine detail on water, sewer, etc., it would take forever and they need to make a decision quickly. If this Agreement is passed and they have a USAC Committee, good things will happen in all areas in due time. Mr. Peter O'Brien, Indian River County Commissioner, asked what is the southern boundary reserve area for the City of Vero Beach. Mr. Vitunac answered Eighth Street. Mr. O'Brien asked if that was an area where they currently have water and sewer available, but are not providing it. Mr. Gabbard said they have electric there, but the County provides water and sewer. In their discussions, they felt it would free up capacity for the County if the City of Vero Beach took over the water service in a particular area. Mr. O'Brien asked in the long-range plans for the City of Vero Beach's Wastewater Treatment Plant, does the Plant have the capacity to expand services. Mr. Gabbard said the Plant has some capacity now and they would factor that into any annexation plans. He said that they will not receive help from the State to move the Plant, but there is an idea to move the Plant off the river and expand their capacity within ~~ 6 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council `4-' the nest 10 years. He reported that they would not extend their boundaries ifthey c<~nnot provide service. IVIr. Sal Neglia, Vice Mayor of the City of Sebastian, saiul that tine ~'itv cf Set~z~stian has not discussed the reserve area boundaries. Mr. Vitunac felt that it was time for the elected otlici~~ls t~~ let tiieii° staff ;~nt~~:v b~here tl<~ reserve area should he. Mayor White said the City of Vero Beach is not actively looking at anne.xin~ pr;,per~ty What they were doing was to protect their borders. He felt that it was important that they sit down and discuss the reserve areas. This is not a land ~rah_ ~~ this time, Mr. Vitunac hotived the Town of Orchi~l~s current bol~mdarv and their reserve area. Mr. Garganese said there were three general reasons why the Town selected the areas, which was that the area along 510 is Marsh Island, the area to the north is Windsor and the other area is considered "Old Orchid" and for historical purposes the Town may have some interest in annexing that area. Mr. Vitunac then showed Indian River Shores current boundary and their reserve area. Mr. Bradshaw explained that their reserve areas reflect requests from communities to the north who are requesting annexation. Mr. Vitunac said that there is a gap in the boundaries for the Town of Orchid. He reported that there is an exception in the rule that there can be gaps. This is the only one that he knows of and the gap is there because the Town of Orchid does not want to annex the land to the north. Mr. David Becker, Councilmember, Indian River Shores, said that no municipality is obligated to annex any of the areas in their reserve and in fact, annexation may not take place at all. It merely defines that if there is to be annexation in the future how it would come about and what areas are reserved for each municipality. At this time, Mr. Vitunac showed the City of Sebastian's current boundary and their reserve area. Mr. Stringer said the City of Sebastian and the City of Fellsmere are faced with a situation that the other municipalities are not, which is that the location of the Urban Service Area is against their borders. The problem that Sebastian faces is that they have no industrial base. Sebastian had originally planned and platted property behind City Hall as an industrial tract. But, the public purchased the property for a conservation area for the Scrub Jays. They had one other large industrial tract, which was north of their Airport and that property was also purchased as a conservation area for a Scrub Jay 7 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council C~3 mitigation bank. Therefore, Sebastian has no industrial tracts. They are now looking at a community where they can live, but not work. They know long term they are going to need somewhere to have an employment base within their City to restore what the original planning of the community was built around. He said they know they are going to need to go south. He said that they did not ask for Roseland or Vero Lake Estates. It was requested that they not carve around those areas, that they include them within their reserve. He said that within the Urban Service Area are two golf courses that are large tracts that would not go into Sebastian. US 1 has businesses and a condominium that would not go into Sebastian. Most of the area to the south would be blocked. The one area that they hope to get to is toward the west of their southern boundary. They are trying to make that area the centerpiece for an employment center. He said that they went as far south as they could. He said that compared to the size of their existing City, up until the recent pull back by the larger cities, it is the most modest on a basis of overall acreage and percentage of current city limits. They based it on what makes good sense. Mr. Keating stated that the County had some general concerns regarding the size of the Sebastian reserve area, although the County does acknowledge that Sebastian has a reasonable desire to increase their commercial base. There is a significant amount of acreage in the reserve areas for both Sebastian and Fellsmere that is outside the Urban Service Area. Sebastian has 4,000 acres in their reserve area and outside the Urban Service Area. He said that the County has some concerns with the size, but they are mostly concerned with the Agreement as it is structured. He explained that the Agreement exempts Sebastian's reserve area from complying with the general rule that any annexed area has to get a unanimous consent by all parties in the Agreement. At this time, Mr. Vitunac showed the City of Sebastian's current boundary and their reserve area. Mr. Nunemaker did not believe that Fellsmere was responsible for being where they are today. He felt that these were some political issues regarding property rights and economic development. He said that he was directed by his Council to keep an open mind with this Agreement and to be receptive. But, when it is discussed that Fellsmere was the cause, he felt that there were other issues that were responsible. He reminded everyone that since 2005, the City of Fellsmere has been requesting a joint planning agreement that would have set forth reserve areas. He said that this was not a new issue for them. It is something that they have been proactive with. He said that the area outside the existing boundaries should be reviewed in context with the existing City limits. In some respect they would be squaring off their borders and others are economic development opportunities. He said that they have been reduced about nine square miles since the introduction of their initiating Resolution. They also added Vero Lake Estates at the request of the County. In an act of good faith, the City of Fellsmere felt that they could look at Vero Lake Estates, which would require a vote. He said that there are other issues that they are looking at, such as water issues. He said that that these annexation areas are by no means inevitable, they are possible. J_ 8 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council J~ ~~ L9.r. Keating said both the City of Fellsmere and the City of Sebastian have reserve areas out~:ide the Urban Service Boundary. Fellsmere's reserve area is almost completely outside the Urban Service Boundary and the size of their reserve area is over 20,000 acres and the County is concerned with the size. I~Ie said that the County was not the only j,+rediction that has concerns with the size of the reserve area. He said that Fellsmere's res;:~rve area should be reduced significantly. 1Ir. Nunemaker referred to the map from 1999 that was displayed earlier in today's meeting. He said that the entire City was outside the County's Urban Service Area. At that point nobody raised the point that the County needed to take into consideration the Future of Fellsmere. ~~lr. Vitunac said at every meeting they had, the City of Vero Beach indicated their desire that the City of Fellsmere retract its reserve area. But, they are waiting for a Resolution 'from the elected officials. Mr. Bill Fish, City of Vero Beach City Councilmember, said that St. John's Water Management District has not been discussed. He asked if that could be annexed and if so, what is the implication of annexing land that they own. Mr. Nunemaker said that the land could be annexed, but they took them out because they felt it might cause some controversy. If that conversation came back up, he would recommend that they make it contingent upon the property remaining conservation land. Mr. Ken Daige, City of Vero Beach City Councilmember, asked Mr. Keating if they gave a recommended size reduction for the City of Fellsmere's reserve area as well as for the City of Sebastian's reserve area. Mr. Keating answered no. He said that they would like Fellsmere to cut their reserve area in half if not more. Their major concern with Sebastian is the exemption from the unanimous approval requirement. Ms. 5imchick said from what she understands, the County has discrepancies with the City of Fellsmere and the City of Sebastian. She said that she attended the County Commission meeting and staff stated that they would like to go back to the table and discuss these problems. She said that the City of Sebastian was told that this was a roadblock. She said that the Sebastian City Council attended today's meeting not to hear the roadblock from staff, but to discuss the roadblock with the elected officials. If they cannot get past this, then they cannot go to the next step. Mr. Vitunac said that the second issue that needs resolved is the development regulations for the land annexed by Fellsmere. Mr. Nunemaker said the new City policy was something that the County allows in the unincorporated area with certain provisions. He said that if the City of Fellsmere annexes land outside the reserve area, they could develop consistent with County guidelines. 9 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council /^ 1~ ~~ From that, the County requested that the City of Fellsmere develop some guiding principles for the lands that recently came into the City. He said that Fellsmere felt that the level of specificity requested by the County was to the point of micromanaging the development. While in spirit they agree with the County's concerns, they cannot afford them the specificity that they requested. Mr. Keating said when they started this process Fellsmere was adamant that the areas they have already annexed would be off the table and that the Agreement would not have any influence at all on how those could be developed. Over time, Fellsmere agreed to come up with some standards that would define how those areas could be developed. The County has some objections to those standards. He said that this is a significant area and before the property was annexed it had a density of one unit per 10 acres. He said there is a concern on how that area is going to be developed. He said that there is nothing in the Agreement or in Exhibit E that states what the maximum density of those areas are. He knows that the annexation agreements limits the density to two units per acre, but those could be changed. He said one of the reasons the County has an Urban Service Boundary is to protect agriculture and the rural character to make sure that they do not get urban sprawl outside the Urban Service Area. For those reasons, the County has a lot of concerns regarding Fellsmere's development standards. Mr. Warren Dill, City of Fellsmere City Attorney, wanted to make it clear that when Fellsmere annexed the property they had a contract with the landowner. Therefore, there are certain restrictions as to what they can do with the property at this point in time. He said that they are not free to make all the changes that the County has been asking them to do. What was not discussed is that the Agreement restricts the City of Fellsmere in the size of development in the reserve area if it is ever annexed. He stated that they are obligated to develop that area at the same intensity as the County. Mr. Wheeler said what Mr. Dill said was accurate if this Agreement is adopted. He said that the Agreement is active for 20 years and after 20 years it could be developed. Mr. Dill said the Agreement also provides that it is reviewed every five years. He said that it could be extended at any time. Therefore, the 20-year window could be extended. Mr. Wheeler said they were looking for solutions to several problems. One problem is building heights. The City of Vero Beach and the County has a building height maximum. He did not know if the other municipalities have building height restrictions. He asked each municipality if they would be willing to put a question on the ballot of the upcoming election to see if their citizens would like to have a Charter similar to the City of Vero Beach to protect the building height. Mr. Minner, City of Sebastian City Manager, said that each municipality has rules that govern how they are going to grow and expand. He did not think it would be proper to put that into Charter form or a referendum form of government. He thought the purpose of today's meeting was to get the elected officials to begin discussions. He did believe that they were here today because of the annexations that Fellsmere started and because 10 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council ~~ there was a fear of Charter Government. He thought that they might be using Chapter 171 differently than what was intended. He #elt that t~ze intent ~-vas tt~ control utility SerY'ice issues. He would like to focus in on the tact that the City of Sebastian wants to .naintain ability to control land developrent regulations the best way their elected officials sees tit. They are concerned that Charter would take away their ability to predict how they were going to look, what color to paint their buildings, et.:. ~YIr. Wheeler said the Charter adopted by the Count~~ does none of those things mentioned. It specifically states that if there is a conflict between the County's Ordinance and a city's Ordinance, the city's Ordinance would tak;, precedence. He said that Charter would not stop anne~cation. Height in Indian River County has become a rallying call. It is something that makes [ndian River County uni~lue up and down the entire east coast. He said that he wants to protect building heights. He felt that some of iti1r. i~Iinner's comments were reaching out too tar. ~~Ir. Nlinner said some of the comments that he made was reaching out. He felt that what is driving the train here is fear. He said the City of Sebastian does not have a Charter for height and density. They have land development regulations. He felt that it was important today to devise a plan to put a shell over the growth issue that they were all concerned about. Mr. Vitunac said the third issue to be resolved is the 4,000 acres in the City of Sebastian's reserve area. Mr. Keating showed in his presentation the County's objections to the City of Sebastian's development standards (please see attached). He said that the ISBA, as drafted, would exempt development in the Sebastian reserve area from the rule of unanimous agreement from all parties involved. Instead the City came up with development standards that would serve in lieu of unanimous requirements (Exhibit D). The County objects to the standards because the area is too large to allow it to be developed without the general rule of the Agreement. There is no overall provision for agricultural preservation in this reserve area. They also have objections to the specific standards that the City came up with. The City of Sebastian has three separate areas of different standards that are all within their reserve area. The County does not have any problems with the Western Employment Center (WEC), but their biggest concern is that they feel there should be a minimum acreage that this applies to. The second area of concern is the natural extension of Sebastian neighborhoods, which allows three units per acre and there are some standards that are not specific on how it would be developed. The County's objection is that their standards do not go far enough to ensure that this won't be a typical urban sprawl. Their last area of concern was the Sebastian Transitional Area. This is a low density area, but not as low as the County's density. The County's density in the area of Sebastian's reserve is one unit per five acres and the City of Sebastian wants one unit per two acres. The County feels that this is not good and would represent urban sprawl. Mr. Springer said the Sebastian reserve area is largely outside the Urban Service Area. He said that they do not have any place for employment. He said that they looked at 11 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council / ~~ going south. They looked at a western employment center that would be based around the intersection of Citrus Highway and possibly Winter Beach Road. They would look to have employment centers there, not retail. They would want it to be a 50/50 split between residential retail and job generating. He said that they can't do residential until they do commercial. ~~ I Mayor White requested that the Councilmembers of each municipality receive a copy of Mr. Springer's document. Mr. Springer said the City of Fellsmere and the County are looking at their future development as being based upon village concepts. The City of Sebastian does not want a new town, they want to expand Sebastian as it grows naturally.. Mayor White asked the elected officials of each municipality to think of the alternatives. He felt that they all would be sacrificing something, but they need to get this done. Mr. O'Brien felt that Section 15, Item B, of the Agreement was a Charter poison pill. He said that if the County ever initiates a Charter review process or citizen petition, etc., the Agreement would be null and void. He did not think that they could prohibit future Commissioners from considering that. He felt that this section should be taken out or at least be debated. 5. QUESTIONS & ANSWERS -Elected OfTicials Mayor Cadden thanked staff for the outstanding job they have done on this Agreement. He felt that it was a good starting document. Mr. Wheeler asked where they were with the Stand Down Agreement and if they extended it to October 2008. Mr. Vitunac said that they ran into a problem with the Stand Down Agreement. He explained that he suggested an extension of the date and nothing else. Then it ended up that in order to extend the date, they would have to give up some of their rights. Mr. Nunemaker said that the Stand Down Agreement is on their agenda for tonight and they are prepared to move forward with it. He said that he spoke with all the other municipalities and they are all prepared to move forward with it with the exception of the City of Vero Beach. Mr. Vitunac said the only reason the City of Vero Beach has not signed it was because they would be giving up their right to go to Chapter 164 Dispute Resolution if they don't reach an agreement on the ISBA. Mr. Glenn stated that the County approved a different version. In the initial Stand Down Agreement, what was recorded wasn't actually voted on by most of the municipalities in the County. That was why a simple extension wasn't sufficient. The County's new 12 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council version does waive Chapter 164. The C_.'ity of Fellsmere agreed to approve the Stand Down Agreement, but only if they waive Chapter 164 and the County agreed The City of Vero Beach has taken the position that it is not worth the tradeoEr. Mr. Vitunac thought that the City of Sebastian agreed with the City of Vero Beach. i~Ir. Stringer said they were putting this on their agenda for Council's consideration. He felt that there was more protection within Chapter 164 than the extra three mr~nths ~~f the Stand Down Agreement. Mr. Nunemaker reported that the City of Fellsmere's perspecti~~e on the Stand Down Agreement was that the aspects of Chapter 164 were redundant. He said that they were not going to waive rights regarding their severity oftheir e.risting !and,. vlr. Vitunac suggested that they wait to see what the City of S{~hasti~~n d.~es and if the City of Fellsmere agrees with it, he would bring it before the City ,~f Vero Beach City Council. If they do not, then staff would meet again. Mayor White felt that the Stand Down Agreement was working the way it is and all they need is an extension to October 31, 2008. 6. COMMENTS BY THE PUBLIC Mr. John Williams quoted an expression "the road to hell is paved with good intentions." He felt that was exactly what is happening. He stated that there should have been a seat at today's meeting for the Mayor of Palm Bay because there is a close tie between Palm Bay and Fellsmere. He felt that this issue was about Fellsmere and that the Agreement was full of loopholes. 7. CLOSING COMMENTS BY ELECTED OFFICIALS Mr. Vitunac recommended that the staff who has been working on this Agreement be designated as a Committee. It was the consensus of the elected officials of each of the municipalities that the staff who has been working on the agreement be made a Committee and would work within the Sunshine Law. Mrs. Fromang felt that the vast number of annexations should be made smaller. Mr. Sabin Abell, Vice Mayor of the City of Vero Beach, said that some of his concerns were the annexation reserve areas, the size of different municipalities, etc. He said that he does have some real problems with some of this. Mayor White said that they would schedule another meeting and asked that the different municipalities to get the Stand Down Agreement signed. 13 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council J S. ADJOURNMENT Today's meeting adjourned at 12:OS p.m. /sp t~ 14 06/19/08 Joint Special Call City Council (~ , O rn W ~ O ~ ~ /r}~f ~ \V W O DID ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ~~ o=~o~ -~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~ ~ ~ ~ < Q ~ D o- rn N co _ ~• m ~ Z m D rn ~~ d ~~~® ~N (D N n o. m m N SU N a1 ~ ~ N (D m m D n <~ < O (D Vi fn ~ = ~ s m m X ~ i .~+ o FELLSMERE R R 512 ~ N p' D C7 ~ 3 ~ 7 X fD N ~ ~ (D ~ I CR 507 O N p ~ D ~ ° rn ~ m (D N (D D pOj NT STATE 95 N N N N N OTH AVE ~-r,=-~.- 90T AV--~ ~ ~ O O N 0 ~ -v' i~ W W NCH RD/82 AVE ~ N ~ J z Qa CN~1 ) D n O ~ I ~ ~ = CO EASY ST S-0 "J ~ ~: K X N m ~~ 66TH Ei I __ z ~'7r.- > > ~ w ~! ~nN-i ~TH AVE / CI3-6 r ~ /KINGS HWY m m I -L.~ ~ ~;5~~ . ~ f~D to ~ x ~~~~ cn u, = r ~ _ ~ rn z 43 AVF~LEM AVE N A W / J ~ < ~ D ~ ~ N ~ JJ ~ ~ ~ ~ L~ ~ L c i = UN LE TR fD °° zaT+l ~T'~ \ x o o~ D z V~ 20TH AVE o~ w w tidMN~~ 3\ "L v+ w N o -~ ~ 12TH AVE I ~ r AV Hl4l` ~- L ~ H ~ ~ ~~ 6TH AVF~ ~ ~~X~~Q C gtf3Na Nd DM ~ ~dM 9~H n o c ~ ,~ Tl TJ 17 ~l .Zl ~] T) .ZJ .Z7 Z7 ~ m m m m m m m m m m v <<<<<<<<<<.-o N fD fD fD (D (D (D lD (D fD (D n nnnno.nnnna~ v `~ (` -+~GD CD CD OO V ~p ~ W ~ W ~ j ~ CT N CT O- C I l ~ ~ O N~ I W O W p~ O W W O A O O V O ~I N N ~ N N~ o~~ N 3 N~ N N~ N N N v N ~ N