Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/29/1986Wednesday, July 29, 1986 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 Z5th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, July 29 1986, at 5:01 o'clock P.M. Present were Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Patrick B. Lyons, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; and Margaret C. Bowman. Absent was William C. Wodtke, Jr., who was out of state. Also present were Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The hour of 5:01 o'clock P.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: (Notice re CLUP Amendments) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly ♦ �-�Vero Beach, Indian River C >a`dty, Flbi��a �,, `• COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: ctf Z STATE OF FLIRIDA t �- Before the undersigned authority personally appeateeli J. J. `Sch. u6tiann, Jrf o on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Jbiarrt�al, a weekly nev�s¢L r published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the atta'cbee(rpgy Rf to ement, being i in the matter of In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore . been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed befoW me tpi<s T�y day of/�e A.D. _ (SEAL) JUL 2 9 1986 (Clerk of the Circuit (Business Manager) Indian River County. Florida) i Fr- JUL 29 1986 BOOK 65 F,1uE 224 p T E UL TI® F LA •USE b� I C Y , NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER SHE ADOPTION OF AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TIDE. COUNTY'S y .. COMPREHENSIVE PLANT NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, shall hold a public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, in the'County Commission.Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday. July 29, 1986,• at 5:01 p.m. to consider the adoption of an Ord!- nance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER -COUNTY.. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE AND TRANS u • _. PORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY'S . COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ENLARGING THE 50 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT C.R. 510 AND C.R. 512 to ._ 85' ACRES; ENLARGING THE 75 ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED AT ROSELAND ROAD AND U.S. 1 TO 120 ACRES AND AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE; DELETING THE 25 ACRE TOURIST/ COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE NORTH COUNTY BOUNDARY ON U.S. 1; CREATING, A 15 ACRE INDUSTRIAL NODE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GIBSON STREET IN ROSELAND; DELETING "INDUSTRIAL" FROM THE TITLE OF THE 40 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED ON U.S. 1 AT THE • SOUTH SEBASTIAN CITY LIMITS; REDUCING THE 150 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE AT C.R. 510 AND U.S. t TO 100 ACRES; ENLARGING THE 240 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE AT C.R. 512 AND 1-95 TO 1,000 ACRES; DELETING "INDUSTRIAL" FROM .THE TITLE OF THE U.S. 1 AND ' HOBART ROAD COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE; CREATING A 5 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WABASSO ROAD BETWEEN, 62ND AND 64TH AVENUES; ENLARGING THE 85 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT NORTH GIFFORD ROAD AND U.S. 1 TO 90 ACRES; ENLARGING THE 550 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT S.R. 60 AND 1-95 TO 650 ACRES; CREATING A 15 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT 43RD AVENUE AND 1ST STREET SW; CREATING A 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 1 AT VISTA ROYALE BOULEVARD; ENLARGING THE 230 ACRE ' COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF 74TH AVENUE AND OSLO ROAD TO 450 ACRES; CREATING A 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON 27TH AVENUE AT THE SOUTH COUNTY BOUNDARY; ENLARGING THE OSLO ROAD MIXED -USE DISTRICT AND INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE,, RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. FROM 3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ON SPECIFIC PROPERTIES; AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE ; PLAN MAP BY DELETING 61 ST STREET, 73RD STREET AND 81 ST STREET', BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND 58TH STREET, AND REDESIGNATING 77TH STREET AS A PRIMARY COLLECTOR. STREET; AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM SECTION OF THE TRANSPORTATION ' r ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,': CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. AND to consider the following proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by.. redesignating land from: AG, Agriculture to RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up to 1 unit/acre). The subject property is described as: THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF TRACT 9 AND THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF TRACT 10 LYING EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER FARMS , , COMPANY SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. x '• FLORIDA. -CONTAINING 30.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS. AND to consider the following proposal to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating land from: AG. Agriculture, to RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up to 1 unit/acre). La The subject property.1s.described as:' -ALL OF TRACT 9, AND THOSE PARTS OF TRACTS 10, 15, AND 16, LYING, ' ,EAST OF INTERSTATE 95, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH. RANGE 38 ' EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS' OF INDIAN i RIVER • FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN PLATBOOK � 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC. g ; ` RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF TRACT 9 AND THE NORTH 598.3. FEET OF TRACT 10 LYING EAST . OF. THE EAST • RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE. 95 IN SECTION. 23. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 600 FEET OF TRACT 16. IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38', EAST. INDIAN RIVER FARMS •COMPANY SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING IN ,. z: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. ; Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal is based. , Indian River County Board of County Commissioners �, By: -8- Don C. Scurlock, Jr., (REZONING NOTICES) ----- rI"OTNCE - PUSUC HEAWM rthe o"� to�eponing� "Cowo • a County ordinance land office Commercial Residential Dlstrlat, to. Ct. Limited Commercial District. The subject prop- Vero 'llB aches, of �� U.S. VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Inc. a ri lsioested a Highway artt,.on the north Bide of Vida Royale Boulevard. The sub fect property is described as: Published Weekly PARCELi A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST Beach, Indian River County, Florida ARTERVero FRAM EASOT EIO401 MORE 333 SOUTH PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOL- LOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19, RUN STATE OF FLORIDA EAST ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 57.44 FEET TO THE EAST Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY. NO. says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published 1; THENCE RUN SOUTH 12°00'10" at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being EAST, ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 347.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING. FROM THE POB CONTINUE SOUTH �' 7.06 FEET: THENCE a NORTH 00°A10'33"EAST. 200.08 FEET; r ' THENCE NORTH 69°2228" WEST, 521.00 FEET TO THE POB. INDIAN ir' rK ""- n the matter of ALL THE ABOVE SITUATE IN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CON- TAINING 3.00 ACRES. MORE OR LESS. PARCEL 2: A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH. RANGE 40 EAST, MORE in the Court, was pub PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOL- LOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST L%. �q / : CORNEROF SAID SECTION 19. RUN fished in said newspaper in the issues of a EAST ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID . SECTION 57.44 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF.U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE RUN SOUTH 12°00'10" EAST.. ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 685.79 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 74°29150" EAST, 205.0 FEET TO THE Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTINUE been continuous) published in said Indian River County,Florida week) and has been entered NORTH 74°29'50" EAST. 262.06 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 1°RTH WEST, as second class maimatter at the post office in Vero Bech, in said Indian River County, Florida FEET THE NORTH LINE OF copy for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached c of adver- VISTA ROYALE BOULEVARD; THENCE VISTA E tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or NORTH 89°49'27" WEST, 85.0 FEET corporation any discount rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- ALONG SAID NORTH LINE: THENCE SOUTH 48°59'50" WEST, 126.45 FEET; tisent for publication in the said newspaper. THENCE NORTH 21 31'18" WEST, n Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D.-R; 185.41 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN - NING' AND to land from RM -10, 9 Multiple-Familyder Residentiial District, to CL. Urn Ked Commercial District. The subject property Is / 1 (Business Managers presently owned by Vista Properties of Vero Beach. Ino. and Barnett Bank of Indian River ♦L , Countyarils is located east of U.S. Highway act on the south side of Vista Royale Boulevard. The subject property is described as: (Clerk of the Circuit C , Indian River County, Florida) PARCEL 3: (SEAL) THAT PART OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH. RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 19, RUN EAST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR 57.44 FEET TO THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY LINE FOR 1067.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE LAND TO BE DESCRIBED; THENCE CONTINUE SOUTH 12°00'10" EAST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 145.00 FEET; THENCE RUN '.'-NORTH 88°29'50" EAST FOR 200.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 01 °30'10" WEST FOR 194.89 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT -OF -WAV LINE OF VISTA ROYALE BOULEVARD; THENCE RUN The board of County Commfa�orbrs orifi con- SOUTH 35°29'50" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 65.51 FEET; duct a public hearing regarmiss the M Oce the decision 9 THENCE RUN SOUTH 88°29'50" WEST appnarH of by POann�ig ow Z4dng Cafaf tWm to deny the rezoningre.- ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE FOR 187.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN - QuesL The public hearing, at which part" in in. NING. West and eftefa Shap have an opporkmfty to iSs heard. be bald by Ole Board of C PARCEL 4: -will u Canmissibnera of Indian River County. Flodde, A PORTION OF THE NORTHWEST M the County Commission Chambers of the QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST OUAR- County Administration Building, located at 1840 TER OF SECTION 19. TOWNSHIP 33 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, July 29.1986, at 5:01 p.m. The Board County ' SOUTH. RANGE 40 EAST, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOL - LOWS: of Commissioners may ggrtaant a rezoning to a less Intense zoning district than the district requested such as the OCR, Of. COMMENCING AT THE NORTHWEST _ .. CORNER OF SAID. SECTION 19. RUN fits Commercial and Residential District. or the EAST ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID CN. Neighborhood Commercial District. SECTION, 57.44 TO THE EAST RIGHT - Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made this OF -WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE RUN SOUTH 12°0010" EAST at meeting win need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings a. ;. ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 1212.79 is mads, which Includes testimony and evidence FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. upon which the appeal is based. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING, Indian River County CONTINUE SOUTH 12°00'10" EAST. Board of County Commissioner ALONG . SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY 155.0 8 :-a-Don C. Scurlock, Jr.. Chairman FEET; THENCE SOUTH B9°22'26" EAST. 212.69 FEET; THENCE NORTH 1 30'10" JUN Joh 10.18,1986 WEST, 406.65 FEET TO THE SOUTH - LINE OF VISTA ROYALE SOULE- VARD; THENCE SOUTH 35°29'50" WEST ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE. 66.03 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 1°30'10" EAST, 3 194.89 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 88129'50" WEST. 200.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, 'JUL 2 9 1986 Boa � r �5 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA a Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being In the matter of,� In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues. of ja",-11 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed beforq me (SEAL) A.D. (Business Manager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at VeroBeachin Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of _&&CA�— Zmel 4W In the % J' Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of '�^'y t Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. PSworn to and subscribe befn�e me � �.�)..�/day of ;�,� A.D. ei J U!- l I % 1 1 %01 (Business Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the r F Co rt, India nty, Florida) BOOK 65 FnUE M #s -.CR- AmbitdMo NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning lad from: A-1. Agricultural District to RS -1, Single -Family Real dental OlWlcl. Tits subject p►opeM is presently ownET and is W cateddon thew est stile 82nd Avenue (Ranch rnewd/C.R. 809) and south of 5th Street S.W. the subject QrweDer►Y �s anuw rue uno sm-3 FEET OF YING EAST OF THE EA5T IAY LINE OF INTERSTATE IN m N:nE,vt NBING IN iid 86.00 ACRES MORE OR LESS. and ccittizens shablic tlll h g 21 which anopportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board o1 County Com- m torero of IndianRiver air of the CIn the ounty Admin at 1640 25th Street Vtt�eroo !'leach, tion FI�orfda antTuesdaY, July 29, 19Th cte Boaoa p. n. of Commaion Tham may ts of County zoning grant district a rezoning to a Im �tenseit is within tinari the disMct requested prow the some general use category. atIy decision Anyone who wlsh to aPPdl will need to which may, be. made at Otis meeting ensure that a verbatim record of the aprproceedings is made, which Moludea testimony and ce upon which the appeal is based - Indian River Courtly Board kao1,County Commies!overs t an C. Scurlock. Jr.. July 10.Is. 1998 NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING / Notice of tearing to consider the adoptbn of C0 a County ordinancetad from: A-1. Agricutit" Dlabict, to RS -1, e -Family Resi- IV dential#/"70 District, The subject property Is presenOy owned by Patricia T. Poitras (ET AL) and Is lo- rRwc cated on Oro wrest side of 82nd Avenue (Ranch Road/C.R. 809) and south of 5th Street S.W. The subject property is described as: ALL OF TRACT 9, AND THOSE PARTS OF TRACTS 10, 15 AND 18, LYING EAST OF INTERSTATE 95. IN SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GEN- ERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY; FILED IN PLATBOOK 2, PAGE 25. PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, • FLORIDA. NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF TRACT 9 AND THE NORTH 598.3 FEET OF TRACT 10 LYING EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 800 FEET OF TRACT 18, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. INDIAN RIVER FARMS ' COMPANY SUBDIVISION: LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. AND to consider rezoning tad from: A-1. Aggri- cultural District, to CG. General Commercial Dls- W t. The subject property is presently owned by Patricia T. Polbas (ET AL) and Is located on the west side of 82nd Avenue (Ranch Road/C.R. 809) and north of Oslo Road. The subject property is described as: THE SOUTH 800 MET OF TRACT 18 IN SECTION 23. TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH. RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER FARMS SUBDIVISION: LYING AND BEING IN IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA. A public hearing at which parties In interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard. will be held by the Board of County Conn- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, is the County Cpmmiselon Chambers of Oe County AdmWdWatlon Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday, July 29, 1988, at 5:01m. The Boars of County Commissioners may Want a rezoning to a less Intones zoning district than the district requested provided it is within tie Mane gereral use category. Arnyorte wNrot de nsY anywish to appeal any which may be maat this mewing will read to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which incpudoe Isatin" and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Idian River Courily Board of County Commissioners B34C. Scnubdn. Jr.. Judy 10.18.1988 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a Z�� in the matter of Tom{{ in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of 4� 1 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tiserrent; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing. this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. / Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of C ? A.D. 57� i A (Business Manager) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit -rt, Indian River County, Florida) NOTICQ+PUBLIC HEWN" No(It:I of Iroa►Inp to consider the edoptMn of as Coouunty ordinanp rezbNng land from A-1. WCU 0 istricef t CO. General nCo�mlr �% LAPA aannd Is located on the north We of HCaoumnilILA=Jr., M / We (Fellsmere Road), app��oxlmatey 720 feet A west 010C Road 510.7.2 so Roadl. BEING A PART OF THE S.E. % OF SEC- TION 22, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, BEING MORE FULLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS. COMMENC- ING AT THE EAST 'A CORNER OF SEC-. TION 22, 31, 38 THENCE WEST ALONG THE % SECTION LINE 209.00 FEET TO THE P.O.B. THENCE SOUTH AND PAR- ALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SECTION 22. 302.00 FEET, THENCE WEST AND PARALLEL TO THE % SECTION LINE 497.40 FEET THENCE SOUTH AND PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF SEC- TION 22. 891.93 FEET TO THE NORTH R.O.W. LINE OF THE TRANS -FLORIDA CENTRAL RAILROAD. THENCE H AND R OF SECTIi i NORTH 512: THI R.O.W. OF 90.75 FEI I FEET TO BION LINI WEST OF ON THE FEET TO 3.88 ACRE rHE ABOM IIAN RIVE OR • The Board of County Commissioners will con- duct a public hearing regarding the appeal by the applicant oft decision by the Planning and Zoning Commission to deny Me rezoning re- quest. The public hearing, at which parties In In- tend and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of Couny Com- missloners of Indian River County, Florida, In the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Tuesday. July 29, 1988, at 5:01 p.m. The Board of County Commkwoners may grant a rezoning to a less Intense zoning district than the district requested provided it is within the some general use category. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be male at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 8 ,-s-Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman a July 10. Is. 1988 The Chairman called the meeting to order and reviewed the procedures to be followed during the public hearing. He wished to make it clear that last week's hearing of July 15th is a part of the public record and is a part of the Board's decisionmaking process, and he, therefore, requested that we do not have a complete rehash tonight of the testimony presented on July 15th. He informed those present that Items 4 through 21 on tonight's agenda basically had no opposition, and it would serve to expedite the meeting if these were taken up and disposed of before proceeding with Item 3 concerning Vista Properties request for amendment of the Comprehensive Plan and for rezoning. Staff's recommendations relative to the Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings on the agenda tonight -are as follows: 5 BOOK 65' Pr2'tE 7 'JUL 2 9 1986 Od C11111 „J C_ WAR 0 CD m Item # SPECIAL 11BETING Comprehensive Plan Amendment JULY 15, 1986 DESCRIPTION JULY 29, 1986 3. Vista Properties request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone 7.4 acres to CL, Limited Commercial District (Memorandum dated 7/2/86) (NOTE* 548 letters received opposing the rezoning on file in Commission office) 4. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the 1� Oslo Road/ 74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node from 230 acres to 450 acres 5 6. Indian River Aerodrome, Inc. request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone 30 acres Hilltop Trust request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone 66.5 acres 7. Miller & Hamilton request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone 34 acres from A-1, Agricultural District to General Commercial District Page 1 Applications STAFF RECOW4ENDATION Based upon the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and preferred zoning district, staff recommends that a 10'acre commercial node be'established for the subject property and that the subject property be rezoned to CL, Limited Commercial District. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this node be enlarged to 450 acres. Based on the above analysis, including the facts that this property abuts the Aerodrome Subdivision, that this area is experiencing more development pressure than when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this property be redesignated from AG to RR -2 and be rezoned from A-1 to RS -1. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that, if the Oslo Road/74th Avenue commercial/ industrial node is enlarged to 450 acres, the south 16.5 acres of the subject property be rezoned to. CG. Moreover, the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the north 50 acres of the subject property be changed to RR -2 on the Land Use Plan and be rezoned to RS -1. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this Comprehensive Plan amendment request be denied. Based on this recommendation and the staff's previous recommendation for the boundaries for this node which would not include the subject property, staff recommends that this rezoning request be denied. Page 2 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications Item ;f DESCRIPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION 8. County-initiatedrequest to amend the Comprehensive Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning( Commission's M -NJ Plan to redesignate recommendation, the fact that all of the land within the Hobart Road/US#1 Node from the node is zoned CL, and that none of the industrial property in p Commercial/Industrial to a Commercial Node this area is located near the node, staff recommends that then Hobart Road/U.S. Highway #1 Commercial/Industrial Node be changed= to a Commercial Node. 9. County -initiated request to amend the Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Comprehensive Plan to combine the Roseland Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the o Commercial and Hospital Commercial Nodes Tourist/Commercial and Hospital/Commercial Node be combined and and enlarge the Comrined Node by 20 acres enlarged by 20 acres to form a'120 acre Hospital Commercial Node at Roseland Road and U.S. #1. 10. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, the establish a 15 acre Industrial Node on Gibson fact that the Board of County Commissioners designated the land Street in Roseland in the area of the proposed node as industrial; that the existing uses in this area are industrial in nature; and that the area is zoned IL, Light Industrial District, staff recommends that a 15 acre Industrial Node be established on Gibson Street to accommodate the existing uses which meet the performance. standards for industrial designations described in the Comprehensive Plan. 11. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and to enlarge the North Gifford Road/US#1 Commercial Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Node from 85 to 90 acres North Gifford Road/U.S. Highway #1 Commercial Node be enlarged from 85 to 90 acres. 12. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Based on the above analysis, including the Planning Plan by establishing a and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff Commercial Node at CR -510 between 62nd recommends that the Board of County Commissioners establish a 5 co and 64th Avenues acre Commercial Node on the south side of County Road 510 between 62nd and 64th Avenues.CO 13. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to create 15 Based on the above analysis, and the Planning a acre Commercial Node at the intersection of and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners `j 1st Street and 43rd Avenue establish a 15 acre commercial node at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street. 0 0 m K Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications Item # DESCRIPTION STAFF RECOMMENDATION 14. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by establishing a Commercial Node at 27th Avenue and the County line 15. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating the Sebastian City Limits/US Hwy.#1 Node from a Commercial/Industrial to a Commercial Node 16. County -initiated -request to decrease the size of the CR-510/US#1 Commercial/Industrial Node from 150 acres to 100 acres 17. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the I-95/CR-512 Commercial/Industrial Node from 240 acres to up to 1000 acres 18. County -initiated request to amend the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include a recommended long-range major street and highway program for Indian River County Page 3 Based on the above analysis, the alternatives examined, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners establish a ten (10) acre commercial node at the intersection of 27th Avenue and the south County Line Canal. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners redesignate the Sebastian U.S. #1 Node from a Commercial/Industrial node to a Commercial node. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners reduce the 150 acre C.R. 510/U.S. Highway #1 commercial/industrial node from 150 acres to 100 acres. Although the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the node be increased to 1000 acres, the staff, based on the above analysis, recommends that the C.R. 512/I-95 Commercial/Industrial node be enlarged from 240 to 400 acres. The staff feels that the proposed 400 acre node will'fulfill the commercial and industrial needs of this area throughout the twenty-year life of the comprehensive plan based on the limited amount of existing commercial and industrial development in this area. Based upon the above description and conditions, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners amend the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan to include the recommended Long -Range Major Street and Highway Improvement Program. 1 Comprehensive Plan Amendment Applications Item # DBSCRIPTION 19. Proposed amendments to Thoroughfare Plan 20. County -initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 5 acres from LD -1, Low-density Residential 1 to MXD, Mixed-use District 21. County -initiated request to enlarge the I-95 and SR -60 Commercial/Industrial Node from 550 to 650 acres Page 4 STAFF RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning W Commission's recommendation, staff recommends to the Board of y County Commissioners that 81st Street between the Florida East�_n Coast Railway and 58th Avenue, 61st Street between the Floridac-M East Coast Railroad and the Lateral "G" canal, and 73rd Street between Dixie Highway and 58th Avenue be deleted from the County's Thoroughfare Plan, and that 77th Street be upgraded from o a secondary to a primary collector. 00 Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends- approval. redesignating approximately five acres located on the north side of Oslo Road and approximately 600 feet west of 27th Avenue from LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre), to MXD, Mixed -Use District, and to increase the- permitted residential densities in the west part of the Oslo Road MXD area from three units per acre to six units per acre. Based on the above analysis, including the Planning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends commercial/ industrial node at I-95 and State Road 60 from 550 acres to 650 acres. and Zoning that the be enlarged Nj; J U L 2 0 1986 BOOK 65. pnu 232 The Chairman opened the public hearing on Items 4 through 21 and asked if anyone present wished to be heard on any of those items or wished to object to staff's recommendations. ITEM #16 - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO DECREASE SIZE OF CR510/USI COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 150 ACRES TO 100 ACRES The Board reviewed staff recommendation presented at the July 15th hearing: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 8, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO DECREASE THE SIZE OF SUBJECT: THE C . R. .510 AND U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL Robert M. Ke t ng, CP INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 150-- Planning & bev lopm4nt Director ACRES TO 100 ACRES PSTHROUGH: Richard Shearer FRO REFERENCES: Long -Range Planning REFERENCES: Robert G. Melsom CO Initiated U.S. 1 Staff Planner, Long Range Planning ROBERT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meetings of July 15 and 29, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The Planning Department is initiating a request to decrease the size of the 150 acre C.R. 510/U.S. Highway #1 commercial/industrial node to 100 acres. During 1985, the planning staff reviewed the size of this commercial/ industrial node and determined that based on the existing development pattern, past development trends, and recent development proposals, that this node was too large. On March 13, 1986 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request. Subseguently, the staff has received a request from Hobart Ridge Properties to reduce the size of this node to 130 acres rather than 100 acres in order to include 30 acres of their property in this node. Based on the existing commercial and industrial zoning and development in this area, the node would have to be a 130 acre node in order to accomodate this request. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the factors used to determine the size of the node are offered. 10 10 Existing Land Use Pattern All of the existing commercial uses in the general area of the node can be included within the proposed 100 acre node boundary. These existing uses include the Golf Doctor, Massey Supply, the Animal Medical Clinic, Wabasso Tackle Shop, J.R. Motor's, White's Doll House, Fran's Market, B's Yarn & Crafts, the KOA Campground, the Franklin Dales Company, The White Barn, mini warehouses and a body shop under construction. In addition, the proposed node boundary will include all of the property currently zoned commercial and industrial in the general vicinity of the node. The proposed node boundary is surrounded by undeveloped land, single-family residences, and citrus groves to the east- single-family residences and undeveloped land to the south; residential development and undeveloped land to the west, and commercial and residentially developed land to the north located in the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor. FUTURE LAND USE PATTERN The comprehensive plan generally designates the land, to the north, south, east and west of the node as LD -2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), except that the U.S. Highway 1 MXD mixed use corridor transects the node area. The comprehensive plan states "that commercial and industrial land uses are anticipated to utilize the majority of land in this corridor." The MXD area will provide additional area for commercial and industrial development outside of the node area. Recently the County approved the John's Island Club request to down -zone 50 acres from Light Industrial to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District in the area of the Node.. This rezoning removed approximately 50 acres from the proposed C.R 510 and U.S.. Highway #1 Commercial/ Industrial node area. Based on this and the. existing and committed commercial development in the area, the staff feels. that the node should be decreased from 150 acres to 100 acres in size. TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM R All of the parcels of land located in the area of the proposed node either have primary or secondary access to U.S. Highway #1 or C.R. 510 (both roads are designated as arterials on the Thoroughfare Plan). RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners reduce the 150 acre C.R. 510/U.S. Highway #1 commercial/industrial node from 150 acres to 100 acres. Mary Jane Goetzfried, Senior Planner of CCL Consultants, representing Hobart Ridge, Inc., wished to be made aware of staff's revised recommendations on the node boundaries. Chief Planner Shearer informed the Board that he had met with Mrs. Goetzfried and her clients in regard to their request that the node only be reduced to 130 acres instead of 100. A 11 JUL 2 9 1986 BOOK 65 JUL 2 9 1986 BOOK 65 P?,GE?3A. compromise has been reached, and staff now would recommend that the node be reduced to 120 acres. Commissioner Bird inquired if an outline of that node has been established, and Planner Shearer stated that it has not, but based on the existing zoning in the area and their discussions with the applicant, he believed it can be formalized easily now. Mrs. Goetzfried indicated her agreement with staff's new recommendation for the reduction of the node to 120 acres instead of 100 acres. ITEM #7 - MILLER & HAMILTON REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE 34 ACRES FROM A-1 TO GC The Board reviewed recommendation presented at the July 15th public hea r i'ng : TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 3, 1986, 1986FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. Keat'ng, AQP Planning & Dev lopme�it Director MILLER & HAMILTON RE- QUEST TO AMEND THE COMP- REHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REZONE 34 ACRES FROM A-1, AGRICULTURAL DIST RICT TO GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT FROM: 9,7 REFERENCES: MILLER .& HAMILTON Richard Shearer RICH Chief, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meetings of July 15 and July 29, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS t Roland B. Miller and S. Thomas Hamilton, Jr., the owners, are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the 50 acre C.R. 510 and C.R. 512 commercial node to 85 acres, and to rezone 33.88 acres from A-1, Agricultural District, to CG, General Commercial District. On March, 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to deny the request to enlarge the 50 acre C.R. 510 and C.R. 512 commercial node because there was only one commercial establishment in this area and there were 49 acres of land zoned CL available for commercial development. Based on this recommendation the Commission also voted 5 -to -0 to deny the request to rezone 34 acres to commercial. The applicants have appealed this decision to the Board. 12 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSTS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property consists of abandoned railroad right-of-way, agricultural and vacant lands zoned A-1, Agricultural District. North of the subject property is pasture land zoned A-1. East of the subject property is a cemetery and abandoned railroad right-of-way zoned A-1 -and vacant land zoned CL, Limited Commercial District. South of the subject property is a convenience store and vacant land zoned CL on the North side of County Road 512, and vacant land and mobile homes on the south side of C.R. 512, zoned A-1 and CL. West of the subject property is the Sebastain River Middle School zoned A-1. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan generally designates the subject property and all of the land North, East and. West of it as AG, Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre). The land south of the subject property is designated as LD -1, Low Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre). In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designates a fifty acre commercial node at the intersection of County Road 510 and County Road 512. Currently, there are 50 acres of land.at this intersection which are zoned CL. On November 21, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of boundaries for this node which would have followed the boundaries of the existing CL zoning in this area. On December 18, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners tabled action on setting boundaries for this node pending further staff analysis. After analyzing potential boundaries for this node"and reviewing the proposed enlargement of the node and rezoning of the subject.. property, staff has compiled the following findings: 1. The current commercial node allows for up to 50 acres of commercial land)and there are 50 acres of land distributed.around the intersection zoned commercial; 2. There is only one commercial use in this area being a convenience store occupying approximately one acre of land; 3. There has been no commercial development in this area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1982; 4. The subject property is situated between a school and a cemetary which is not an appropriate place for commercial development. Based on these findings, particularly the amount of existing commercial development and the lack of commercial development since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, there does not appear to be sufficient grounds to enlarge the node. In order to rezone the subject property to CG, either the node will have to be enlarged or the subject property must be considered within the node which would require that 34 acres of land zoned CL in this area be deleted from the node and rezoned to a residential or agricultural zoning district. 13 BooK 65 F,AGE? 35 JUL 29 3-- L_ !JUL 2 0 1906 Transportation Svstem BOOP( 65 PAGE 236 The subject property has direct access to County Road 512 (classified as an arterial street on the county's Thoroughfare. Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under CG zoning could generate up to 15,836 average annual daily trips. Environment The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area. The soil characteristics for the subject property include severe wetness and poor drainage. Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are not available for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning. Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that this Comprehensive Plan amendment request be denied. Based on this recommendation and the staff's previous recommendation for the boundaries for this node which would not include the subject property, stuff recommends that this rezoning request be denied. Ken Evitt, Administrative Assistant to the Superintendent of the Indian River County School Board, wanted to make the Commis- sion aware of the School Board's plans. He advised that at their last meeting the School Board voted to get an appraisal of a piece of property right next to the Miller/Hamilton property described in Item V, and the School Board plans would make a "U" shape around that piece of property. Mr. Evitt submitted a drawing of their plans to Planner Shearer. Chairman Scurlock informed the Board thatwehave received a copy of a letter written by Superintendent Burns to Mr. Roland Miller clarifying the letter submitted by Mr. Miller at the hearing of July 15th Those letters are as follows: 14 s Telephone (305) 567.7165 SUNCOM No. 465.1011 ,d SC'ticcL GISILICI Cr LIVLL: ('Cl ill'f 1990 25th Street - Vero Beach, Florida 32960 JAMES A. BURNS. Superintendent July 23, 1986 Mr. Roland Miller 946 Roland Miller Drive Indian River Shores, FL 32963 Dear Mr. Miller: The attached letter is in no way connected to the property adjoining Sebastian River Middle/Junior High. As you will remember, you said that you had sold the property to Mr. Hamilton. S erely, ,gym es A. Burns Superintendent . .4 SCHOOL BOARD DOROTHY A.TALBERT Chairman JUDSON P. BARKER, JR. Vice -Chairman KATHY DOWD JOE N.IDLETTE,JR. CAROL K. JOHNSON . �.�,........ ,vv✓I w' • .✓✓ .7Vlv{HVm Mo. 00' - IUI I SC1-ICCL CISTUCT CF IhC14h CIVEL CCI. ♦Z v June 4, 1984 1990 25th Street - Vero' Basch, Florida 32960 JAMES A. BURNS. Suparintendant Mr. Roland Miller 946 Roland Miller Drive Indian River Shores, FL. 32963 Dear Mr. Miller: e SCHOOL BOARD RICHARD A. BOLINGE Chairman RUTH R. BARNES Vice-chairman JUDSON P. BARKER, J6 JOE N. IDLETTE, JR. DOROTHY A.TALSER This letter is to place on record understandings reached during our negotiations over the Highway 512 property swap. The Board will raise no objection to commercial, use of the property on your part. It is our understanding that no heavy industrial use would be contemplated on your part. Sincerely, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD j Richard A. Bol Chairman 15 iU L 2 9 1966 J s A. Burns erintendent and Secretary Boor 6 5 Fs, . 237 JUL 2 9 1986 BOOK 65 Pd,E 238 .�elf The Chairman later in the meeting asked Mr. Miller if he wished to make any comment or voice an objection to staff's recommendation of denial, and Mr. Miller indicated that he did not wish to speak. ITEM # 17 - COUNTY -INITIATED REQUEST TO ENLARGE THE 1-95/CR 512 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 240 ACRES UP TO 1000 ACRES The Board reviewed staff recommendation presented at the July 15th public hearing: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 7, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: .�elf SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST Robert M. Keat_'i g, E P TO AMEND THE COMPRE- Planning & Development Director HENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING. THEI-95/C.R. 512 COM - THROUGH: Richard Shearer MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE 1` Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM 240 ACRES TO -UP TO FROKobert G. Melsom REFERENCES: 000 ACRES Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meetings of July 15 and July 29, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS The County is initiating a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by increasing the size of the I-95/C.R. 512 commercial/ industrial node from 240 acres to up to 1,000 acres. On January 15, 1986, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the boundaries for the 240 acre node. At that meeting, the Board instructed the staff to explore the possibilities of enlarging the node up to 1000 acres. On March 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 -to -2 to recommend that this node be enlarged,to 1,000 acres. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In analyzing this request, staff prepared four alternatives to the existing 240 acre node. The first alternative would encompass 400 acres, the second alternative would encompass 600 acres, the third alternative would encompass 800 acres, and the fourth alternative would encompass 1000 acres. Existing Land Use Pattern The current 240 acre node boundary includes the following commercial and industrial uses: Wayfara Travel Center (Gulf Service Station and Dairy Queen), a recreational vehicle park 16 M M 171 under construction, and the Sebastian Lakes Sales Center. In addition, the node boundary includes the Hetra Corporation property, upon which a computer manufacturing facility is under construction. This node is surrounded by undeveloped land to the north, south, east and west. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the land to the southeast of the proposed -enlarged node as LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre), and the land to the north, west and south -as AG, Agricultural (up to .2 units/acre). The staff has prepared four alternatives based on the Board of County Commissioners' direction to analyze the possibility of enlarging the node up to 1,000 acres. A brief analysis including the advantages and disadvantages will be offered. Each of the four alternatives involves increasing the size of the node. Based. upon the staff's analysis of the availability of large industrial tracts in the County which are available for development, a defficiency in the amount of that type of land was noted. Coupled with the County's recent efforts to attract more industry, this represents a change in policy and need since the Comprehensive.Plan was first adopted. Given those factors and an analysis of vacant land appropriate for industrial development, the staff determined that expansion of this node would be appropriate to provide for more larger tracts available for industrial development. The major issue then is the extent to which the node should be enlarged. One alternative is to keep the node at 240 acres. The second alternative would increase the node by 160 acres which would provide for some additional commercial or industrial development. The advantages of this alternative are that it'' would enlarge the node to include the 100 acre parcel of land between I-95 and the Hetra Corporation's property, square off the node in the southwestern quadrant, and include property fronting on County Road 512 which is located in Vero Lake Estates and Pine Lake Estates Subdivision. The disadvantages of this alternative are that the 100 acre parcel and the property in the southwestern quadrant of the node do not have good access to the transportation system. Alternative 3 would include all of the property in alternative 2 and a 200 acre parcel in the northeastern quadrant of the node. The advantages of this alternative are that it would provide a large area for commercial and industrial development. The disadvantage is that this additional parcel does not have direct access to the transportation system. Alternative 4 would add a 100 acre parcel in the northwest quadrant of the node and a 32 acre parcel in the northeast quadrant of the node to the property proposed in alternative three. The advantages of this alternative are that it would include more land in this area for commercial and industrial development. The disadvantage is that these parcels do not have access to the transportation system. Alternative 5 would expand the node to 1,000 acres. 140 acres would be included in the northwestern quadrant of the node, and 60 acres would be included in the northeastern quadrant of the node in addition to the land proposed in alternative four. The advantages of this proposal are that it would provide additional land for commercial and industrial development, and access is provided to parcels north and south of C.R. 512 in the western portion of the node. 17 JUL 29 1936 BOOK D5 Fr,EE 2,'39 JUL 2 9 1936 BOOK 6 5 FAZE ?40 Transportation System All of the parcels of land located in the vicinity of the I-95/C.R. 512 Commercial/ Industrial node have either primary of secondary access to County Road 512A designated as an arterial on the Thoroughfare Plan). The existing interchange at County Road' 512 and I-95 provides access to the major north -south transportation system for the State of Florida. RECOMMENDATION Although the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended that the node be increased to 1000 acres, the staff, based on the above analysis, recommends that the C.R. 512/I-95 Commercial/Industrial node be enlarged from 240 to 400 acres. The staff feels that the proposed 400 acre node will fulfill the commercial and industrial needs of this area throughout the twenty-year life of the comprehensive plan based on the limited amount of existing commercial and industrial development in this area. Attorney Michael O'Haire inquired if staff is still recommending enlarging the node to 400 acres rather than 1000, and this was confirmed by Planner Shearer. Commissioner Bird did not believe we are getting into de- lineating the boundaries at this time, and it was agreed that we are not to that point. Attorney George Glenn came before the Board representing Edmund Ansin and made suggestions as set out in the following letter: 18 CHESTER CLEM, ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2525 20TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 �VP. A. (M`\§ CHESTER CLEM TELEPHONE GEORGE GLENN 569-9494 DOUGLAS W. GAIDRY July 24, 1986 DISTRIBUTION LIST AREA CODE 305 Commissioners Administrator Attorney Personnel Board of County Commissioners Public Works 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Community Dev, Utilities RE: I-95 and CR 512 Node Finance Otho, Gentlemen: Our office represents Edmund Ansin, owner of several parcels of property located in the CR 512/I-95 Commerical/Industrial Node. In essence, we are in agreement with the 400 acre node con- cept proposed by the County Planning Staff, and initially recommended by the County Commissioner's during the July 16, 1986 public hearing. However, we suggest that the node be increased by extending the western boundary to avoid potential congestion resulting from traffic trying to exit or enter I-95 after the south- west and nortwest quadrants are developed. We would suggest that the node be increasedto allow ingress and egress at a point 500 feet west of the proposed nodal boundary. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Very ruly yours, Ff" George Tenn Commissioner Lyons noted that he was not present at the last hearing, but he would like to argue for the 1000 acres for two reasons. First, he felt strongly that there should not be any question that we want industry and that we want to have enough space for it so that nobody can hold anybody up to get a piece of property. Secondly, he believed that particular location is tremendously important because it is the closest to a four year degree school, and the kind of industry we are looking for is the 19 �JL b BOOK F. GE 24 UUL 2 9 1986 Bou 65 FaGr 242 kind that is going to have technical people who are going to go to college either during the day or after hours. At this point it was determined that no one else wished to speak on Items 4 through 21. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing on Items 4 through 21. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to accept the Planning staff's recommendations on Items 4 through 21, including the change on Item #16 recommended by staff. M Commissioner Lyons pointed out that if we accept staff's recommendation on Item #17, the 1-95/CR512 Commercial/Industrial Node will only be increased to 400 acres. Commissioner Bird agreed that we want to try to encourage industry to that area, but he felt 400 acres is adequate for the node at 1-95 and CR 512 at this time. If and when more is needed, he would look favorably on enlarging it at that time. Chairman Scurlock noted that when we were trying to put the utility package together for the North County, we had absolutely no interest expressed in that area of any sufficient size to indicate being able to include it for utilities. He stated emphatically that he would not be interested in expanding that node to the full thousand acres. Commissioner Bowman felt that we may very well need 1000 acres and believed if we don't designate this area for industry now, we may get something else in there and have trouble expanding it in the future. Commissioner Lyons also did not want to see this area get nibbled away and felt strongly we should designate the 1000 acres now. 20 Chairman Scurlock did not see the need for such a Large amount of acreage as he believed most industrial parks are in the range of 300-400 acres. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and failed on a 2 to 2 vote with Commissioners Bowman and Lyons voting in opposition. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board unanimously accepted the Planning staff's recommendations on Items 4 through 16 and 18 through 21, including the change on Item #16 decreasing the CR510/US1 Commercial/ Industrial Node from 150 acres to 120 acres rather than 100 acres. MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, to enlarge the 1-95/CR512 Commercial/Industrial Node to 1000 acres rather than 4a 400 acres failed on a 2 to 2 vote with Commissioner Bird and Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition. Commissioner Lyons asked what increase the other Board members would settle for. He noted that there is no conflict on this item for the fifth Board member and wondered if it has to be voted on tonight. Director Keating advised that it was his understanding of the state rules that if this item is not voted on tonight, it will have to be taken up again in six months. Commissioner Lyons suggested an increase to 750 acres as a compromise. An increase to 600 acres was preferred by both the Chairman and Commissioner Bird, and Commissioner Bird pointed out that i -f the Motion fails, the node remains at 240 acres. 21 JL 29 Talo Baoa FrauC JUL 2 9 1986 BOOK 65 F"AX X44 MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, to enlarge the 1-95/CR512 Commercial/Industrial Node to 750 acres rather than 1000 acres failed on a 2 to 2 vote with Commissioner Bird and Chairman Scurlock voting in opposition. Argument continued re the amount to increase the node with Commissioner Bird and Chairman Scurlock agreeing to go along with an increase to 600 acres. Commissioner Bird felt that the original concept of the node was to concentrate this type activity and have it on the quadrants of the intersection; then let it spread outward as the need arose. ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Com- missioner Bowman, the Board on a 3-1 vote, Commissioner Bird voting in opposition and Commissioner Wodtke being absent, agreed to enlarge Item #17, the 1-95/CR512 Commercial/Industrial Node to 650 acres. ITEM #3 - VISTA PROPERTIES REQUEST TO CREATE A 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AND REZONE 5.5 ACRES TO CL Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the staff recommendation presented at the July 15th hearing, reminding the Board that the applicant had reduced his request for the acreage to be rezoned CL to 5.535 acres. 22 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: July 2, 1986 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: VISTA PROPERTIES REQUEST TO AMEND Robert M. Keati g, A1`CP THE COMPREHENSIVE Planning & Development Director PLAN AND TO REZONE 7.4 ACRES TO CL, LIMITED COMMERCIAL FROM: REFERENCES: DISTRICT Richard Shearer VISTA REQUEST - Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meetings of July 15 and July 29, 1986. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Vista Properties and Barnett Bank, the -owners, are requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by creating a ten (10) acre commercial node on the East side of U.S. 1 at the intersection of U.S. 1 and Vista Royale Boulevard and to rezone 5.69 acres from OCR, Office Commercial Residential District, and 1.735 acres from RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District, to CL, Limited Commercial District. On September 21, 1983, the Board of County Commissioners denied a request to redesignate the South 'part of the property and some additional property to the East to commercial. However, the Board stated that they would like the staff to look at this request again at a later date for possible reconsideration. On March 13, 1986, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 -to -0 to recommend that a 10 acre commercial node be established at U.S. 1 and Vista Royale Boulevard. However, the Commission voted 5 -to -0 to deny the request to rezone 7.4 acres to CG because they felt that the CG district allowed d broad range of commercial uses that included uses imcompatible with the land uses adjacent to the subject property. The Commission did indicate that they felt some commercial uses would be appropriate at this location and suggested the CL district as an alternative to the requested CG district. Since the applicants would not amend their request to CL at the public hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Commission denied the rezoning request. The applicants appealed this decision and then amended their application to request the CL zoning district. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The -analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is undeveloped. Immediately West of the subject property is Florida Federal Savings and Loan. Further West, across U.S. 1, is undeveloped land zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District. North of the subject property is a water treatment plant and part of the golf course zoned RM -10. East of the subject property is the golf course and clubhouse zoned RM -10. South of the subject property is a golf area and condominiums zoned RM -10. 23 BOOK. 65 FmIE 245 J U L 2 9 1986 BOOK 65 Fnr 246 -7 Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the land North, South, and East of it as MD -2, Medium -Density Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). The land to the West, across U.S. 1, is designated as part of the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). The applicant originally intended to have 18 acres of commercial property at this location when the Vista Royale property was being planned and throughout its development. After the County considered this area in 1983, the applicant reappraised this area and is now proposing to have..approximately 10 acres of the total 18 acres available for commercial development. The remaining property will retain its RM -10 zoning and be available for residential development. The subject property includes the Vista Royale sales office on the East and the land between the sales office and the Florida Federal Savings office on the West. Based on the the fact that the subject property is located between these commerical uses and abuts a water treatment plant to the north, it does seem more reasonable to designate this property as commercial than residential. When the staff recommended denial of a similar request td redesignate property south of the subject property to commercial in 1983, that recommendation was based largely on the anticipated traffic impacts on U.S. 1. While this proposed commercial development would have a similar traffic impact, the County has 'revised its capacity figures for U.S. 1 based on the traffic consultant's recent reports. These figures indicate that U.S. 1 could still maintain level -of -service "C" if this property was rezoned to commercial. While the staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission feel that the CL zoning district would be appropriate for this area, the Board could consider a less intense commercial zoning district such as the CN, Neighborhood Commercial District, or the OCR, Office, Commercial and Residential District. Transportation System The subject property has direct access to U.S. 1 (classified as an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum development of the subject property under the proposed CL zoning could generate up to 4,615 average annual daily trips (AADT). Currently, U.S. 1 carries 23,900 AADT at level -of -service "B". The additional trips would lower this level -of -service to "C" based on a level -of -service "C" capacity of 31,000 AADT. Environment The subject property is not designated as enviornmentally sensitive -nor is it in a flood -prone area. Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are available. RECOMMENDATION Based upon the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and preferred zoning district, staff recommends that a 10'acre.commercial node be established for the subject property and that the subject property be rezoned to CL, Limited Commercial District. 24 Chairman Scurlock informed those present that Commissioner Wodtke, who is not present tonight, has declared a Conflict of Interest per the County Attorney's recommendation, which is as follows; the Voting Conflict form will be put on file in the Office of Clerk to the Board: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: July 28, 1986 SUBJECT: Voting Conflict on Comprehensive Land Review (July 29, 1986 - Vista Properties Issue) FROM: William C. Wodtke, Jr., Commissioner In addition to the information in the attached memorandum, I wish to add that I am not a salaried employee of the Barnett Bank, but as a Director of the Bank and a member of the Loan Committee I do receive a fee. Based upon the opinion of Attorney Vitunac and the Florida Commission on Ethics, I will not be present to participate in the Vista Properties issue. TO: William C. Wodtke, Jr. DATE: July 24, 1986 Commissioner SUBJECT: Voting Conflict on Comprehensive Lanj Review \(Dr FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, ounty Attorney At the July 15, 1986, nighttime meeting of the Board of County Commissioners for its semiannual review of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, you expressed a concern of a possible voting conflict on a petition filed by Vista Royale. You indicated that you are a director of Barnett Bank and that one of the properties encompassed by the zoning petition was owned by Barnett Bank. You also indicated that you are paid approximately $1.50 per month plus $50 per meeting for your attendance at the Board of Director's meetings, and that as a director you have a vote concerning whether or not the bank will loan money on this property. Section 112.3143(3), Florida Statutes, holds that no county officer shall "vote in his official capacity upon any measure which enures to his special private gain or shall knowingly vote in his official capacity upon any measure which enures to the special gain of any principal, [exceptions not pertinent here], by whom he is retained. Such public officer shall, prior to the vote being taken, publicly state to the assembly the nature of his interest in 25 my F'p,;;F 247 r- A L 2 9 IS 0 BOOK 65 FAE 248 the matter from which he is abstaining from voting and, within 15 days after the vote occurs, disclose the nature of his interest as a public record in a memorandum filed with the person responsible for recording the minutes of the meeting, who shall incorporate the memorandum in the' minutes." It was my opinion that this section does prohibit your voting on any matter relating to property owned by your principal, Barnett Bank. On Monday, July 21, 1986, 1 telephoned Mr. Larry Gonzalez, Executive Director of the Florida Commission on Ethics, who, after discussing the fact pattern concerning your case, indicated that it was his unqualified opinion that you are prohibited from voting on this issue by Florida law. Chairman Scurlock noted that at the previous hearing, the Board generally indicated they felt the proposed node should be smaller than requested, and he wished to know what staff has determined and the present status of Vista Properties' request, the acreage involved, etc. Chief Planner Shearer stated that staff has talked to the applicant since the last meeting, and he believed they may want to speak to that. Commissioner Bird noted that they presently have multi family and OCR on the subject property, and he wished to know how the acreage is split among those zonings. Chief Planner Shearer advised that they have approximately 2 acres of RM -10 and approximately 8 acres of OCR. The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard re Item #3 (Vista Properties). Attorney Steve Henderson came before the Board representing Vista Properties. He noted that the current zoning is OCR on the north of Vista Royale Boulevard and RM -10 on the south, and it breaks down about 50/50 as part of the original commercial zoning. Attorney Henderson felt there was some confusion at the last hearing as to the effect of the plating of a ten acre node at this location when actually the request of the property owner was for only 5.5 acres of commercial zoning. The OCR already there is grandfathered in because of an existing office use so it is not necessary to include that property in the node, and the 26 M M . developer has no objection to amending his request for a node to the size of the area to be rezoned, or 5.5 acres. Chairman Scurlock was interested in the cumulative effect of what will happen in this area between the impact of the OCR and the node, and he asked if the applicant tried to meet with the property owners' group to go over their proposal. Attorney Henderson believed the developer tried to communi- cate with them before the last meeting, but due to the comments made at the last meeting, it did not appear there would be much benefit derived from meeting with them again. He informed the Board that the applicant would have no problem with reducing their request to CN, which is more restrictive than CL; they now understand that CN does not have to be within a neighborhood commercial node. The CL allows a lot of the same retail uses the property owner was seeking, but in many instances it does require administrative permits. Attorney Henderson stated that the Board can consider their application to be changed to request CN zoning and further pointed out that the applicant already has recorded restrictions on the property to eliminate some of the uses the residents found objectionable. M Commissioner Bird referred to the following map of the sub- ject property and asked if the parcels marked 1, 2, 3 and 4, are the areas where they would request the CN zoning. 27 UFS©R 65 I ,�u M L- JUL 2 9 1986 JUL 2 9 1906 BOOK 65 ?�,E ?5O �-6\\\\�. CL RMy /�,A SOU/ CH - B low$ 1 V A 1 V Y `• Z z OCR -----' r r ROYAL n -- 1 CH - B low$ 1 V A RS -6 Attorney Henderson confirmed that the CN was requested for parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4. Then, for Commissioner Lyons' benefit, as he was not present at the last hearing, Attorney Henderson reviewed Vista Royale being developed as a sort of Planned Unit Development, and stressed that for years there was zoning for a little over 22 acres of Commercial around the entranceway. Although it is 14 years later, the applicant is now seeking rezoning in order to allow commercial use on only 5.5 acres. Attorney Henderson felt there is a position that can be taken relative to vesting since the project was developed around this 28 M M OCR -----' ROYAL BLVD ' 1 e y�P J� SUBJECT PROPERTY i 1 t ,1 1 VISA #19TAIC CONGO vHAyE I .�•1 — 1 1 1 - A. RS -6 Attorney Henderson confirmed that the CN was requested for parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4. Then, for Commissioner Lyons' benefit, as he was not present at the last hearing, Attorney Henderson reviewed Vista Royale being developed as a sort of Planned Unit Development, and stressed that for years there was zoning for a little over 22 acres of Commercial around the entranceway. Although it is 14 years later, the applicant is now seeking rezoning in order to allow commercial use on only 5.5 acres. Attorney Henderson felt there is a position that can be taken relative to vesting since the project was developed around this 28 M M commercial area. He pointed out that if this went to court and the applicant prevailed, it would result in 22 acres of C-1 zoning, a broader and much more liberal commercial zoning, and he stated that 5.5 acres represents the minimum the property owner is willing to accept. Commissioner Bird asked, as far as permitted uses and inten- sity of use, if staff feels CN is a compromise between OCR and the CL zoning originally requested. Planner Shearer clarified that CN is more restrictive than CL but a bit more flexible than OCR in its allowedrangeof uses; it was designed to provide for neighborhood commercial uses such as grocery stores, drug stores, etc. Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he was opposed to the size requested at the last hearing and was looking for a reduction in that intensity. He believed Parcels 1 and 2 are located so that they are sufficiently buffered to keep all the activity on the north side significantly away from any of the developed living units, but stated he would not vote for rezoning Parcels 1, 2, 3 and 4, to CN because of his concern about attracting traffic to the entranceway. Also, he still was of the opinion that the multi family area on the south is of sufficient size to provide the ability to develop it in multi family use with enough buffer from U.S.I. Attorney Henderson emphasized that the developer is just trying to develop what he originally planned to deliver and represented that he would deliver as shown in the sales brochure from their original development. The golf course was designed around the commercial area as a buffer, and if the County had not allowed that commercial zoning back then, the property would have been redesigned. Commissioner Bowman wished to know exactly what kind of stores would go in Parcels 1 and 2, and what some of the pro- hibited uses are. 29 BOOK DD Ft�1,E251 L- J L 2 9 1906 ►JUL 2 9 198 BOOK 65 FADE 252 Attorney Henderson reviewed the uses they are prepared to prohibit, as follows: A. Motion picture theaters B. Self-service laundries C. Commercial parking facilities D. Coin-operated amusement establishments E. Automobile parts stores F. Skating rinks G. Bars and lounges H. Billiard halls I. Hotels and motels J. Bowling alleys K. Time-share developments He noted that the remainder of items in CN would be permitted and a number of commercial retail type activities would require administrative permits. There originally was a plan to put in a Nissan dealership, but that has been abandoned, and they now are just considering shops and services. Chairman Scurlock pointed out that the Commission can only act on what the allowable uses are. Commissioner Bowman asked if the applicant has taken out fast food establishments, and Attorney Henderson noted there is no category in the Zoning Ordinance for fast foods. Director Keating advised that restaurants are allowed in a CN District, but curb service, drive-in or drive-through estab- lishments are excluded. Chairman Scurlock felt what he is hearing indicates that the only modification from Vista's standpoint is the change from a request for CL to CN for the four parcels and the deed restric- tions remain intact. Discussion continued at length re access and traffic impact, and Attorney Henderson felt no one can deny that the speed limit on U.S.I is too high, but the developer is prepared to pay for all traffic impacts. He also wondered how much traffic is generated now by residents leaving Vista Royale just to go to a convenience store. Commissioner Bowman noted that the Kittle shopping center where Perkin's Restaurant is located wassupposedto be well planned, too, but she still felt that it is a disaster area. 30 Attorney Jerome Quinn came before the Board representing the Vista Royale Owners Committee, which involves about 1,000 people. He stressed that he did not feel there has been a true compromise or a true scaling down of the original request. We still are talking about the same four parcels and a 51 acre commercial node, which Attorney Henderson actually was asking for last time. As to rezoning to CN rather than CN, Attorney Quinn did not believe either is an appropriate use for this area. He called the Board's attention to the language in the Zoning Ordinance which states that "The purpose of CN zoning is to serve primarily the residents of the immediate area." He believed the residents have made it clear they are not looking for service in that particular location. The property owners agree with the position taken by staff in 1983, at which time staff stated that conditions had not changed since the node was not considered appropriate in the Land Use Plan, and they, therefore, believed this was not an appropriate location for a commercial node. Attorney Quinn felt that there already is enough commercial property and commercial nodes in this area and stressed that traffic impact and safety are a permanent concern. He also felt that neither this developer nor anyone else has a vested right in zoning; this is a growing area, and land use philosophy and zoning laws change. When the Comprehensive Plan was profes- sionally developed, the conclusion arrived at was that RM -10 and MD -2 were appropriate designations which were compatible with the surrounding existing uses, and OCR was deemed appropriate on the north side where the sales office and bank were. Attorney Quinn emphasized that the developer is not being deprived nor is his property being confiscated. He has 8 acres of developable property which is zoned OCR, and Attorney Quinn submitted that a commercial node is not appropriate and should be denied. Attorney Henderson informed the Board that his client has a proposal. He asked that the Board keep in mind that this property is immediately across the street from an MXD District 31 JUL BOOK 65 �'FmGE 253 JUL 29 1936 BOOK 6 uu 25 4 and the FEC railway. Also, it has been buffered from the existing residential uses by the golf course. As you go north to south along the development, it can be seen that the developer has gone to great lengths to buffer the residential from U.S.I, and Attorney Henderson felt that requiring that Parcels 3 and 4 be developed in some residential manner is unreasonable in view of the property's proximity to"U.S.1. He informed the Board that, in a last ditch effort to compromise, his client has agreed he would be willing to change their application maintaining the request for CN on the north side of Vista Royale Boulevard, but changing the request to OCR for the parcels on the south side. He asked that the Board also keep in mind that Barnett Bank owns Parcel 3, and they would like to have a piece of property that possibly codid be used for a branch bank. Chairman Scurlock stated that he was told specifically that Barnett Bank had no intention of putting in a branch bank there. Fred West of Barnett Bank advised the Board that the bank does not have current plans to put in a branch, but they may change their mind if they can't sell the property as CL or CN. Commissioner Bird noted that one of the primary concerns of the residents relates to the sharing of their entranceway with commercial. Parcel 1 has a considerable amount of frontage on U.S.1, and Commissioner Bird wished to know, if we did agree with the suggested compromise to rezone only Parcels 1 and 2 to CN, whether it would not be a possibility that Parcel 1 could be granted some access to U.S.I. Director Keating reported that staff took just the opposite position, which is specifically to require a non -access easement there as part of the plat. Attorney Quinn felt that part of the disagreement they have with this is that it simply amounts to going through the back door to achieve a node which they feel is inappropriate; once a node is established, the next step is to expand it at some time, and it is the same thing with the CN zoning. 32 - M M Commissioner Bird believed if the current two OCR pieces were designated a neighborhood node, which is 3 acres, that would preclude expanding it further, but Planner Shearer pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan would prohibit a neighborhood node at this location because of the MXD immediately across the street. Discussion ensued as to just what a reasonable use of Parcels 1 and 2,would be with Attorney Quinn maintaining that the appropriate use is OCR. Chairman Scurlock noted that the Bank bought Parcel #3 and he did not know what they could do with that; possibly they could sell it back to Vista. He stated his personal preference would be to leave Parcels i and 2 OCR and Parcels 3 and 4 RM -10 which is what they currently are. Attorney Henderson emphasized that Parcels 1 and 2, which contain 3.7 acres, are OCR because of an existing use. Their proposal is that the Board allow them the smallest amount of commercial consistent with the original plans of the developer and make that 3.7 acres CN, the most restricted commercial zone available, and they then will put offices on the parcels on the south side of Vista Royale Blvd, which no one seems to have much trouble with. If Parcels 3 and 4 are left RM -10, he felt the Commission is condemning the property to be a buffer area. The Chairman noted that is just Attorney Henderson's opinion, and he did not agree. Sam Alia, Chairman of Vista Royale Property Protection Com- mittee, was surprised no one knew Barnett Bank does not intend to build a branch bank on their parcel, but that they have a retainer for a Do -nut Shop. Fred West of Barnett Bank informed the Board that he had been asked to have that contract withdrawn sometime ago. He also pointed out that OCR doesn't allow a Do -nut Shop; so, he felt that should alleviate any fears in that regard. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard. 33 JUL 2 9 1998 -So L, 800 M f E 255 JUL 2 0 ISMO BOOK F'A;t.6 ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com- missioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) agreed to designate Parcels 1 and 2 OCR and Parcels 3 and 4 RM -10; or, in effect, keep the property in -Item #3 (Vista Properties) as it is. Attorney Quinn wished to know if that Motion addresses the amendment to the Comprehensive Plan, and it was felt that would require a separate Motion. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) denied Vista Properties' request for an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan to create a node at the intersection of U.S.I. and Vista Royale Boulevard and adopted Ordinance 86-52 amending the Comprehensive Plan as approved earlier tonight, as follows: Item # '4Enlarging Oslo Rd/74th Ave. Commercial/Industrial Node to 450 acres. 5 Redesignating 30 acres from AG to RR -2 (I.R.Aerodrome). 6 Redesignating 50 acres from AG to RR -2 and including 16.5 acres in the Oslo/74th Ave. Node (Hilltop Trust). 8 Redesignating Hobart Rd/U.S.I. Commercial/Industrial Node as a Commercial Node. 9 Combining the Roseland Commercial and Hospital Commer- cial Nodes and enlarging the combined Node to 120 acres. 10 Creating a 15 acre Industrial Node on Gibson St., Roseland. 11 Enlarging N. Gifford 'Rd/U.S.I Commercial Node to 90 acres. 12 Creating a 5 acre Commercial Node at CR 510 bet. 62nd and 64th Aves. 13 Creating a 15 acre Commercial Node at intersection of tst S t , and 4.3 rd Ave. 14 Creating a 10 acre Commercial Node at the intersection of 27th Ave. and the south County Line Canal. 15 Redesignating the Sebastian City Limits/U.S.I. Commercial/ Industrial Node as a Commercial Node. 16 Reducing the 150 acre CR 510/U.S.I. Commercial/Industrial Node to 120 acres. 34 17 Enlarging the 1-95/CR 512 Commercial/industrial Node to 650 acres. 18 Amending the Transportation Element to include the recommended long-range major street and highway program. 19 Amending the Thoroughfare Plan as recommended by staff. 20 Redesignating 5 acres N. of Oslo R. E W. of 27th Ave. to MXD and increasing the permitted residential density to 6 units per acre. 21 Enlarging the 1-95/SR 60 Commercial/Industrial Node to 650 acres. Al 35 BOOK v �Ar 1 J U L 29 198 pnu 2S L_ J U L 29 BOOK 65 PAGE 258 7/30/86 rich4 LR -Planning RS/vh ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 52 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COUNTY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; ENLARGING THE 75 ACRE HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED AT ROSELAND ROAD AND U.S. 1 TO 120 ACRES AND AMENDING THE DESCRIPTION OF THE NODE; DELETING THE 25 ACRE TOURIST/ COMMERCIAL NODE AT THE NORTH COUNTY BOUNDARY ON U.S. 1; CREATING A 15 ACRE INDUSTRIAL NODE ON THE EAST SIDE OF GIBSON STREET IN ROSELAND; DELETING "INDUSTRIAL" FROM THE TITLE OF THE 40 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED ON U.S. 1 AT THE SOUTH SEBASTIAN CITY LIMITS; REDUCING THE 150 ACRE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE AT C.R. 510 AND U.S. 1 TO 120 ACRES; ENLARGING THE 240 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE AT C.R. 512 AND I-95 TO 650 ACRES; DELETING "INDUSTRIAL" FROM THE TITLE OF THE U.S. 1 AND HOBART ROAD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE; CREATING A 5 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON THE SOUTH/SIDE OF WABASSO ROAD BETWEEN 62ND AND 64TH AVENUES; ENLARGING THE 85 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE AT NORTH GIFFORD ROAD AND 'U.S. 1 TO 90 ACRES; ENLARGING THE 550 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE AT S.R. 60 AND I-95 TO 650 ACRES; CREATING A 15 ACRE COMMERCIAL. NODE AT 43RD AVENUE AND IST STREET SW; ENLARGING THE 230 ACRE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED SOUTHWEST OF 74TH AVENUE AND OSLO ROAD TO 450 ACRES; CREATING A 10 ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON 27TH AVENUE AT THE SOUTH COUNTY BOUNDARY; ENLARGING THE OSLO ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT AND INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY FROM 3 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO 6 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE; INCREASING THE ALLOWABLE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES ON SPECIFIC PROPERTIES; AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP BY DELETING 61ST STREET, 73RD STREET AND 81ST STREET BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND 58TH STREET, AND REDESIGNATING 77TH STREET AS A PRIMARY COLLECTOR STREET;. AMENDING THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, requires that local governments prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Florida Statutes provide for the amendment of Comprehensive Plans twice per calendar year; and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, has held public hearings and made rec- Qmmendations concerning these amendments; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held public hearings at which parties in interest and citizens were allowed to be heard; and i ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 52 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that these amendments are consistent with the general spirit and intent of the County's Comprehensive Plan; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Transportation and Land Use Elements of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Land Use Map, be amended as follows: SECTION 1 Pages 35 and 36 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan are hereby amended as follows: PERMITTED COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL LOCATIONS I-95/C.R. 512 INTERCHANGE This is a commercial/ industrial node containing twe-hundred €erty-{e4e} six hundred fifty (650) acres. I-95/S.R. 60 INTERCHANGE This is a commercial/industrial node containing five -hundred fifty -455e} six hundred fifty (650) acres. SEBASTIAN/ROSELAND AREA A seventy--moi-^e-- f 45) one hundred twenty (120 ) acre hospi- tal/commercial node is located at the intersection of Roseland Road and U.S. #1 adjacent to the existing hospital. Commercial, institutional and residential uses related to the needs of the hospital as well as tourist commercial and general commercial uses may be permitted within this node. The location of these various uses shall be regulated by the County's zoning ordinance. 6e--t-ire--�ro-rt-eettat�-� -&t--H-6--44 i-s--a--tart-Y- €i -,*&-4.25} sere-tet�rist-eeereiai-nee�e- There is a forty (40) acre commer- cialfimdustriai node located on U.S. #1 at --Rte south of the Sebastian city limits. A fifteen (15) acre industrial node is located north of the Sebastian city limits between Gibson Street and the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way. WABASSO AREA A one hundred €lftp--4458} twenty (120) acre commer- cial/industrial node is located at the interse t on of C.R. 510 and U.S. #1. �tesie�entiai-deeeie�atent-�►ap-be-per�titted-in-this nede . A five (5) acre commercial node is located on the south side of C.R. 510 between 62nd and 64th Avenues. WINTER BEACH/GIFFORD AREA Two- industri al-eedes-are -ieeated-in- the-Winter-BeaehfGiffard area. A one hundred (100) acre industrial node is located on South Winter Beach Road, west of the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way. Coding: Words in stree#-thru type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. JUL . , BOOK 65 FAcr 259 JUL 25 1966 BOOK 65 u'GE260 ORDINANCE NO. 86 - 52 Another one hundred (100) acre industrial node gin --the Gliferd-area is located west of H-S--#+-te the Florida East Coast Railroad right-of-way, east of Lateral H, south of the North Relief Canal to and approximately one-quarter mile north of Lindsey Road. An eighty-€ive-485} A ninety acre commercial node is located east of U.S. #1 at the intersection.of U.S. #1 and North Gifford Road. A fifty (50) acre commercialf�industria-1 node is located at the-teseeten--a-leng on the east side of U.S. #1 and on either side of Hobart Road. A ten (10) acre commercial node is located on the east side of U.S. #1 north of the North Relief Canal. Res4:dentlal-- uses --stay-tae-��ttrtl�ed within-this-nede. A sixty-five (65) acre tourist/commercial node is located on the west side of the Indian River at its approximate intersection with the 49th Street extension. A two hundred five (205) acre hospital commercial node is located north of the present Indian River Hospital along 37th Street (Barber Avenue). Commercial uses related to the needs of the hospital shall be the primary use permitted as well as residentialquses. S.R 60 AND KINGS HIGHWAY TO 43RD AVENUE A one hundred and sixty (160) acre commercial node is located at the S.R. 60 and Kings Highway intersection and extends eastward to 43rd Avenue between S.R. 60 and the main relief canal. Resdenta�-t�se-xtap-be-gexttted-takn-tks-nede. OSLO ROAD AREAS A four hundred fifty (450) acre commercial/industrial node is located at the southwest corner of the 74th Avenue (Range Line Road) and Oslo Road intersection. There is an eighty (80) acre commercial node located at the U.S. 1 and Oslo Road intersection. A fifty (50) acre commercial node is located at the intersection of 27th Avenue and Oslo Road. 43RD AVENUE A fifteen (15) acre commercial node is located at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and 1st Street SW. 27TH AVENUE A ten (10) acre commercial node is located on 27th Avenue north of the County line. S.R. 510 and A -1-A INTERSECTION This twenty five (25) acre node will permit resort commercial uses as well as neighborhood commercial uses. A -1-A BETWEEN WINDWARD WAY AND MOORING LINE DRIVE A ten (10) acre commercial node is located within The Moorings Development project to serve the residents in the south beach area. Coding: Words in struek-thru type are deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. i SECTION 2 Page 38 of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as follows: OSLO ROAD MIXED USE DISTRICT Oslo Road is the major east -west thoroughfare serving the southern part of the county. The greatest amount of new reidential development will occur within the South County area; therefore, a Mixed Use District along Oslo Road has been established to accommodate the anticipated growth. The Mixed Use District on Oslo Road consists of two separate areas. One area includes land for a depth of six hundred (600) feet north of Oslo Road between Lateral J Canal and 22nd Avenue, land for a depth of three hundred (300) feet on the south side of Oslo Road between 22nd Avenue and 20th Avenue, land for a depth of six hundred and twenty (620) feet on the south side of Oslo Road between 20th Avenue and 14th Avenue and land for a depth of 300 feet between 12th and 10th Avenue. The other area extends 600 feet north of Oslo Road from 32nd 30th Avenue to 43rd Avenue; to the south of Oslo Road and 43rd Avenue the area extends 600 feet then runs eastward to a point approximately 200 feet east of 35th Avenue. Where future residential development occurs within the two mixed use areas of this district, densities shall not exceed these max4:mu t dessit4:es e€ the and adjaeent land use eategeries as deseribed �:n the text and shews an the hare. Use Map. six (6) units per acre. Coding: Words in strueh-thru type are.deletions from existing law. Words underlined are additions. JUL 2 BOOK 65 PAGE 261 L J r-- JUL 29 1986 ORDINANCE NO. 86- 52 SECTION 3 e BOOK F,;F 262 The Land Use Map of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by redesignating the following described property from AG, Agriculture, to RR -2, Rural Residential 2. The subject property is described as: ALL OF TRACT 9, AND THOSE PARTS OF TRACTS 10, 15, AND 16, LYING EAST OF INTERSTATE 95, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY FILED IN PLATBOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNT, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 600 FEET OF TRACT 16, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COMPANY SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CV0MTnM A The Thoroughfare Plan Map of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by: 1) Eliminating 81st Street between the Florida East Coast Railroad and 58th Avenue; 2) Eliminating the 61st Street between the Florida East Coast Railroad and the Lateral °G° canal; 3) Eliminating 73rd Street between Old Dixie Highway and 58th Avenue; and 4) Upgrading 77th Street from a secondary collector to a primary collector street between Old Dixie Highway and 58th Avenue. ORDINANCE NO. 86- 52 Page 79 of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended by repealing the Current Program and adopting the following Capital Improvement Program: TRANSPORTATION CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST (1) ($1,000s) New Roadway Projects 1 Estimated capital costs include ROW and intersections costs and 15% project contingency using 1985 dollars Widening Project ESTIMATED CAPITAL PROJECT DISTANCE LANES COST Widen and replace Merrill Barber 1.0 2 12,904 Bridge 4.9 5 5,941 Indian River Blvd. - .9 4 1,110 41st Street to Beachland 3.0 6 7,439 41st Street (East) - 7.5 5 9,619 U.S. 1 to Indian River Blvd. 1.0 4 1,100 41st Street (West) - 4.0 4 5,060 82nd Ave. to US 1 5.5 4 7,648 45th Street -U.S. 1 to Indian River Blvd. 1.0 4 1,543 53rd St. -82nd Ave to U.S. 1 5.2 4 7,878 53rd St. -U.S. 1 to Indian River Blvd. 1.0 6 1,977 Bridge Access/S.R. 60 Twin Pairs 3.2 4 2,942 Sebastian Highlands Loop Connector 4.8 2 3,570 25.7 $46,551 1 Estimated capital costs include ROW and intersections costs and 15% project contingency using 1985 dollars Widening Project Maior Intersection Improvements PROJECT CR 512 & U.S 1 CR 512 & Roseland Road CR 512 & CR 510 CR 510 & 82nd Ave. CR 510 & 66th Ave. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 500 140 250 140 140 'JUL 2 9 `�Jbb' BOOK 65 PA,F 263 ESTIMATED CAPITAL PROJECT DISTANCE LANES COST AlA (north) 1.5 5 1,553 AlA (south) 4.9 5 5,941 CR 510 (east) .9 4 1,110 CR 510 (west) 1.6 4 2,283 58th Ave. (CR 505A) 7.5 5 9,619 Oslo Road (CR 606) 7.4 4 11,217 C.R. 512 4.0 4 5,060 28.8 36,783 Maior Intersection Improvements PROJECT CR 512 & U.S 1 CR 512 & Roseland Road CR 512 & CR 510 CR 510 & 82nd Ave. CR 510 & 66th Ave. ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 500 140 250 140 140 'JUL 2 9 `�Jbb' BOOK 65 PA,F 263 JUL 29 19006 ORDINANCE NO. 86- 52 Major Intersection Improvements (cont'd) PROJECT CR 510 & 58th Ave. CR 510 & U.S 1 69th St. & 58th Ave. 53rd St. & 58th Ave. 41st St. & 58th Ave. 41st St. & U.S. 1 SR 60 & 58th Ave. 8th St. & 58th Ave. Oslo Road & 58th Ave. 4th St. & U.S. 1 Oslo Road & 27th Ave. Oslo Road & U.S. 1 Beachland Blvd. & AlA East Causeway Blvd. & AlA Major Intersection Improvements PROJECT CR 510 & AlA 12th St. & 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. & 41st St. 43rd Ave. & 45th St. 43rd Ave. & 49th St. 43rd Ave. & 26th St. 43rd Ave. & SR 60 43rd Ave. & 16th St. 43rd Ave. & 8th St. 43rd Ave. & 4th St. 20th Ave. & 8th St. 20th Ave. & 4th St. Old Dixie & 8th St. Old Dixie & 4th St. 66th Ave. & 41st St. 66th Ave. & 45th St. 58th Ave. & 45th St. I st St, & U.S. i 4th St. &27th Ave. 4th St. & 58th Ave. 8th St. & U.S. 1 12th St. & 27th Ave. 12th St. & 58th Ave. 45th St. & U.S. 1 58th Ave. & 49th St. 69th St. & U.S. 1 Secondary Improvement BOOK 6 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 250 500 250 250 250 500 250 250 250 250 500 250 250 500 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST PROJECT DISTANCE LANES 86th St. -106th St. to CR 510 1.9 2 77th St. -66th Ave to East of U.S. 1 1.5 2 57th St. -66th Ave. to East of U.S. 1 3.6 2 49th St. -66th Ave. to 58th Ave. 1.0 2 250 500 250 140 120 120 120 120 120 120 70 70 70 70 500 500 120 120 120 500 120 120 500 120 120 120 $10,770 ESTIMATED CAPITAL COST 345 259 932 311 _I ORDINANCE NO. 86- 52 Secondary Improvement (cont'd) Estimated Miles of Road- ESTIMATED way Improvements ESTIMATED PROJECT DISTANCE LANES COST 8th St. -90th Ave. to 82nd Ave. .8 CAPITAL PROJECT 4th St. -98th Ave. to 74th Ave. 3.3 DISTANCE LANES COST 26th St. -90th Ave. to CR 505 3.3 2 1,145 16th St. -82nd Ave. to 58th Ave. 2.8 2 1,099 12th St. -90th Ave, to 58th Ave. 3.3 2 869 61st St. -58th Ave. to East of 2 2,301 17th St. S.W.-82nd Ave. to Old Dixie' U.S. 1 2 2,301 21st St. S.W. 74th Ave. to U.S. 1 2.0 2 1,465 ` * May be funded by Municipal Service Taxing Unit Secondary Improvement Estimated Miles of Road- ESTIMATED way Improvements CAPITAL PROJECT DISTANCE LANES COST 8th St. -90th Ave. to 82nd Ave. .8 2 526 4th St. -98th Ave. to 74th Ave. 3.3 2 736 1st St. S.W.-98th Ave. to 90th Ave. 1.5 2 673 1st St. S.W.-82nd Ave. to 43rd Ave 164.6 $131,734 (CR 611) 4.0 2 1,104 5th St. S.W.-98th Ave. to 90th Ave. 1.5 2 414 5th St. S.W.-82nd Ave. to Old Dixie 5.8 2 1,601 Oslo (CR 606) -98th Ave. to 82nd Ave. 2.3 2 846 13th St. S.W.-82nd Ave to Old Dixie 6.9 2 2,301 17th St. S.W.-82nd Ave. to Old Dixie' 6.9 2 2,301 21st St. S.W. 74th Ave. to U.S. 1 4.0 2 414 25th St. S.W.-74th Ave. to 27th Ave. 4.0 2 552 106th Ave. -CR 510 to 86th St. 1.0 2 230 98th Ave. (north) -86th St. to 77th St. 1.2 2 230 98th.Ave. (south) -SR 60 to Oslo Road 3.5 2 1,288 92nd Ave. -86th St. to 77th Ave. 1.2 2 276 90th Ave. -26th St. to Oslo Road 4.0 2 1,024 74th Ave. -CR 510 to 21st S.W. St. 12.5 2 1,294 CR 505 -SR 60 to 21st St. S.W. 5.0 2� 1,840 58th Ave. (CR 505A) Oslo Road to 21st St. S.W. 1.5 2 552 43rd Ave. (CR 611) -69th St. to 45th St. 3.0 2 1,104 33rd Ave. -53rd St. to'�45th St. 1.0 2 368 20th Ave. -Oslo Road to 17th St. S.W. 1.0 2 230 6th Ave. -5th St. to Highland Blvd. 1.7 2 644 Collector roads on North Island 8.1 2 10,197 107.1 $37,630 SUMMARY BOOK FfgJE 26 JUL 2 0 15" Estimated Miles of Road- Capital way Improvements Costs TOTAL NEW ROADWAY PROJECTS 25.7 46,551 TOTAL FOR WIDENING PROJECTS 28.8 36,783 NEW INTERSECTIONS - 10,770 _ TOTAL FOR SECONDARY IMPROVEMENTS 107.1 37,630 TOTAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 164.6 $131,734 BOOK FfgJE 26 JUL 2 0 15" L 2 ORDINANCE NO. 86- 52 eNc+nM1r^" L CODIFICATION BOOK 5 ME 2616' The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. ocenM-r^" ^/ SEVERABILITY If any section, part of a sentence, paragraph, phrase or word of this ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, inoperative or void, such holdings shall not affect the remaining portions hereof and it shall be construed to have been the legislative intent to pass this ordinance without such unconstitutional, invalid or inoperative part. SECTION 8 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 29th day of July 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By • i,,, ,C . , �, A Don C. Scuflbck, Jr hairman F ORDINANCE NO. 86- 52 Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this lith day of August , 1986. Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 14th day of August , 1986, at 10 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of ounty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. �, Bruce Barkett, Assistant County Attorney CPA Ord. RICH4 BOOK 65 Pk.r 67 JULL' 29 196 I BOOK 6 5 f'AGr. 268 Planner Shearer noted that it is also necessary for the Board to adopt Ordinances for the rezonings approved earlier. ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordinance 86-53 rezoning 30 acres from A-1 to RS -1 as requested by Indian River Aerodrome, Inc. (Item #5) ORDINANCE NO. 86- S3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of k the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: The north 598.3 feet of tract 9 and the north 598.3 feet of tract 10 lying east of the east right-of-way line of interstate 95 in Section 23, Township 33 south, Range 38 east, Indian River Farms Company subdivision; lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Containing 30.00 acres more or less. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to RS -1, Single -Family Residential District. 36 All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida this 29th -day Of ,July, 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By L Don C. Scurock, J Chairman ON MOTION by Commissioner Lyons, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0) adopted Ordi- nance 86-54 rezoning 50 acres from A-1 to RS -1 and 16.5 acres from A-1 to CG as requested by the Poitras Group, Trustees for Hilltop Trust. (Item #6) ORDINANCE NO.86-54 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public _ hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County 37 JUL 2 9 0u" Boor[ 65 PAF2619-j1 JUL 29 1986 _I BOOK 65 FADE 2 t O Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: 1. ALL OF TRACT 9, AND THOSE PARTS OF TRACTS 10, 15, AND 16, LYING EAST OF INTERSTATE 95, IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST ACCORDING TO THE LAST GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS_.OF INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, FILED IN PLATBOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC''RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE NORTH 5 9 8. 3 FEET OF TRACT 9 AND THE NORTH 5 9 8.3 FEET OF TRACT 10 LYING EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF INTERSTATE 95 IN SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 600 FEET OF TRACT 16, IN SECTION. 23, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST. INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to RS -1, Single -Family Residential District; and 2. THE SOUTH 600 FEET OF TRACT 16 IN SECTION 23,- TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, INDIAN RIVER FARMS SUBDIVISION; LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from A-1, Agricultural District, to CG, General Commercial District. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Zoning Regulations. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 29th day of July, 1986. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY By /� C Don C. Scurlock4J, Chairman It was noted that on Item # 7, the Miller & Hamilton request for rezoning, the staff had recommended denial; no objections to the denial have been expressed tonight; and there should be a Motion to clarify this. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Lyons, the Board unanimously (4-0) denied the rezoning from A-1 to CG requested by Miller and Hamilton as recommended by staff. (Item #7) 38 There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board unanimously (4-0) adjourned at 6:15 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 39 ZZ x Chairman JUL 2 9 1986 BOOK 65 Pm)E ?71.