Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/14/2014 (3)ORDINANCE NO. 2014 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING TITLE X, IMPACT FEES, OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, TO AMEND THE TEXT OF TITLE X FOR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS USED IN IMPACT FEE CALCULATIONS, EXEMPTIONS, INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS, APPEALS, AND VARIOUS UPDATES AND CLEAN UP REVISIONS; AND TO AMEND APPENDIX A, IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES, TO APPROVE NEW IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND FOR HIGH -CUBE AUTOMATED WAREHOUSE USE FOR THE UNINCORPORATED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MUNICIPALITIES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE FOR NEW IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES; AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, to address infrastructure costs associated with new growth, Indian River County has, since 1986, imposed traffic impact fees on new development. In 2005, the County adopted impact fees for eight additional services/facilities, also to address infrastructure costs associated with new growth; and WHEREAS, since their adoption, impact fees have generated considerable revenue, and impact fees are now among the largest sources of funding for infrastructure projects in Indian River County; and WHEREAS, according to the Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance, the County must periodically review the impact fee schedules and by law the County needs to keep the impact fee schedules up to date. Because the last impact fee study was performed in 2009, the County determined that a new impact fee study was due; and WHEREAS, staff prepared a scope of services for an impact fee study and fee schedule updates that were approved by the Board of County Commissioners in February, 2013; and WHEREAS, the scope of services was incorporated into a Request For Proposals and in July, 2013 the Board of County Commissioners selected Tindale -Oliver & Associates, Inc. ("Consultant") and entered into a contract for services; and WHEREAS, as reflected in the Consultant's report, the Consultant has performed the tasks necessary to update the impact fee schedules, including development of the "Affordable Growth" methodology to calculate Impact Fees; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has determined that recommended residential and non- residential impact fees, using the Affordable Growth methodology, are proportionate in amount to the need that new growth creates for each category of public improvements for which impact fees are collected; and 1 L W . mItzt 118 • 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 WHEREAS, based on anticipated growth projections, the County's 5 -year capital improvement plan needs, and the County's policy to stimulate economic development, County staff has recommended that impact fees for libraries, public buildings, and parks and recreation facilities be reduced or suspended, pending further trend evaluation during the next scheduled impact fee methodological update (the "Staff Scenario"); and WHEREAS, the Consultant has determined that the Staff Scenario, based upon the Affordable Growth methodology, is technically sound and warranted, and, based on projected non -impact fee revenues, will result in maintaining level of service standards used in the Consultant's report; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that the Consultant's update and Affordable Growth/Staff Scenario methodology utilized to reduce non-residential impact fees are acceptable and directed staff to conduct workshops with different interested groups and organizations, including two municipalities, regarding the impact fee update and Affordable Growth/Staff Scenario methodology; and WHEREAS, staff has conducted eight workshops with interested groups and organizations, including two municipalities, and generally received positive comments and support for the proposed reductions in non-residential impact fee rates; and WHEREAS, On March 11, 2014, staff informed the Board of the results of the workshop meetings and the fact that several developers are ready to proceed with non-residential projects once the proposed non-residential impact fee schedules are in effect; and WHEREAS, staff and the County Attorney recommended that the Board consider adopting the new impact fee schedules for non-residential uses separate from and prior to adoption of new impact fee schedules for residential uses; and WHEREAS, to stimulate economic development the Board decided to make the non- residential impact fee schedules available to the community as soon as possible; and WHEREAS, the Consultant has evaluated the fee schedule adoption timeframe and has determined that it will allow the County to maintain its level of service standards and to provide the capital improvements planned for new non-residential and residential development; and WHEREAS, staff advertised for a public hearing on April 22, 2014, and also provided 30 days notice to each municipality as required by each impact fee agreement between the County and each municipality; and WHEREAS, the Consultant, in coordination with staff, developed the proposed non- residential impact fee schedules based upon the Consultant's report, impact fee update, and Affordable Growth/Staff Scenario methodology; and. and WHEREAS, the county adopted updated non-residential impact fees on April 22, 2014; 2 119 C ORDINANCE NO. 2014 WHEREAS, the Consultant has prepared a residential impact fee schedules, including a school impact fee component, based on the Affordable Growth/Staff Scenario methodology; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2014, the school board held a public workshop and special meeting, considered information presented by the Consultant and school district staff, and voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the proposed school impact fee; and WHEREAS, in response to a request by the Board of County Commissioners, the Consultant has prepared a new impact fee category for High -Cube Automated Warehouse which establishes reduced impact fees for large scale, highly automated warehouse uses; and WHEREAS, staff advertised for a public hearing on October 14, 2014, and also provided 30 days notice to each municipality and to the school board as required by each impact fee agreement between the County and each municipality, and the County and school board. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: SECTION ONE: AMENDMENT OF CHAPTER TITLE X. Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County is hereby amended as identified in Attachment 1 (attached). SECTION TWO: APPENDIX A, IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES Appendix A, Impact Fee Schedules, of Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County that contains the new residential impact fee schedules as well as a new impact fee category for High -Cube Automated Warehouse for the unincorporated Indian River County and municipalities is hereby adopted and is attached as Appendix A. SECTION THREE: CODIFICATION. It is the intention of the Board of County Commissioners that the provision of this ordinance shall become and be made part of the Code of Indian River County, and that the sections of this ordinance may be renumbered or re -lettered and the word ordinance may be changed to section, article or such other appropriate word or phrase in order to accomplish such intention. SECTION FOUR: SEVERABILITY. If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordinance. Furthermore, should the entirety of this ordinance be held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, it is the 3 120 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 intent of the Board of County Commissioners to reinstate the impact fees in effect prior to the effective date of this ordinance. SECTION FIVE: EFFECTIVE DATE OF IMPACT FEES. The residential impact fee rates contained in Appendix A of this ordinance shall take effect on February 2, 2015. The impact fee rate for High -Cube Automated Warehouse use shall take effect on November 3, 2014. All other non-residential impact fees remain in effect in accordance with Ordinance #2014-009 adopted April 22, 2014, or until further amended. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 29th day of September 2014, for a public hearing to be held on the 14th day of October, 2014, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and adopted by the following vote: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice -Chairman Bob Solari, Commissioner Tim Zorc, Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher, Commissioner The Chairman thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 14th day of October, 2014. Board of County Commissioners Indian River County, Florida By: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman ATTEST BY: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller This ordinance was filed with the Department of State and becomes effective on the following date: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney • 4 121 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Stan Boling, AICP; C. munity Development Director F:\Community Development\Impact Fee\2014- IF Study\2014 Ordinance (2) impact fees-10-14-2014.doc 5 122 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. IMPACT FEES Title X. IMPACT FEES Ch. 1000 Purpose and Intent, §§ 1000.01-1000.15 Ch. 1001 Definitions, §§ 1001.01-1001.03 Ch. 1002 Emergency Services Facilities, §§ 1002.01-1002.04 Ch. 1003 Correctional Facilities, §§ 1003.01-1003.04 'Ch. 1004 Public Buildings Development, §§ 1004.01-1001.04 Ch. 1005 Law Enforcement, §§ 1005.01-1005.04 Ch. 1006 Library Facilities, §§ 1006.01-1006.04 Ch. 1007 Solid Waste Facilities, §§ 1007.01-1007.04 Ch. 1008 Parks and Recreation Facilities, §§ 1008.01-1008.04 rCh.1009 Public Education Facilities, §§ 1009.01-1009.04 Ch. 1010 Traffic Facilities and Fair Share Roadway Improvements, §§ 1010.01-1010.05 J SCh. 1011 lAdministrative Charges, §§ 1011.01-1011.04 Ch. 1012 App. A. Rules of Construction, §§ 1012.01-1012.03 Impact Fee Schedules App. B. Indian River County Impact Fee Benefit Districts CHAPTER 1000. - CHAPTER 1001. CHAPTER 1002. CHAPTER 1003. CHAPTER 1004. CHAPTER 1005. CHAPTER 1006. CHAPTER 1007. PURPOSE AND INTENT - DEFINITIONS - EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES - CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES - PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT - LAW ENFORCEMENT - LIBRARY FACILITIES - SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Attachment 1 Updates are shown with t i through` and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 1 123 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1008. - PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES CHAPTER 1009. - PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES CHAPTER 1010. - TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTER 1011. - ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES CHAPTER 1012. - RULES OF CONSTRUCTION APPENDIX A - IMPACT FEE SCHEDULES APPENDIX B - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY IMPACT FEE BENEFIT DISTRICTS Updates are shown with strike throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 2 124 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT v !Sec. 1000.01 Short title. Sec. 1000.02 Authority. Sec. 1000.03 Sec. 1000.04 Sec. 1000.05 Sec. 1000.06 Sec. 1000.07 Intent and purpose. j Findings. Severability. Imposition. Exemptions and credits. Sec. 1000.08 Sec. 1000.09 Sec. 1000.10 Computation. Sec. 1000.11 `!Sec. 1000.12 Sec. 1000.13 Sec. 1000.14 Sec. 1000.15 Payment. Trust funds. J Use of funds. Donations in lieu of payment. Review. Appeals. Refund of fees paid. Section 1000.01. Short title. Section 1000.02. Authority. Section 1000.03. Intent and purpose. Section 1000.04. Findings. Section 1000.05. Severability. Section 1000.06. Imposition. Section 1000.07. Exemptions and credits. Section 1000.08. Computation. Section 1000.09. Payment. Section 1000.10. Trust funds. Section 1000.11. Use of funds. Section 1000.12. Donations in lieu of payment. Section 1000.13. Review. Updates are shown with + i ke th- ouThs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 3 125 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT Section 1000.14. Appeals. Section 1000.15. Refund of fees paid. Section 1000.01. Short title. Title X shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Impact Fee Ordinance. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1000.02. Authority. (1) The board of county commissioners has the authority to adopt this title pursuant to Article VIII, Florida Constitution, and F.S. chs. 125 and 163. (2) Whenever any provision of this title refers to or cites a section of Chapter 125 or Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, it shall be deemed to refer to those sections, as amended. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1000.03. Intent and purpose. (1) This title is intended to implement and be consistent with the county comprehensive plan. (2) The purpose of this title is to regulate the use and development of land so as to ensure that new development bears a proportionate share of the cost of the capital expenditures necessary to provide emergency services facilities, correctional facilities, public buildings, law enforcement facilities, library facilities, solid waste facilities, park and recreation facilities, public education facilities and traffic/transportation facilities in the county. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1000.04. Findings. The board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing emergency services facilities; correctional facilities; public buildings; law enforcement facilities; library facilities; solid waste facilities; park and recreation facilities; public education facilities; and traffic facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service of those facilities. (2) Measurable level of service standards used for impact fee calculation purposes are established in this ordinance - - - •--e - e- - -e • - = for each of the above listed public services. Existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund all capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (4) New development creates an increased need and demand for services and facilities and therefore should contribute its fair share of the costs of providing new facilities necessary to accommodate new development. Updates are shown with sTrik troughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 4 (3) 126 (5) - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT Impact fees provide a reasonable method of ensuring that new development pays its fair share of the capital costs of public services and facilities necessary to accommodate the new development and new development will derive a substantial benefit from facilities funded by impact fees. (6) The revenue received from the impact fees set forth in this chapter shall not be used to correct existing deficiencies. The impact fees set forth in this chapter establish a fair and conservative method of assessing new development its fair share costs for capacity producing capital improvements. The board approves and accepts the underlying studies as a reasonable basis for the fees. (8) The impact fees set forth in this title will not fully pay for the costs of capital improvements necessitated by new development, and the county recognizes that the shortfall will have to come from other revenue sources. The administrative charges set forth in this title are reasonable and necessary charges in order to efficiently administer the duties mandated by this title. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) (7) (9) Section 1000.05. Severability. If any section, phrase, sentence or portion of this title is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such portion shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision, and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this title. (Ord No.2005-015.5-17-05) Section 1000.06. Imposition. (1) Any person, who after the effective date of this ordinance, seeks to develop land by applying for a building permit or an initial concurrency certificate, shall be assessed impact fees and shall be required to pay all applicable impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this title. current rate. (2) No building permit or initial concurrency certificate for any activity requiring payment of impact fees pursuant to this title shall be issued unless and until all impact fees required by this title have been paid. (3) Any person, who after the effective date of this ordinance applies for an initial concurrency certificate or for a permit to set up a new mobile home, shall be assessed impact fees and shall be required to pay all applicable impact fees in the manner and amount set forth in this title. Updates are shown with* ke th;out hs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 5 127 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT (4) No permit or initial concurrency certificate for the set up of a new mobile home requiring payment of impact fees pursuant to this title shall be issued unless and until all impact fees required by this title have been paid. (Ord. No 2005-015. 5-17-05; Ord. No. 2009-003, § 1, 3-24-09; Ord. No. 2009-015; § 2. 9-22-09; Ord. No. 2010-002, § 1, 3-16-10. Ord. No. 2011-002, § 1, 3-15-11; Ord. No 2012-003. § 1, 3-13-12. Ord No. 2014-004, § 1, 3-11-14) Section 1000.07. Exemptions and credits. (1) Exemptions. The following activities shall be exempted from payment of impact fees levied under this title: (A) Alteration or expansion of an existing building where no additional units are created, where no additional square footage of building is created, Of where the use is not changed or where it is determined by the Community Development Director that improvement of a structure in existence prior to the adoption of impact fees (March 1, 1986) will not result in a measurable increase in traffic impacts. (B) The construction of accessory buildings or structures where no additional units are created. (C) The replacement of an existing residential unit with a new unit of the same type, same square footage and same use. (D) The replacement of a nonresidential building or structure with a new building or structure of the same size and same use. (E) Changes in the use of an existing non-residential building or structure p o.tid tithe eprovided there is no expansion of the existing building or structure and the change results in a reduction no increase in the intensity of use. (F) The expansion of a single family residential unit where the expansion would not result in the unit's new total square footage changing the units impact fee category from a lower fee category to a higher fee category. An exemption must be claimed by the feepayer at the time of the issuance of a building permit or mobile home permit or initial concurrency certificate. Any exemption not so claimed shall be deemed to be waived by the feepayer. (2) Credits. No credit shall be given for site -related improvements. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1000.08. Computation. (1) The amount of the fees imposed by this title shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (2) If a building permit or an initial concurrency certificate application is submitted for a type of development activity which is not specified on the fee schedule attached as Appendix A, the county administrator or his designee shall use the fee applicable to the most nearly comparable type of land use on the fee schedule. In the case of a change in land use, the impact fee shall be based upon the net increase in the impact fee for the new use as compared to the previous use. No refunds shall be issued for a change in land use that results in a decrease in impact fees; however, any impact fee Updates are shown with st-r-ike-tsoughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 6 128 (3) - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT credits remaining will run with the land and may be utilized as part of future development or a change of use for the site. If a feepayer objects to the amount of any impact fees determined according to subsection (1) or (2) of this section, then the feepayer shall submit a written notice of objection to the community development director. The objection shall include an independent fee calculation study for the land development activity for which a building permit or an initial concurrency certificate is sought. If the objection involves a traffic impact fee, the independent fee calculation provided by the objector shall follow the individual assessment regulations of section 1010.03. The With respect to an objection that involves an impact fee other than a traffic impact fee, the independent fee calculation study shall follow the prescribed methodologies and formats for such a study generally accepted by professionals in the field of expertise for the impact fee at issue. The objection shall be accompanied by an application fee in an amount determined by the board of county commissioners. (A) Within thirty (30) days of receipt, the community development director shall sustain or over rule the objection. If the objection is over ruled, the feepayer may appeal following the procedure outlined in Chapter 100.06 of this code. If the objection is sustained, the feepayer shall pay the accepted amount pursuant to Chapter 1000.09 of this title. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1000.09. Payment. (1) The person applying for a building permit, mobile home set up permit or an initial concurrency certificate shall pay the impact fees assessed pursuant to this title to the county community development department or to the participating municipality prior to the issuance of a building permit, mobile home set up permit or an initial concurrency certificate. (2) In accordance with Ch. 1000.12, a feepayer may, in lieu of paying all or part of the impact fees, offer to donate land or construct all or part of a capital improvements project shown in the county capital improvements plan. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1000.10. Trust funds. (1) The following impact fee trust funds are hereby established: (A) An emergency services facilities impact fee trust fund for the emergency services impact fee. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1002.04 (B) A correctional facilities impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1003.04 A public building development impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1004.04 (D) A law enforcement facilities impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1005.04 (E) A library facilities impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1006.04 (F) A solid waste facilities impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1007.04 Updates are shown with st-e4ughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 7 (C) 129 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT (G) A parks and recreation facilities impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1008.04 (H) A public education facilities impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1009.04 (I) A Traffic impact fee trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1010.05 An administrative charge trust fund. Funds withdrawn from this account must be used in accordance with the provisions of section 1000.11 (2) All funds collected shall be properly identified and promptly transferred to the county for deposit in the designated impact fee trust fund, to be held in the account as indicated in section 1000.11 and used solely for the purposes specified in this title. (Ord. No 2005-015: 5-17-05) (J) Section 1000.11. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from the impact fees set forth in this title shall be used for the purpose of constructing or acquiring capital improvements to emergency services facilities, correctional facilities, public buildings, law enforcement facilities, library facilities, solid waste facilities, park and recreation facilities, public education facilities and traffic facilities in the county under the jurisdiction of the Indian River Board of County Commissioners, and not for maintenance or operations. Such construction, acquisitions and improvements shall be the type as are made necessary by new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements within Indian River County. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. In addition to the impact fees assessed by this title, the feepayer shall pay an administrative charge equal to three (3) percent of the impact fees assessed by the county or by the participating municipality in order to off -set the cost of administering the impact fee program. (4) Each participating municipality shall be entitled to retain two (2) percent of the funds collected under this title to compensate them for the administrative expense of administering this title. (Ord. No 2005.015; 5-17-05) (3) Section 1000.12. Donations in lieu of payment. (1) In lieu of a feepayer paying all or part of the impact fees assessed in this title, the county administrator may accept an offer by a feepayer to donate land or construct all or part of a capital improvements project shown in the adopted county's adopted seven-year—capital improvements program, the municipal metropolitan planning organization's twenty -year-long range transportation plan, the school board's educational facilities plan or adopted municipal capital improvement program. This offer shall not include the construction of any site -related improvements. Such construction must comply with all applicable building standards and be approved in advance by the county administrator. In making such an offer, the feepayer shall submit a project description in sufficient detail, including competitive bids if so requested, to allow the county administrator to establish an engineering and construction cost estimate. The county administrator shall credit this estimated cost or the actual cost of this construction, whichever is lower, against the impact fees otherwise due. The offer shall not constitute payment of the impact fees unless and until it is accepted by the county administrator and the feepayer has dedicated or conveyed any and all land pursuant to the offer as accepted and has posted security, Updates are shown with &t#ke tr roughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 8 130 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT as provided in this section, for the construction of any and all other capital improvements pursuant to the offer as accepted. Security in the form of an irrevocable letter of credit or cash escrow agreement shall be posted with the board of county commissioners in an amount equal to one hundred twenty- five (125) percent of the full cost of such construction. If the capital improvements program construction project will not be constructed within one (1) year of the acceptance of the offer by the county administrator, the amount of the security shall be increased by fifteen (15) percent for each year or fraction thereof of the life of the security. The security shall be reviewed and approved by the county attorney's office prior to acceptance of the security by the county administrator. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05; Section 1000.13. Review. (1) Each fiscal period, the county administrator shall present a proposed capital improvements program (CIP) to the board of county commissioners for: emergency services facilities, correctional facilities, public buildings, law enforcement facilities, library facilities, solid waste facilities, park and recreation facility, public education facilities and traffic facilities. This CIP shall assign funds, including any accrued interest, from the facilities impact fee trust funds to specific facility improvement projects and related expenses. Monies, including any accrued interest, not assigned in any fiscal year shall be retained in the same facility impact fee trust fund until the next fiscal year, except as provided by the refund provisions of this chapter. (2) The fee schedules contained in this title shall be reviewed by the board of county commissioners at least once every third year. Ord No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1000.14. Appeals. The county administrator shall hear appeals relating to the amount of an impact fee or an impact fee credit. Together with a notice of appeal, the applicant shall submit adequate documentation to confirm the basis for the appeal. The county administrator shall follow the appeal procedures outlined in section 100.06 of this Code. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1000.15. Refund of fees paid. (1) If a building permit or an initial one-year concurrency certificate is revoked, expired, or is withdrawn, then the feepayer, successors or assigns, shall be entitled to a refund of the impact fees paid with interest as a result of its revocation, expiration or withdrawal, except that the county shall retain a fee established by resolution to offset the costs of refunding. Impact fees paid in conjunction with an initial three-year or seven-year concurrency certificate cannot be refunded, however, any such impact fees paid will run as a credit with the land. (2) Any impact fees not encumbered or expended by the end of the calendar quarter immediately following six (6) years from the date that an impact fee payment was received by the County ("six-year period") shall be refunded to the current property owner (as defined below) in accordance with the following procedure: (a) Staff shall maintain an accounting which sets forth, on a first in—first out basis, when impact fees collected by the County have been encumbered or expended. For the purposes of such accounting, (i) impact fees collected by a municipality pursuant to an interlocal agreement with Updates are shown with st i'hvou s and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 9 131 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT the County shall be deemed to be collected by the County on the day that such fees were collected by the municipality, and (ii) interest earned in an impact fee account during a fiscal year shall be accumulated and treated as a single deposit into the account on the first day of the next fiscal year. Such interest shall then be encumbered or expended on a first in—first out basis, along with impact fees; (b) For any impact fees, which are not encumbered or expended within the six-year period, staff shall (i) identify the specific real property for which the unencumbered or unexpended impact fee was paid ("eligible property"), and (ii) identify the owner of each eligible property as of the first day after the end of the six-year period ("eligible owner"); (c) Staff shall then notify each eligible owner in writing no later than sixty (60) days after the end of the six-year period that he/she is eligible for a refund in accordance with this section, upon submission of the application materials (as defined below). If staff has not received a response from the eligible owner within thirty (30) days of the first written notice, staff shall send a second written notice by hand delivery, certified mail, return receipt requested, or other form of overnight or express delivery which includes written confirmation with respect to delivery or non-delivery. Such notices shall be sent to each eligible owner at the address shown for the owner on the Property Appraiser's records relating to the eligible property or, if the Property Appraiser's records do not show an address, at any other address determined by staff to be reasonably reliable. Staff shall not be required to send notice to any owner who has submitted the application materials directly to the County Community Development Department; (d) Each eligible owner shall have one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of the first notice to submit the application materials to the County Community Development Department, and sixty (60) additional days thereafter to correct deficiencies, if any, in the submitted application materials; (e) Upon receipt of the completed application materials and, if deemed necessary by staff, upon verification by staff of information contained in the application materials, the County shall deliver or mail a refund check in the amount of the impact fee paid, plus interest at the rate earned by the County on the funds from the date the county received payment of the impact fee to the date of the refund check, to each eligible owner (pro -rated for multiple owners), unless written instructions or authorization to the contrary signed by the owner are received by the County, or unless the owner has assigned the refund to a third party. Interest paid on a refund shall be paid and accounted for as any other expenditure from the impact fee account. No fee shall be charged by the County for receiving and processing the application materials; If the eligible owner fails to submit the application materials to the County Community Development Department within one hundred and eighty (180) days from the date of the first notice, or fails to correct deficiencies, if any, within sixty (60) additional days thereafter, the eligible owner shall be deemed to have irrevocably waived any right to the refund set forth in this section; For the purposes of this section, the term "current property owner" shall mean the owner of the eligible property as of the first day after the end of the six year period, and the term "application materials" shall mean (i) an application in affidavit form duly signed by the eligible owner applying for the refund and verifying that he/she was the owner of the eligible property as of the first day after the end of the six year period, and (ii) an IRS Form W-9 completed and signed by each payee on the refund check. If the eligible property is owned by two (2) or more owners, only one (1) owner is required to sign the application, but all payees must sign an IRS Form W-9; (h) Notwithstanding the above, the Board of County Commissioners shall be authorized to extend the six-year period for any impact fee categories for up to an additional three (3) years, upon a finding by the Board that such extension is necessary to better match the timing of construction or acquisition of capital improvements with the actual timing of development or growth which created the need for the improvements, and only if development approvals for projects in Indian Updates are shown with * ' throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 10 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances g (f) (g) 132 (3) - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1000. PURPOSE AND INTENT River County have been extended by state or federal legislative action for a period of time which equals or exceeds the period of the extension. An extension shall be made by resolution following public hearing and shall apply only to those impact fees for which the six-year period has not yet expired as of the date of the resolution. Multiple extensions may be adopted, provided the total time period of all extensions, as applied to any specific impact fee paid to and collected by the County, shall not exceed three (3) years. In the event of such extensions, all references in this section to "six (6) years" or "the six-year period" shall be deemed amended to refer to the six- year period, plus the time period of the extensions. This subsection (h) shall apply only to impact fees paid and collected after April 1, 2012; (i) If any impact fee(s) refunded hereunder was originally paid for a project which was not constructed, or was partially constructed to the point that a new building permit will be required to complete construction, a new impact fee(s) shall be due and paid at the time of future development of the property, or construction or completion of construction of the project, in accordance with the then existing impact fee schedule. This section shall apply only to impact fees which are imposed pursuant to this chapter. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-05; Ord No. 2007-001, § 1H(1), 1-23-07, eff. 3-1-07; Ord. No 2012-004. § 3 3-13-12) FOOTNOTE(S): (1) Editor's note It should be noted that Ord. No. 2005 019, § 1, adopted Dec. 13, 2005, provides 1. A valid contract has been executed prior to July 1, 2005; and Back submitted to the Community Development Department on or before December 30, 2005; Updates are shown with st-c-:ctrhroughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 11 133 CHAPTER 1001. DEFINITIONS Sec. 1001.01 Title Sec. 1001.02 Sec. 1001.03 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1001. DEFINITIONS Purpose and intent. Definitions in alphabetical order. Section 1001.01. Title. Section 1001.02. Purpose and intent. Section 1001.03. Definitions in alphabetical order. Section 1001.01. Title. This chapter and the terms and definitions contained herein shall be known as the "Indian River County Impact Fee Definitions Chapter." Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1001.02. Purpose and intent. It is the purpose of this chapter to maintain the definitions of terms for the impact fee regulations for Indian River County. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1001.03. Definitions in alphabetical order. Capital improvement means land acquisition, construction, purchase of buildings, site improvement, architecture and engineering services, purchase of vehicles and equipment with at least a five-year life expectancy, and consultant's fees, but excludes maintenance and operation. Developer means any person who seeks to develop land for future construction by: applying for a change in land use, residential density, or zoning; applying for approval of any site plan or subdivision plat; applying for development approval subject to the requirements of F.S. § 380.06; applying for an initial concurrency certificate; and/or applying for a land alteration permit, building permit, or certificate of occupancy. Feepayer means a person commencing a land development activity by applying for a building permit or an initial concurrency certificate. (Ord. No 2005-015 5-17-05) Updates are shown withstrike throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 12 134 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1002. EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES CHAPTER 1002. EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES Sec. 1002.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1002.02 Findings. Sec. 1002.03 Computation. Sec. 1002.04 Use of funds. Section 1002.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1002.02. Findings. Section 1002.03. Computation. Section 1002.04. Use of funds. Section 1002.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Emergency Services Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to all of Indian River County except for that property located within the Town of Indian River Shores. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-1705) Section 1002.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing emergency services system is not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) Generally, eExisting revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe emergency services facilities level of service standard for the county is is .!s!- - !le :- .._._. , - :-- . $201 per functional resident for additional capital assets, (3) excluding Indian River Shores. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Updates are shown with st.TIcethr oughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 13 135 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1002. EMERGENCY SERVICES FACILITIES Section 1002.03. Computation. (1) The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1002.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from emergency services facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to emergency services facilities under the jurisdiction of the county and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Updates are shown with:e-141fe +f hS and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 14 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances g 136 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1003. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES CHAPTER 1003. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Sec. 1003.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1003.02 Findings. Sec. 1003.03 1 Computation. Sec. 1003.04 Use of funds. Section 1003.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1003.02. Findings. Section 1003.03. Computation. Section 1003.04. Use of funds. Section 1003.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Correctional Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to the entire county, including the municipalities within the county, to the extent permitted by Article VIII, sec 1(f), Florida Constitution. (Ord No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1003.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing correctional facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) Generally, eExisting revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development; however, consistent with the findings of the Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Final Report dated September 26, 2014, the board has determined to not use impact fees as a revenue source for correctional facilities.- For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe correctional facilities level of service standard for the county is ! - - --:- - •----., _ - •_•-•- e• $186 per functional resident for additional capital assets. (3) (Ord No. 2005-015 5-17-05) Updates are shown with i throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 15 137 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1003. CORRECTIONAL FACILITIES Section 1003.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1003.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from correctional facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to correctional facilities under the jurisdiction of the county and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Updates are shown with* throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 16 138 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1004. PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 1004. PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT Sec. 1004.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1004.02 Sec. 1004.03 Sec. 1004.04 Findings. Computation. Use of funds. Section 1004.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1004.02. Findings. Section 1004.03. Computation. Section 1004.04. Use of funds. Section 1004.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Public Buildings Development Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to the entire county, including the municipalities within the county, to the extent permitted by Article VIII, sec 1(f), Florida Constitution. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1004.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing public buildings are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe public building level of service standard for the county is . --- pepu-lation$480 per functional resident for additional capital assets, - (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (Ord. No. 2005-015 5-17-05) -- -- - •- ---- - -- Updates are shown with t ' t soughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 17 139 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1004. PUBLIC BUILDINGS DEVELOPMENT Section 1004.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No 2005-015: 5-17-05) Section 1004.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from public building development impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to public building development under the jurisdiction of the Indian River County, under the jurisdiction of the county, and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No 2005-015. 5-17-05) Updates are shown with st ikc thr hs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 18 140 i - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1005. LAW ENFORCEMENT CHAPTER 1005. LAW ENFORCEMENT Sec. 1005.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1005.02 Sec. 1005.03 — Sec. 1005.04 Findings. Computation. Use of funds. Section 1005.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1005.02. Findings. Section 1005.03. Computation. Section 1005.04. Use of funds. Section 1005.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Law Enforcement Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to only the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. (Ord. No. 2005-015 5-17-05) Section 1005.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) Existing law enforcement is not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe law enforcement facilities level of service standard for the county is $274 per functional resident for additional capital assets. (3) Generally, eExisting revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (Ord. No. 2005-015 5-17-05) LUpdates are shown with strike" ug -h= and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 19 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1005. LAW ENFORCEMENT Section 1005.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No 2005-015 5-17-05 Section 1005.04. Use of funds. All funds collected from law enforcement facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to law enforcement facilities under the jurisdiction of the county and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) (1) Updates are shown with. ikc r-e-ughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 20 142 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1006. LIBRARY FACILITIES CHAPTER 1006. LIBRARY FACILITIES Sec. 1006.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1006.02 Sec. 1006.03 Sec. 1006.04 Findings. Computation. Use of funds. Section 1006.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1006.02. Findings. Section 1006.03. Computation. Section 1006.04. Use of funds. Section 1006.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Library Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to the entire county, including the municipalities within the county, to the extent permitted by Article VIII, sec 1(f), Florida Constitution. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1006.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing library system is not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe library facilities level of service sta. dard for the county is $310 per weighted resident for additional capital assets. Updates are shown with * ' throw.".` and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 21 143 t - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1006. LIBRARY FACILITIES (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development; however, consistent with the findings of the Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Final Report dated September 26, 2014, the board has determined to not use impact fees as a revenue source for library facilities.- (Ord. No. 2005-015: 5-17-05) Section 1006.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1006.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from the library facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to library facilities under the jurisdiction of the county and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-051 Updates are shown with t throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 22 144 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1007. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES CHAPTER 1007. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Sec. 1007.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1007.02 Sec. 1007.03 Sec. 1007.04 Findings. Computation. Use of funds. Section 1007.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1007.02. Findings. Section 1007.03. Computation. Section 1007.04. Use of funds. Section 1007.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Solid Waste Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to the entire county, including the municipalities within the county, to the extent permitted by Article VIII, sec 1(f), Florida Constitution. (Ord. No. 2005-015; 5-17-05) Section 1007.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing solid waste facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe solid waste facilities level of service standard for the county is $64 per weighted resident for additional capital assets. (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development; however, consistent with the findings of the Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Final Report Dated September 26, 2014, the board has determined to not use impact fees as a revenue source for solid waste facilities.. - (Ord. No 2005-015 5-1-7-05) Updates are shown with strike-trhroughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added.— Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 23 145 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1007. SOLID WASTE FACILITIES Section 1007.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord No 2005-015 5-17-05) Section 1007.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from the solid waste facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to solid waste facilities under the jurisdiction of the county and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. ;Orr: No 2005-015, 5-17-05i Updates are shown with * i *ghs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added.— Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 24 146 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1008. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES CHAPTER 1008. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Sec. 1008.01 1 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1008.02 Findings. Sec. 1008.03 Computation. Sec. 1008.04 Use of funds. Section 1008.01. Short title: statutory authority; applicability. Section 1008.02. Findings. Section 1008.03. Computation. Section 1008.04. Use of funds. Section 1008.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Parks and Recreation Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to only unincorporated Indian River County. (Ord No 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1008.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing parks and recreation facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe park and recreation level of service standard for the county is - -- - - -e e-- per one thousand (1,000) permanent plus $836 per weighted resident for additional capital assets. (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (Ord. No 2005-015, 5-17-05) Updates are shown with & 4ke— .re4M4S and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 25 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances 147 1 1 c, - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1008. PARKS AND RECREATION FACILITIES Section 1008.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord No. 2005-015; 5-17-05) Section 1008.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from the parks and recreation facilities impact fee shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to parks and recreation facilities under the jurisdiction of the county, and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No 2005-015: 5-17-05) Updates are shown with striken.=oughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 26 148 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1009. PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES CHAPTER 1009. PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES Sec. 1009.01 [Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1009.02 Findings. Sec. 1009.03 Computation. Sec. 1009.04 TUseoffundS. Section 1009.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1009.02. Findings. Section 1009.03. Computation. Section 1009.04. Use of funds. Section 1009.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Public Education Facilities Impact Fee Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to the entire county, including the municipalities within the county, to the extent permitted by Article VIII, sec 1(f), Florida Constitution. (Ord. No 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1009.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing public education facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (2) For impact fee calculation purposes, tThe public education facilities level of service standard for is 1 (one) permanent student station per student, which includes an average of 147.7 permanent net square footage per station and $24,114 of capital investment per student. Updates are shown with * throughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 27 149 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1009. PUBLIC EDUCATION FACILITIES (3) Generally, existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund capital improvements necessary to accommodate new development. (Ord. No 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1009.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1009.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected from public education facilities impact fees shall be used for the purpose of capital improvements to public education facilities under the jurisdiction of the School Board of Indian River County, Florida, and not for maintenance or operations. Such acquisitions and improvements shall be those which are necessary to accommodate new growth and development in the county. (2) Funds shall be used exclusively for capital improvements in the areas of Indian River County from which the funds are collected. Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (C)rd. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Updates are shown with * *"roaghs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 28 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances 150 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Sec. 1010.01 j Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Sec. 1010.02 Findings. Sec. 1010.03 Establishment of a fee schedule. Sec. 1010.04 Credit against payment of traffic impact fees. Sec. 1010.05 Use of funds collected and trust funds. Section 1010.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1010.02. Findings. Section 1010.03. Establishment of a fee schedule. Section 1010.04. Credit against payment of traffic impact fees. Section 1010.05. Use of funds collected and trust funds. Section 1010.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the "Indian River County Traffic Facilities and Fair Share Roadway Improvements Ordinance." (2) The board of county commissioners has authority to adopt this chapter through its general non -charter home rule powers pursuant to Article VIII of the 1968 Florida Constitution, as amended, and Section 125 and 163, Florida Statutes. This chapter shall apply to the unincorporated area of Indian River County, and to the incorporated areas of Indian River County. (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) (3) Section 1010.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (2) The existing traffic facilities are not sufficient to accommodate anticipated new development without decreasing the existing levels of service. (1) Updates are shown with sAfite-4 4 hs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 29 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances 151 (3) - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The traffic facilities average level of service for impact fee calculation purposes standard for the county is "D" on all roadways during peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions for all roadways in the county. For impact fee calculation purposes, it is assumed that some roadways operate above LOS D while others operate below LOS D - (Ord. No. 2005-015, 5-17-05) Section 1010.03. Establishment -Use of a fee schedule or individual assessment (traffic). (1) Any person who shall initiate any new land development activity generating traffic shall pay a "fair share roadway improvements fee" for the land development activity as established by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or the manner set forth in subsection 1010.03(2). (2) As an alternative to the fee schedule, a feepayer may opt to conduct an individual assessment of fiscal impact of land development activity on the major road network. Such assessment shall be based on a traffic impact analysis and a demonstration that the demand generated by the land development activity is less than the demand component calculated for the applicable land use in the fee schedule (Appendix A). For individual assessments, the following criteria shall apply: (A) The "fair share roadway improvements fee" shall be determined by the individual assessment of the fiscal impact of land development on the major road network if: 1. Any person commencing land development activity generating traffic which increases demand chooses to have the fee determined by the individual assessment and pays to the county an individual assessment review fee as established by the board of county commissioners by ordinance or resolution; or 2. The proposed land development activity requires a development of regional impact or building permit and the county administrator or his designee determines the nature, timing or location of the proposed development makes it likely to generate impacts costing substantially more to accommodate than the amount of the fee that would be generated by the use of the fee schedule. (B) The individual assessment shall be undertaken through the submission of a traffic impact analysis, which shall include the following information: 1. The projected trip generation rates for the proposed land development activity based on the average daily traffic of the proposed land development activity. Trip generation rates shall be assessed on an average annual basis, and on a peak hour, peak season, peak direction basis. The trip generation rates shall be based upon local empirical surveys of trip generation rates for the same or similar land use types that meet methodological standards acceptable to the transportation engineering profession. If local empirical surveys are not available, state and/or national trip generation rate information may be used, if it is based on methodological standards acceptable to the transportation engineering profession; 2. The projected trip length and percent new trips for the proposed land development activity based on surveys of similar land use types. Trip length and percent new trips information shall be based upon local empirical surveys of similar land use types or data compiled by the county administrator or his designee for average trip lengths and percent new trips for similar land use types. If local empirical surveys are not available, state and/or national trip length and present new trips information may be used, if it is based on methodological standards acceptable to the transportation engineering profession. 3. The resulting impact fee for the proposed land development activity will be calculated using the trip generation rate; trip rate, trip length, and percent new trips developed in the preceding Updates are shown with * ';� ughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 30 152 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS sections, along with the current impact fee equation construction cost and credit equation_ The proposed impact fee calculation shall be included in the individual assessment submittal factors. (C) Prior to conducting an individual assessment, the applicant and/or his transportation planner or engineer must schedule a pre -application conference with the county traffic engineer or his designee to review the type of data and analysis needed and acceptable to the county. The traffic impact analysis performed pursuant to section 1010.03(2) shall be submitted by the developer of the proposed land development activity and shall be prepared by qualified professionals in the field of transportation planning or engineering. When completed, the traffic impact analysis and individual assessment shall be submitted to the county administrator; or his designee. (D) Within twenty (20) days of receipt of a traffic impact analysis and individual assessment, the county administrator or his designee shall determine if the submittal it is complete. If the county administrator determines the applisation submittal is not complete, he shall send a written statement specifying the deficiencies by certified mail to the person submitting the application. Unless the deficiencies are corrected, the county administrator shall take no further action on the submittal. (E) When the county administrator or his designee determines that the - • - - - - • - submittal is complete, he shall notify the applicant of its completeness within (5) days, and he shall review the analysis within twenty (20) days. If it is not reviewed within these timeframes, then the item will be scheduled for the next available board of county commissioners meeting. (F) If on the basis of generally recognized principles of traffic engineering it is determined in the individual assessment that the county's cost to accommodate the proposed land development activity is substantially different from the fee set down in section 1000.08(1), the amount of the "fair share roadway improvement fee" shall be varied from that in the fee schedule to an amount consistent with the amount determined in the individual assessment. When a variation from the fee schedule is approved, conditions may be attached to the development approval to ensure consistency with assumptions made in the individual assessment submittal. (G) An appeal of a decision on an individual assessment submittal shall follow the appeal procedures of Chapter 100.06 of this Code. (Ord No. 2005-015 5-17-05) Section 1010.04. Credit against payment of traffic impact fees. (1) Any person who shall commence any land development activity generating traffic may apply for a credit against any fee owed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter for any improvement listed on the 20 -year Capital Improvement Plan of Indian River County or the 20 -year Capital Improvement Plan of any municipality participating in this chapter, including any contribution, payment or construction made pursuant to a development order issued by Indian River County or any participating municipality pursuant to its local development regulation or Section 380.06, Florida Statutes, or any additional development requirement imposed by the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission on a development of regional impact. (2) The credit shall be in an amount equal to the market value of the capital improvement on the date of the contribution, payment, construction or land dedication. No credit shall exceed the fee for the proposed impact generating activity imposed by this chapter, unless a credit (developer's) agreement Updates are shown with st4ke4--eaghs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 31 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances 153 (3) - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS is completed which provides use of excess credits and stipulates how the excess credits will be applied toward additional lands owned by a developer within the same traffic impact fee benefit district. No credit shall be granted for any costs, contribution, payment, construction or land received by Indian River County or any municipality participating in this chapter where such costs were incurred or contributions made in relation to development for which a building permit was issued prior to March 1, 1986. (4) No credit shall be granted for any costs, contribution, payment, construction or land received by Indian River County or any municipality participating in this chapter if said costs, contribution, payment, construction or land dedication is received or made before a credit agreement is approved by the county administrator or his designee and is fully executed by all applicable parties. Any claim for credit not so made and approved shall be deemed waived. The determination of any credit amount shall be undertaken through the submission of a proposed credit agreement, on an application form provided by the county, to the county director of community development for initial review before submission to the county administrator. Within twenty (20) days of receipt of a proposed credit agreement, the community development director or his designee shall determine if the proposal is complete. If it is determined that the proposed agreement is not complete, the director of community development or his designee shall send a written statement to the applicant outlining the deficiencies. The county shall take no further action on the proposed credit agreement until all application submittal deficiencies have been corrected or otherwise settled. (6) Once the proposal is determined to be complete, the county administrator or his designee shall, within thirty (30) days of such a determination, review the proposed agreement, and shall approve said agreement if the provisions and requirements of this chapter are satisfied. (A) No credit shall be given for site -related improvements or site -related right-of-way dedications. (B) Site -related improvements are capital improvements and right-of-way dedications for direct access to and/or within a development. Direct access improvements include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Access roads leading to and from the development; 2. The paving and/or improvement of a thoroughfare plan roadway segment, where such improvement is necessary to provide paved access to and from the project, if the roadway segment is not scheduled to be improved within five (5) years from the time of the credit agreement, as shown on the adopted capital improvements program; 3. Driveways and roads within the development; 4. Acceleration and deceleration lanes, and right and left turn lanes leading to those roads and driveways within the development; 5. Traffic control devices (including signs, marking, channelization and signals) for those roads and driveways within the development. (C) No credit shall be given for improvements or right-of-way dedications unless such improvement(s) or dedication(s) meets an expansion need of the county's road network system and is identified either in the county's twenty-year transportation capital improvements program or in the transportation capital improvements program of a municipality participating in this chapter. All required right-of-way dedications and/or roadway improvements which are compensable and made by a fee payer subsequent to October 9, 1992, shall be creditable against road impact fees otherwise due or to become due for the development that prompted the county or the municipality to require such dedications or roadway improvements. Such credits shall be determined as provided as set forth herein. Updates are shown with striket reughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 32 (5) (7) 154 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (8) Credit for the dedication of non -site related right-of-way shall be valued on the date of the dedication at one hundred fifteen (115) percent of the most recent assessed value by the Indian River County property appraiser or, at the option of the fee payer, by fair market value established by an independent private appraisal approved by the county public works department and at no expense to the county. Credit for the dedication of right-of-way shall be provided when a credit agreement has been approved by the county administrator or his designee and when the property has been conveyed at no charge to and accepted by the county or, if appropriate, a municipality participating in this chapter in a manner satisfactory to the governing body to which the dedication is made. As part of the referenced county credit agreement, the applicant shall supply to the county at his or her own expense, the following: (A) A drawing and legal description of the land; and (B) A certificate of title or title search of the land. To receive a credit for construction of non -site related road improvements, an applicant shall submit to the county director of community development a proposed credit agreement application pursuant to this chapter, along with engineering drawings specifications, and construction cost estimates prepared and certified by a duly qualified and licensed Florida Engineer. The county director of community development or his designee will coordinate review and approval of the application with the county public works director. The county public works director shall determine credit for roadway construction based on either these costs estimates or an alternative engineering criterion and construction cost estimate if the county public works director determines that such estimates submitted by the applicant are either unreliable, inaccurate or in excess of normal construction costs for such project. (10) Credit for non -site related construction is limited to capital improvements. A capital improvement includes engineering design studies, land surveys, permitting, and construction of all necessary features for any road construction project including, but not limited to: (A) Construction of new through lanes; (B) Construction of new turn lanes (not related to the project site); (C) Construction of new bridges; (D) Construction of new drainage facilities in conjunction with new roadway construction; (E) Purchase and installation of traffic signalization, including new upgraded signalization and other traffic control devices (not related to the project site); (F) Construction of curbs, medians, and shoulders (not related to the project site); and (G) Relocating utilities to accommodate new roadway construction. (11) In order to maintain the pro rata or proportionate share purpose of the Fair Share Roadway Improvement Ordinance, it is necessary that a uniform method be used countywide in determining credit against fee. Therefore, the county, when considering compensation or credit for road right-of- way, shall apply the right-of-way standards it has established in the unincorporated areas throughout the entire county. Accordingly, dedication of the minimum local road width (sixty (60) feet with swale; fifty (50) feet with curb and gutter) is non -compensable, thus putting the unincorporated areas and the incorporated areas in the same posture and thereby maintaining the integrity of the pro rata or proportionate share concept. (12) Credits shall not be transferable from one project or development to another without the approval of the county administrator or his designee. Credit transfers may be approved only when the project or development where the credits are being transferred from is within the same impact fee district as the project or development where the credits are being transferred to. (Ord No 2005-015 5-17-05) Updates are shown with stf�-ughs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Page 33 Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances (9) 155 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS Section 1010.05. Use of funds collected and trust funds. Intent. Any "fair share roadway improvement fees" collected pursuant to the terms of this article are expressly designated for accommodation of impacts reasonably attributable to the proposed land development activity generating traffic as hereinafter provided in this section. (2) There is hereby established the "fair share roadway improvements trust fund" (trust fund) for the purpose of ensuring that the fees collected pursuant to this chapter are designated for the accommodation of impacts reasonably attributable to the proposed land development activity generating traffic and are consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. The trust fund shall be divided into three (3) separate trust accounts, one (1) for each district as shown on the current impact fee benefit district map which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Impact fees collected and deposited into the original nine (9) trust accounts prior to the effective date of this ordinance shall be expended in the original district in which they were collected until all funds within said districts have been expended according to the provisions of this ordinance. The original impact fee district boundaries are shown on the interim impact fee benefit district map which is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. (3) "Fair share roadway improvement fees" collected pursuant to this chapter shall be paid into the trust accounts established for the district in which the new land development activity is proposed. (4) Expenditure of fair share fees in trust accounts. (A) Proceeds from the trust accounts shall be used exclusively for capital expansion of the county's major road network system as identified on the county's and/or other municipalities' thoroughfare plan maps, in the district from which the monies have come, and in a manner consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan except that, until the trust fund accounts of the nine (9) original benefit districts have been expended, the following percent of proceeds from the nine (9) trust accounts may be used outside the district boundaries for capacity expansion of bridge facilities and their access roads connecting Orchid Island and the mainland: District I—thirty-one (31) percent; District II—nineteen (19) percent; District III—eight (8) percent; District IV—nine (9) percent; District V—ten (10) percent; District VI—four (4) percent; District VII—four (4) percent; District VIII—ten (10) percent; and District IX—five (5) percent. (B) Any funds in each of the trust accounts on deposit, not immediately necessary for expenditure, shall be invested in interest-bearing assets. All income derived from these investments shall be retained in the applicable trust account. (C) Each year, at the time the annual county budget is reviewed, the county administrator or his designee shall propose appropriations to be spent from the trust accounts. Any amounts not appropriated from the trust accounts by the county administrator or his designee, together with any interest earning shall be carried over in the specific trust account to the following fiscal period. (1) staff shall (1) identify each impact fee which was paid into the account, and (ii) calculate simple Updates are shown with s4ke hfG4ghs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 34 156 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS ("eligible property"); 2012; {d) Staff shall then notify each eligible owner in writing no later than March 21, 2012,. that he/she is . department by September 30, 2012, or fails to correct deficiencies,if any, in the submitted - IRS Form W-9; be sent no later than December 15, 2012, applications shall be submitted no later than July 31, 30, 2013; Updates are shown with , 4k -t r -au and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 35 157 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1010. TRAFFIC FACILITIES AND FAIR SHARE ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS (k) If any impact fee refunded hereu a new impact f Updates are shown with * i c +hraug-hs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 36 158 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1011. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES CHAPTER 1011. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES Sec. 1011.01 Short title; statutory authority; applicability. t Sec. 1011.02 Sec. 1011.03 Sec. 1011.04 Findings. Computation. 1 Use of funds. Section 1011.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. Section 1011.02. Findings. Section 1011.03. Computation. Section 1011.04. Use of funds. Section 1011.01. Short title; statutory authority; applicability. (1) This chapter shall be known and may be cited as the Indian River County Impact Fee Administrative Charges Ordinance. (2) This chapter shall apply to all areas of the county including municipalities and the incorporated areas of the county to the extent permitted by Article VIII, sec. 1(f), Florida Constitution. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1011.02. Findings. In addition to those findings and determinations found in Chapter 1000, the board of county commissioners makes the following findings and determinations: (1) The existing governmental staff and facilities are not sufficient to implement, assess or collect impact fee assessed in this title. (2) Existing revenue sources are not sufficient to fund the costs of collecting impact fees associated with new development. The administrative charge equal to three (3) percent of the impact fees assessed to the County or to the participating municipality in order to off -set the cost of administering the impact fee program is reasonable and necessary to administer the impact fee program. (3) Updates are shown highlighted with st+ike-thr-e-ugli5 and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 37 159 - CODE OF ORDINANCES Title X. - IMPACT FEES CHAPTER 1011. ADMINISTRATIVE CHARGES (4) Each participating municipality shall be entitled to retain two (2) percent of the funds collected under this title to compensate them for the administrative expense of administering this title, which is reasonable and necessary to collect impact fees assessed by this title. (Ord. No. 2005-015 5-17.05) Section 1011.03. Computation. The amount of the fees imposed by this chapter shall be determined by the fee schedule attached as Appendix A to this title and incorporated by reference herein, or by the manner set forth in subsection 1000.08(3). (Ord. No 2005-015. 5-17-05) Section 1011.04. Use of funds. (1) All funds collected by this chapter shall be used for the purpose of administering the impact fee collection program and not for maintenance or operations of other programs. (2) Funds shall be expended in the order in which they are collected. (Ord. No. 2005-015. 5-17-05) Updates are shown highlighted with ctfikc throu^hs and underlines. Strike -through wording will be deleted from the ordinance, underlined wording will be added. Indian River County, Florida, Code of Ordinances Page 38 160 Y 3 2 a a 8 c r L c c En E-- =0Ili _ 2 t1'•, xg r E 1. yl ta N Nbn Orill" < 513,693 $26,446 2R:1 M � .. �3 111 o o aNO N N Rm ti NHti dOf IN N bT NU -,VN NN N ppm� SS?ry NV Q NN01 VNw N f aNnn n ;y: o$i °° N 5253 $379 56 591 ilrgr- ory b �f� NN 't'tAti V 513,359 5334 525,801 5645 m �, NN N ^ N 2 m m N N N f N ti,N N , VnViN N NN ,WITON NN i o : hNN a m NN + N $3,320 co b m NNan N V �`.^'.. �y k,: ;• < 'pt h.,: r;.: : ro as.::r !.atq, Qk' 'Cti r W o 4 I. N6. K i ds 1O ' LL y t r S3' r u ^` •A tc,� R m o� S y' cc t= c c '� c � ii Ni 4jy c c c SS c c ii i. P S Ill" '" il - c SSS c c c i S 4f c: Si 56,8561 n/an/al 'S c ? `h e c c c c c c c le/u i rym NNN r. '-'9"-E -.. oN 10. NN m , - --..-S-.7 - SS $482n/a 5381 n/a 41 4° n/ai rda ii -SSS -LS iiii N II � N N N 'Single Family (detached)' - Less than 1,500 sf du $0 50 53441 $01 $290 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf du $0 $0 5370 50 5314 - 2,500 sf or larger du 50 'Mufti-Family/Accessory Unft• d❑ 50 52091 50 $181 $0 50 5209 50 5181 Mobile Home RV (tied down )• du 50 50 $235 50 5197 :TlGIN AEVTTAi51SM7; >illdtfPi ' :,'.r.^y S.s: n - ..; -..._. IHotel room $0 50 581 n/a $131 ',Motel room 50 $0 115 n/a $185 Nursing Home bed 50 50 5115 n/a $185 Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) bed 50 50 $115 n/a 5185 vm O NN'Ni=1•N w'. 11111r Q iirr Q1-, n/a 5413 n/a 5302 n/a $175 O 4iNN N NN N NN c c cc c ,i i Y' � 5142 5207 5279 $285 5125 5106 ill n P N N m r N li d m N t m o ,"i d N .ni 3 O m ttii O N --N--[4. . iy, .o. 50 50 50 50 50 50 a N w;.,. . 50 $0 50 50 50 $0 I 50 $0 . aaga IIil O , O s c . O Ni Na0i1 fi' o Ne;N 0 .i 0 00. NN y�.� toi..oi..on .n a .a --- toil .oi..oi..oi. a tt •-Y. 'F'wt ,;oso S§§ 1,000 sf �o�'" 1,000 sf acre illl 25� to qZ�o court boat berth 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf §§§H iii student 1 1,000 sf !ed) Warehouse i Medical Office/Clink 10,000 sf or leu Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office Research & Development Center $- t Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse• (General Light Industrial (Concrete Plant ni a m K 1New/Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Y Y `' E • v1 Q 1mConvenience Market with Gas Pumps FuRure Store ,Racquet Club/Hearth Club/Dance Studio County Park E oxC o , lu V' pan ) Day Care Center Hospital Veterinary Clink Church Movie Theater w/Matinee Elementary School (Private, K-5) 'Middle School (Private, 6-9) High School (Private, 9-12) University/)unior College (7,500 or fewer students) N 220 310 320 620 252 ryn y1 ; Z51 ESL 060 e/u 011 1 , �Y• KV1. 11111 853 890 1 492 412 N nb —n1111 161 • 1 0 a JSQ A m 0 U L R d N O 0 3"j Z }p L _ a p C '� Tr. O O 11, C^ Vr Z,q b l0 n VN T O M M N N N N Om VI N V1 •O N O N P. SO n N N N nMCOM n N N r �' i N CO n N N N N an O M N N �+•J.. -n T4 N VNNNN N1 N NN T N N 44I, n n NN NI NN .. y' $7,0481 5466 ti n NNH,N n b N 01T N O N O rn N N m N1 V N N N " N" N R Q V 5571 40 N N $381 530 'N $9 55 N co an o Nl O Nry n N o, nN vi rn ,n c NN `t0co [ x'- VI Nn rc c N i N $234 547 a•n N N o N N o m Nm N N nN +n LLS CO m Nn A N CO m0 NNN o N N N N N,n N mO, NI NI N N tno O h v n; m 0 H i r ' N 4; 8 NI N N 2 4 NI V N 74 m H NN0N O N M v, N a I-4 4, NN n a, N N h N N a N m l0 N nNtiO1 N ti N Z0S$ 972$ 40 Nm N N N u N; 0 CO M m N N 8rii CO 01 r iN $882 $522 mm N m m e N N o N N O n 4, r,"''.-,1 N N N Ny a N N w ,N 53,6351 $2,911( No N N N m ma m N NhN N mm o N N o m N NI N ry c„,1.9 N N n n N CO IN mn N NI m -i N N a m 0i NN N CO rai lN NNN .n o ' .....' ' . . '- Y,> ',YS` .sem �': .L� . - . G +.. �k. -.{'4) /) So10...A .1) t=` J '.3',.;1 1't'i. , d •".. -,:.- iS `R1Y ,. 0 1"6 73 0 r. F.- � p�� J NV (x�y ;• y .. { Z C ` 4 .7` Oi >r 44ij p• b A p " C N 4-1 '� C C\ C C C C L C C C C n/a n/a A 1 n/a n/a C C Le/u e/u 1 C C\ C C C C C \ �`. C C C C C C C L C 54,248 55,004 a 2 on N In m Ny N N N �c: N N N N g m mN a N N a 54,730 $6,219 to m e ly N N N L 1.0 lf�. n ry N N ry 0 N N 90E5 £OL'Z$ m N to l N �ti n N N n N N m m ry0 Q i O N N l' m$ o CO N N ti N a to NON an $7,882 55,835 $387 $6,856 o in `" ^ N $4,842 $949 • CO h $2,498 $6,962 m o $164 $225 $237 5443 01 N mm m1 m n1 [ '•, N N yypV V W O N N N m N 01 N N % 4 N V a N O n N NCN ,. O FN m N ry ry O N NN V :N r m 0 Nm N m N `,11 IN N a-n N N o m N N N N m N $326 $354 0 n N ;Nm N 2' 8 NaN N Nn O8 ,..z. N 2 7 , o ry N NN \ ° ° NN ° CCC c\ A A:.•} CC CC n/a n/a A� A el'+J e/u e/u CC.C CLL a NN omcc in N N N N" NN ry 1.11 VI. ry NN o N �� CO N m m to V N "t m J q. $2391 $1841 ntia CO N CO r. V1 $256 $187 5109 $728 $29 tfl m m rm N NNN N n/a 5174 N `140 N N N 0 N 615 01$ 6$ 8$ Nnm 00000.0 N VT 000000000 N N N N N N N 0 N O 000 N N N Sol $o $0 N 0 0 0 " 0 N : N 0 0 0 N N N 50 50 . O $0 $0 O O N N 0 an. 0 0 N N 0.00 N 50 $0 $0 < 0 N w o N N N N o 0 0 0 N N N N N I sol 0 0 0 0 `. 0 N N i' N N o o/ N VT. 0$ o5 N o N 0 N 0 0 0 0 N N 0 o N 0 0 N 0 N N N o N N o o 0 0 0 N N 0 0 N N 50 n/a 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf acre acre 1,000 sf_ la ..- .� 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf lmY�:, ZS 8 N ti U O vn r L H 1 boat berth 1,000 sf 1,000 sf w^ O ?B 0 1,000 sf 1,000 sf . 8 uU .-r n student student student student w8. O; 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf D 'O 'O gg� a-0 Ay,1 room bed bed jyY2,l357fa2 ?7-1. (Manufacturing Warehousing Mini -Warehouse High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse' General Light Industrial Concrete Plant Sand Mining _ z 1 Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash (New/Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Supermarket Automobile Repair/Body Shop Self -Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps Furniture Store Golf Course Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park Tennis Court Marina Post Office Library Government Office Complex Jail IDay Care Center 2. 73 2 a u S Church Movie Theater w/Matinee Elementary School (Private, K-5) Middle School (Private, 6-9) High School (Private, 9-12) University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) 'Fire Station - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or larger Multi-Family/Accessory Unit' Mobile Home/RV (tied down' I Hotel DO E4 c o 00 i 2 Medical Office/Clinic 10,000 sf or less Medical Office/Clinic greater than 10,000 sf Bank/Savings Walk -In Bank/Savings Drive -In General Office Research & Development Center v 420 .lr' VFk't+w ..s 732 590 o v Q m 0a m m 850 942 OimoNN m m 733 571 OO 'CO 560 _ 444 520 522 530 540/050 n/a 720 N 8 + .+ N O 0 720 . N m m O O N N V t : O DJ 220 240 310 NN 162 162 x v G O. Cr F S .�-. E. ^ ' 14 -Cis-,; N drh G tyr to. E c �' W Z�„ g 21 N Vl M N m n N N ' o COm O N m O N N m" h .. P O V I n O VY N N t0 m N N O h N N N d .... N N M h c.N N N M N ,Is01 m- N N N N M N ,. o N t0 O N O N in Q N O N N N Q N M N N N co N I N lwD -�'.. N 'S` N V W N N Q s N n N.. LPN N 1I1 N r N N H M a N VI 5 00 � n C N Vl N N O H m N N ti r N" OLVS 0S2$ N N a• VA N an m Q N N N m m N O �m'1 VI N N M N N m N .:.. 555 $63 N m : N H N y N m VI N v v) to Q N VIN o t0 VI o N N m/1 N $4 $73 N ti N al NNN Q n ' N V) VI N CO N N Vt in ,IN A vI VI Ot m m N al O o o N .. N m ...n VY 36 526 00 0 v� .n V1 I u �o N $51 578 m .i o m N :D N N N Q N m A .y N ' p i0 N al ti m Q Q L n 01 m 597 522 � Q n VI m i0 in in n^ . V� N CO $109 5126 N N ^ al N 1p �"- Jy.. N �..: N in VI Al .+ N m { O N N.N $761 $337 wt01pp� iD Q Q a0 NN ul N a o O umi N .-i N Ip n 1X', N $652 5225 m N V1 ay V, n w N N, In a NNN .i m .. v^i o .y IN .n .Ni NVA CO al °i 1 Qo i0 ..9'NN o CO- N N ' VA m N . N .,D X. $7,339 $11,932 m Q $2,669 $7,279 N m NN 5172 5234 $247 $456 ti o N 01 NN m m al al al O n m in hVi•'4'}"�k'�4 '' e 2•.'n i.� i+J jES�G .5'1'.i ^¢' 0'.- �. � .7%f {'S i'�}11 CLL p n Fi';�AA N n �✓n4' .1,' n E I4♦ d v S z � G 4q /0 It1 ' .1,4'17:, tC; uyA�+ =;_ On 51,702 $1,702 o N N C C h4y C C �µ( P}� C { c \ L ..“..h.... G \ \ rl C 0404 G} �' C C +y+y. C C '+l C C \ }vGv C C C C C C C C 03 C ��pp p Q !Vf VI m Q pp N O N N oo Q N n VI N N`+� O i0 ti. ^ OI n',...-4, N N ry ry N N N $4,321 $6,298 m N n N N Q Rf IO Q ..0 m .-t N N VAN .�� Sok N N 1/1 II, NNN t0 O O m n N n/a 52,862 n/a 52,287 n/a 53,7321 O� Of m Q vof o N i0 O TA O 01 N N N pi N S:2" Q 10 O VI N in ^ . N C m n m CO ` YmA V1 C -Z. 56,856 $654 $7,1361 $11,7121 T t N Q m. m 01 (�} VI h VI w' N tD Q 0) .y O N V! . V n Q u� N ry N n M M Q V) N N on C C C AC C C C Cm C C C C C CN \lmCC C r.. CCC m N O OS N 30 $0 m G C G C C m N N N VI N N .� t.:. W ti N N t0 n m N al N OV m G� O n N. al am'I N h VI Q o Vl - O N - N N Q rl . N�; h .-� h Q .^-V M N r N N V) m N. N o . N VI N i N a, �'� u1 aln .a al N N f N n O Y' VAN $279 5285 M 10 N al N O r` N N CO M VA V! al N an N an N SZ5 05 05 0615 05 05 98$ 0$ 0$ N 0 m Q N O O VIN So $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 0000000 N N N o VIN O O N N N V) VF O O O N N N 00000,.0000 N ^- O } N N an 00 N N an an V1 N o •, N N rwoo0oo an V). 1, N N N N N 0$ 05 000 N N N Nv,O;.'o O IA N N $0 1 $0 $01 $0 $0 $0 $0 50 ON 0$ 0$ ooe 000o00 N VI VL V! 'yA $0 n(a 1 $01 $0 $0 $0 $0 0 0 0 VIN 0 0 V l 0 N '�,. 0 0 0 0 N .. N `' O O N 1.4 05 0$ 00 O 0 N l ' N N boat berth 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf screen student student student student 1,000 sf np np du Idu E Evv SVPN 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf acre acre 8 1,000 sf 1 1,000 sf 1,000 sf 1,000 sf Government Office Complex Jail 'Day Care Center _ q ., =>u2 Elementary School (Private, K-5) Middle School (Private, 6-9) High School (Private, 9-12) University/Junior College (7,500 or fewer students) !Fire Station Racquet Club/Health Club/Dance Studio County Park Tennis Court Marina VRIp Ati Post Office Library `.tiWiSyfi /1r j 3f.S tt GRO iti5:R .j =N -i' Hotel Motel Nursing Horne Assisted Care Living Facility (ACLF) o m c c Ik oo•g� vv Timm Y c ct. ,Research Office Research & Development Center Manufacturing Warehousing General Light Industrial Concrete Plant Sand Mining Retail 1Gasoline/Service Station with or w/o Car Wash i New/Used Auto Sales Restaurant Fast Food Rest. w/Drive-Thru Supermarket Automobile Repair/Body Shop Self -Service Car Wash Convenience Market with Gas Pumps Furniture Store 't E N - 1,500 to 2,499 sf - 2,500 sf or larger Multi-Family/Accessory Unit` Mobile Home/RV (tied down)' 0 0 0 a 0) 0 520 522 o an 0 M M V Pi ` c . 492 412 J 491 420 732 590 733 571 565 ':� O OQi fix.: m w 01 m m 850 942 947 853 890 o O n n F. .+ ry .v .� O C n F. 720 Cr,m m N O VV'¢ Ni ®' 320 620 252 0 oc 0 00 0 a i • E 0 E 163 0 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, REVISING FEES FOR PROCESSING IMPACT FEE REFUND APPLICATIONS AND INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS. WHEREAS, in May, 2005, Indian River County approved Title X, Impact Fees, of the Code of Indian River County establishing 9 impact fees; and WHEREAS, Title X provides for a refund of impact fees for non -commencement; and WHEREAS, Title X also provides submittal requirements and a review process for impact fee individual assessment requests; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to eliminate the review fee for processing requests for refunds for non -commencement and reduce review fees for individual impact fee individual assessments for small projects. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT FEES ARE REVISED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Impact Fee Refund Application Review Fee for Non -commencement (residential and non-residential projects) [Note: replaces previous fee of $75 per Resolution No. 2011-060] Section 2. Impact Fee Individual Assessment Application Review Fee (Section 1000.08 and 1010.03 of Title X of the Code of Indian River County) [Note: replaces previous flat fee of $2,000 per Resolution No. 2005-077] No Charge $2,000 or 5% of the assessed impact fee based on the impact fee schedule, whichever is less The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner and seconded by Commissioner and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman, Peter D. O' Bryan Vice -Chairman, Wesley S. Davis Commissioner, Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner, Tim Zorc Commissioner, Bob Solari t-- czC d 164 RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted on this day of 2014. This resolution will become effective upon signature by the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller BY: Deputy Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS BY: Stan Boling, AICf';/Community Development Director F:\Community Development\Impact Fee \20I4- IF Study\Resoluationrevisingfees.doc 165 10/15/2014 te.A -I ex- IMPACT IMPACT FEE FINAL HEARING Board of County Commissioners October 14, 2014 TIMELINE o July 2013: BCC hired Tindale -Oliver to update impact fees - Technical update (report) - Methodology for decreasing non-residential rates, avoid or minimize increases to residential rates a January 2014: BCC held workshop - Consultant presented preliminary report (not including school impact fees) - Affordable Growth Methodology presented 2 10/15/2014 TIMELINE (Cont'd) E February and March 2014: staff conducted "road shows" E April 2014: BCC Adopted reduce impact fees for non- residential uses Bank w/Drive Through -49.5% Retail -30.7% Motel -51.7% Manufacturing -55.2% Warehousing -54.6% 3 TIMELINE (Cont'd) E June 2014: BCC held workshop on residential impact fees (including school impact fees) - Consultant presented school and residential impact fees - BCC requested School Board workshop and vote E September 2014: School Board held workshop and special meeting on school impact fees 4 {' 5.x'.2 10/15/2014 ID OCTOBER 14, 2014 BCC FINAL HEARING 1. Final technical report 2. Complete impact fee schedules: residential (school impact fees), high cube automated warehouse 3. Text changes to impact fee ordinance (updated LOS; appeals, individual assessments, new exemption for improvements to older structures) 4. Fee resolution (eliminate and reduce certain application review fees) 5 TINDALE OLIVER 1. Final Report 2. Impact fee schedules 6 (t5.A. 3 10/15/2014 Text Changes DI Updated LOS standards for impact fee calculation purposes (asset based) El Appeals:Community Development Director County Administrator BCC 7 Text Changes (Cont'd) E Individual assessments: all 9 program areas - Specifics for traffic assessment remain, accepted professional standards for non -traffic assessments - Determinations appealable 8 145•A• 4 10/15/2014 Text Changes (Cont'd) o New exemption from impact fees added oNarrow in scope - Improvements to pre -impact fee structures (1986) - No measureable increase in demand - Determinations appealable 9 Fee Resolution (review fees) ID No charge for refunds for non -commencement (from $75 to no charge) El Sliding scale for individual assessments - 5% of assessed fee or $2,000 whichever is less Ex. $20,000 traffic assessment ...$1,000 for review (from $2,000 flat fee to sliding scale) - Policy decision on review fees 10 l c�S•q . 5 10/15/2014 STFF RECOMMENDATION That the BCC 1. Accept final report 2. Adopt impact fee schedules 3. Adopt text changes to impact fee ordinance 4. Adopt fee resolution 11 1Lt5•A•6 0. A. 1. 6. Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study October 14, 2014 Presentation Overview 1;= Methodology 2' Residential Fee Comparison High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse Legal Review Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study [G5•$— 1 Methodology ®Consumption -Based Fee Calculation • Measured in terms of capital asset value per person (net of credits) ➢ Represents the community's investment • Consistent with the 2005 Study Methodology ®Basic Impact Fee Formula: Net Impact Fee = (Cost — Credit) x Demand Asset Value Non -Impact Fee Population Revenue VMT Students Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Methodology @Affordable Growth Strategy • Based on future growth rate & available funding • Buy -down (subsidy) options • Tool to assist with policy decisions • Not legally required Presentation Overview Methodology Residential Fee Comparison High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse Legal Review Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study /b5.8. 3 Staff Recommendation *Affordable Growth Fee for All Program Areas, except: • Full fee for emergency services • 75% of affordable growth fees for parks • 50% of affordable growth fees for public bldgs • Suspension of library impact fees Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study /65.6-4 Residential Calculated Land Use Study Date Current Adopted 2005/09 Land Fees Full Fee 2014 % Chg from Adopted n/a Uses (perdu) Affordable Growth 2014 % Chg from Adopted n/a Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf $7,519 $14,039 +87% $8,706 +16% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf $9,388 $15,266 +63% $9,864 +5% - 2,500 sf & more $10,195 $16,572 +63% $11,066 +9% Multi -Family $4,816 $7,923 +65% $5,638 +17% Mobile Home $4,455 $8,132 +83% $4,857 +9% Staff Recommendation *Affordable Growth Fee for All Program Areas, except: • Full fee for emergency services • 75% of affordable growth fees for parks • 50% of affordable growth fees for public bldgs • Suspension of library impact fees Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study /65.6-4 School Board Recommendation ® School Board Workshop in September • Discussed past and future use of impact fees • Recommended adopting affordable growth rate ® Affordable Growth Rate for School Impact Fee • Conservative fee • Lowest adopted in the State School District Recommendation County IRC (Affordable Growth) Adopted School IF $1,702 IRC (Adopted) $1,756 Brevard $4,445 Martin $5,567 St. Lucie $6,188 Range of All Other Counties $1,866 - $8,742 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study IGs•6- 5 Residential Land Uses Staff Recommended Fees (perdu) Land Use Current Recommended % Change Study Date 2005/09 2014 n/a Single Family Detached $7,560 $9,187 $13,886 - Less than 1,500 sf $7,519 $7,560 +0.5% - 1,500 to 2,499 sf $9,388 $8,623 -8.2% - 2,500 sf & more $10,195 $9,681 -5.0% Multi -Family $4,816 $4,936 +2.5% Mobile Home $4,455 $4,101 -7.9% Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study /&5•x- 6 Residential Staff Recommended Land Use Recommended Land Brevard Uses Fees St. Lucie (perdu) Martin Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf $7,560 $9,187 $13,886 $5,233 - 1,500 to 2,499 sf $8,623 $9,187 $13,886 $7,428 - 2,500 sf & more $9,681 $9,187 $13,886 $10,215 Multi -Family $4,936 $5,773 $7,099 $5,233/ $7,428 Mobile Home $4,101 $4,605 $5,860 $4,736 Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study /&5•x- 6 Presentation Overview Cr) Methodology Residential Fee Comparison High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse �4 Legal Review Additional Land Use Category • High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse Small employment/high level of mechanization Unit High -Cube Warehouse % Difference Calculated Adopted 2014 1,000 sf $388 $805 -52% Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study Presentation Overview Ci) Methodology ® Residential Fee Comparison 0 High -Cube (Automated) Warehouse Legal Review ® Questions? Thank You! Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 165.8-8 Affordable Growth LOS Curve *For illustrative purposes ONLY 140% 120% 100% innollmow i; 80% u 60% 40% 20% Average Annuo Growth Used MOM ®s 0% 0% 1% 2% 3% 4% 5% 6% 7% 8% 9% 10% Avg. Annual Growth Rate Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 45-6-9 Residential Staff With & Without Land Use Recommended School Current Land Impact Recommended W/Schools Uses Fees Fees Wo/Schools (perdu) % Change Wo/Schools Study Date 2005/09 2014 2014 n/a Single Family Detached - Less than 1,500 sf $7,519 $7,560 $5,816 -22% -1,500 to 2,499 sf $9,388 $8,623 $6,879 -27% - 2,500 sf & more $10,195 $9,681 $7,937 -22% Multi -Family $4,816 $4,936 $4,252 -12% Mobile Home $4,455 $4,101 $3,049 -32% Indian River County Impact Fee Update Study 45-6-9 The Reserve at Vero Beach Rezoning, Conceptual and Preliminary PD Plan Board of County Commissioners October 14, 2014 Planned Development (PD) Process Conceptual Plan PZC Recommendation 1 BCC Approval Preliminary PD Plan PZC Approval • Land Development Permit (LDP) or Waiver reviewed and approved by staff • Final PD Plat is approved by BCC 1O.4a.. «5-C- 1 Location Map Proposed Development • 19.99 acres • 159 Multi -Family units (7- 3 story bldgs) • 4.55 acres of commercial (3- parcels) 1LS- c- 4 Dedications, Improvements and Conditions • Transit stop/shelter on SR 60 • Sidewalk on College Lane frontage • Off-site sidewalk on College Lane • Right turn lane on SR 60 • Right turn lane on College Lane • Zoning Reverter • Drive through restriction • Timing for commercial Environmental • .91 acre area preserved consistent with existing conservation easement • Wetlands: no wetlands on subject site • Planting of 24 mitigation trees on-site for removal of 2 specimen trees Phase 2 1(p5-c.- Prelim. Architectural Design Res. Bldg • Prelim. Architectural Design Res. Bldg tr0.1. RECKEAfltEANG �NTE16 Prelim. Architectural Design Comm. Bldg Prelim. Architectural Design Comm. Bldg Chick Fil A — Elevations Note: Foundation 11111111.11111111111111111111 sne4 SR 60 side Plantings are required Parking lot side Drive-Thru/ west side Prelim. Architectural Design Comm. Bldg Longhorn — Outparcei #1 Foundation Plantings are required Back/south side East side West side Public Benefits • Build an off-site sidewalk filling the gap in the existing sidewalk segment between the subject site and 58th Avenue. • Transit stop and shelter on SR 60 9-11-14 PZC Decision Voted 5-1 to recommend that Board approve the project as recommended by staff, with additional evidence be presented to the Board with respect to project traffic impacts, especially impacts on the 58th Avenue/SR60 intersection. Staff Recommendation That the BCC approve the Rezoning and Conceptual PD Plan The Reserve at Vero Beach with conditions listed in the staff's report • Architectural elevations • Mitigation trees, landscape improvements • Sidewalks on College Lane • Right turn lanes on SR 60 and College Lane • Transit stop/shelter • Zoning Reverter • Drive through location restriction • Timing for lot 2 construction Policy 5.5: Indian River County LDRs shall contain a special Planned Development (PD) zoning district. That district shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD zoning district is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility in order to maximize open space, conserve natural features, provide alternative designs, incorporate recreational facilities, create a mix of uses, and provide a variety of housing choices. Architectural Design 0: Yn'.R4N WA H[VO,.v kl§1 SCRIPPS SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS Indian River Press Journal 1801 U.S. 1, Vero Beach, FL 32960 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, Michael Merone, who on oath says that he is Classified Sales Assistant of the Indian River Press Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement was publshed in the Indian River Press Journal in the following issues below. Affiant further says that the said Indian River Press Journal is a newspaper published in Vero Beach in said Indian River County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, daily and distributed in Indian River County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid or promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. The Indian River Press Journal has been entered as Periodical Matter at the Post Offices in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida and has been for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. Ad Pub Customer Number Date Copyline PO # INDIAN RIVER CO PLANNING 2650863 9/29/2014 PUBLIC HEARING 10-14-14 IMPACT FEES Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of, September 29, 2014, by Michael Merone [X] personally known to me or [ ] who has produced as identification. , who is Mary T. Byrne ! li Notary Public MARY T BYRNE fr Notary Public - State of Florida ./ My Comm. Expires Amy 2.2013 ••,, ,,,, e ,,,,,�Commission 0 FF 142429 _ NEWSPAPER E -Sheet® LEGAL NOTICE ATTACHED DO NOT SEPARATE PAGES 91i7GINAL Q) U 0) Section-Page-Zone(s): BEFORE THE BOARD OFC 0 Q co co (i) 0 Ad Number: Insertion Number: Monday, September 29, 2014 NOTICE OF NOTRGE OF ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FLORIDA PRO0ATE *aims cwn 00052010155 FOM WITHIr54"53815150 NTHS EVER BARRED. AFTER THE OATS OF NOTWITHSTANDING THE FIRST PIIBUCA- THE TIME PERI0O5 TION OF THIS NO- ILTy CLFORM TH ABOVE, TICE AIFILED ALL TWO I2) YEARS MOBS AFTER DECEDENT'S C OF DEATH BARRED. Tpeblcloofn e n11n. CBVOBRILD,I s°°"'""The611ndee11o0fn 15.0/ 41,20)0, 6 t 4mi014 Septem Nicole M. Pnren Personal epremg81, Seacoast Nati LMn aeon Svee, Bank B.XeP,Nwu1JPeeual esmitave Avlh,I ad Oft: 81641 ulora34 44844. Stuart, Florida 34994 416172,1.2 Avenue Matwret E. Wood, Phone7144444 (7721286-0890 Anamlry l4Pe1Onal fax E712)204-1728 Rapnomn1W. Primary email'. Ronda Bar NO.: ry 3lwlaw.wm M<4rG02N1 = al e"al: Pu,: September 23. Norma nw, , BSaBassA,301E mm Mo n, Melby, PA. TCN2MBee9 2400 s.E Fdral Ryan for' Perianal Pap FL Bar 1839 Jordon held, PA IN THE GRCUR COURT FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA PROBATE DNISION File Number, 16608 CP N RE: ESTATE OF HAROLD A. TINS, ahla HAROLD ALBERT TINS, Degas. IN THE CIRCUIT NOTICE COURT FOR MARTIN TO CREDRORS COUNTY FLORIDA The edminWration of PROBATE DIVISION the estate of Harold Fee No.: A Thoa, sue H12Af4C 40800 Albert whose heed. LPA%MX seed whose date N mor u pAendun JINOR: ETDTONOE PO'39Oi. 14,, r .4l` Tem 61)00 Primary ry EEmmail: Sewnd.ry Email: 1140016narth Pub. September 22, b, ,e TCN264989d which Ocean en. ^•,aria id. dresses of to8per reprresentetivi s et- Merin COunly, ROTS coy we mol Ia25 da. Probers Oivislen, below. me ..ares 0) ("VA? A11 creditor. of Lo la 100 Etta, Ocean decedent end ether 804I.ord, 51uer1, claims58 having .0) di Florida 31981.15. .oain,1 or a of th. 781443+1 serve 501 t518501104 * 25. Peibatnnl°neo n- ad mug file their '°nm 5014 bdax.'y e>im whh thio 4443 All 0104i10,, 01 the ON OR OEFORE THE dm.denl end other MONTHS AFTEF personsl or demands THE TIME OF THE Ilion decedent's FIRST PUBLICATION • ate wham OF THIS NOTICE 00 4005 o1 on nein la DADAYS E OF SERVICE ".41,44 file Weir 5 54011 EON THEM IS C6u1n :this A11 other creditors o1 L A T E R F ] the decedent and MONTHS ATER other persons h»in9 THE TIME OTHE claims or demand, FIRST P4 8 0 0710 80181ne1 di file lhNr M'r5 AFTERAT NOTICE TO CRE1NTglo 110 dminlstr.11.n i Ne »1410 al JOSEPH J. ceased, whose dale rapreaenutiv 3 <°th VP1" don9 o, rte I the Clrc Irc..c IOr ORDINANCES ORDINANCES 6 PETITIONS 6 PO1111015 BEFORE Pi BOAPO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTICE 00 PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board 1 0oumv Cemmi.siiners .1152:,, 016., .unry` Fbrida °hall had . Wirnp" oris° bar amending TIM X,Impm Fee,, of 01 code N Indian River County, n in regular mea K s eqn on Tuesday, hereby 14, T014 at sea he meM, 1545 he h.a13 1c5.8.„,°0'47 Cthereeher i raComb.,. 01 Ing on Building 0. located at 1801 2)th ministration Street, Vero Beach, Florida. The 111° .I the pogo»* ordinance is a. follows: 0o0R01NANCE OF THE BOARD OF UNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDINGF T TH TLE K, IMPACT FEES. OF THE CODE OF INDIAN FIVER COUNTY, TO AMEND THE TEXT OF TITLE X FOR LEVEL OF SEFMCE 5,10504005 USED IN IMPACT FEE CAL - 055, PE1050, INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS, APPEALS, AND VARIOUS ANOAT00 0MENNAPPEND%NAVIMPACI` FEE SCHEDULES, TO APPROVE NEW IM- PACT FEE SCHEDULES FOR RESIDENTIAL 0555 AND FOR HIGH -CUBE AUTOMATED WAREHOUSE USE FOR THE UNINCORPO- RATED INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND MU- ICIPALNES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE OATS FOR NEW IMPAR goE 502300100 SND 5504(01AN FOR OIFICATION; E000041LT ANO EFFECTIVE RATE 0.14 dinanca, it adopted, will 6,0+511,8 DonMpm Fee 5<hedules ler 111. urdnwn ned wumendimggncyyBYdn foRau Warehouse which e,tabs5ea r duedim- part Nae ROI Ntpe scale, hhW automated warehousing. Also, e ordinanceplre- vise he text of the Title b5 updating LOS Standards for impact 1°41 purposes Is oo,oal a»,aarmm »mon sed d��i�nn 4 ..weena. For HinMC the Automated d a sh a dit- P'N ber 9 2 ,4. For ebdent1, Int pa f e s 'h d` eft n date obua alt NIS. M he optic humin D 0 Me Bawd may cones me proposed en. Me ansa A pi asepdey orapnun ce a,t D Planning Division 0 office located at the 05 County A,o S,0ra, ;I ,:24. r teot Thh Sn01 , •w Beach Florida. Mer Oa0,4 1, A14m a ,raft upon and Ns dish O,S. nn wowv be found on me manlys web ew.wm. My0np whe may wiah'ta appeal amu decision e. t mry be a. n moa meting win ted m that a verbatim record a me xmeny end ensure i. mad., which Includes tewmanyy end 'dense upon wM1lch the egged ie (',sed Ing end WN. mat appear 'the mp0- 50seu ordinancerd with respect w the p. Plaau LirAO impa<[ 50.7x15'1 q 117'55 he LDnp-Penile Plannirrp vaation nT12- 92612W. 6103, wSo lo8d,.,pmcall,0c0Mn she IAy's American, wIIh4Dlnehili,isv A<I 00Al cw,dne 772.770.52151 n least 16046 2hours in advance dv,ne o/ mmeeting. INOIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 0-e- Peter D. OBryan. Chain/Ian Puh: September 39,4014 NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATION DATE OF SERVICE OFA COPY OF THIS NOTICEther ON rdwLArs of II decedent and Me meed persona iwlv'mue1Cl°le'm n NOTICE OF NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE FORECLOSURE Coon will sere to Me electronic sale et 644.[ and ben biM1 owl/www.Intllan- der for 201r.;.1.,31' .11050 00,1, 1.111^.^.V.:!llos cY A,M„ by 10:00 ln31c eale r onMe l Iidlenrl»wig descrribed orreo»tlm: 177:717 7:le Fln50t.hl be4mo5" to dy t, env ContJu: I; P .1M unit E LOCATE(' WITH - 1, Declaration' elu 1318 Reel Ocean R. 3201131um 805..Cnneo25lni- eol b. re..re•tl ec . ,dine l0 1n. d *.discount. th ren . dominium, n °Xi ata.. oars.. Yin o9i rld Coury lel Record. 50:1 »ids, as 61 Y, Pepe ABO, 01 the.11 River County Yimagele the claiming Florida, "r au eli us from the gale, N amendments thereto rya other then the II• o 4.1. 32 the Lie IN0 514 INTEREST Pendens mug file a IN THE THE Ths d.'l Rrn pub claim within sixty liwtion al Mia Noon 1Ni days Nnr the Ie S.4tember 08. Atd DATED this Bth day of 7656,01 5eptemb Repreaematk,eY 401 E. +: 55%1 E. 08OsceolaIRE FF, PA LE. 80 DAYS A545 Baebara CwwlSA 9655 NW 59 Cogan z!NI84, Flaw Boynton Bea3 . FL Soren, Florida 31984 Ond Ms day of AAnne Madv Donde o TNephane: —1114 MSW Wimbledon R]21 Facsimile. •14rau Terrace -26Jud . A d min . Palm City, Florida By MICHAEL 161 b 111 I I A / By MKH5E. h.nby es noungaa DERMODY, 050. herby designates ha Florida Sar 4 0e 0800 20yar 8 54 00. 03830.3 s o temgw serPee- 2 oen ,ewlce w:e6F9asGT,.mmreSeM- L Anemey for IE a D. MfNilg+mA Flood• Bar Number , HinnmanmanHowardA Kenai(90.5 11. 1LP 600 N 0<aan BMd Suite 306 one:561-P410v8 Far 4: 0IW.2/93 EMa4:HHKFlllac m gab: September Pub: September YB, October SM.., 4rnns1rol NOTICE OF SALE LEGAL AUCTION Salo1M3/2014 1031 4A• Ll10i0136243 Sale:10118/2014 IMIV 1 7,8LXE2000,, 814496 4.42.Louisiana 3295 T pe 09,9014 P b', 77 Trn2M0n NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE ,,WosodySibple,gt mea1°.'L',5;1=5;7: a.r Accoem- nfwth Oi,bili- sone on."awplenntcldinp05y. 6ry ti.natlM1ens .oicnv- provillon o% tenon t. Please 0,6,8110, a. 2 054E Bdat 5741,uYanrt: SHAPIRO, RSHMAN N GACH, LLP Momepys Ir PkimiR /6A Wavdl+nd Corporate e 10BWd.0 fil T'mgiTelephone I080 Fax M3888 For Email 58x600 SFGTamp1 geOnly e For R Ner®®inquirias: 4 40428, 1]l- all Rag. 80]-03]0 n least ] By. Hdm Skala. 447. :115.1t.1:10.7.;16." 856 0.203, your FLBar884040 Regan., cion auu 0810'6nt too pee2 65 r immer39 0.52 C Y the Pal. M upon np O.bl Cel lsoti one thio fiw1`868-7'lon the Prattles Act, you mea bee rem. VII advised mat tb1, 8 1.88 1583 i .....3 . 3.01 64 `s.1.11.011°;.°lermation4ahtil need maybeu,e4barmat pgamher T3. 14 7CN0429336 R54481165,365 7ar- er wlth Oisabilr eywy.uanape i4 di ahllidy who nestle y e semoaatiW.I n ta wrtidwn In this enide,riid'o are pteYo t, to the oma iii^ e, PI»•1a .nteneCourt Admin Suitery [104SDNS. 6411. 31], Port 51t, Lurie, dpai5s,' 70 at04088, ) id befreyo 17701234418 scheduled614nem 04tmelinO.rnc4eDuOnr,e25mv- 6t'8dIw5hn1ry1b.eug6:, 8 vmtdsi1w.m1 ape en.33 NOS :. notification it todNo '/I°140".5:,° e,kp.vthe g•rviggram w 8ylouse Mm 14 551 Americanrwe]t10e Int- A"dI•lieDIs.bllltis mbar 22, In accordance with 19, Atd he American. with TCNI612361 100. 5,303 rte 1 IBA` penin. coed Inomupn, wedal pnvd- I,g.hthldcann 6 0S aamidH0, 350 NW 4605111m, Club Drive, S 24,48915102 74170:584"i ger o1 men days prior your scheduled IN THE GRCUR COUNT OF THE NWETEENTH CJUNGAL GTRHCCUURR 8I25N JUADNALOGRINCDUIARN I N RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA CML OMSION Gan B: 1514GA00043 GSE NO.: 31-201NgA01408 05. Reel 04.,, 0.- 40050: oo Au02.1,38.Ilrc CYNTHIA l COX 21,1,1X1 CAM0EN HOUSE AT Sem F. LI, 11 and OAK HARBOR CON. Thema 0,0 D OMINIUM ASSOCH Defendant/PK ATION INC., Florida Ei,. not -Lor -profit NOTICE OF SALE A5 wrpornio3, TO F. CIAU1 1 %nmi3, L52495SACIANO CAROL A. IRBY and THERESA GAIL JAMES R. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to AND FOR INMAN RIVER COUNTY, Defendants: FGl0NOTICE4,04UREOF 541E NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN Ihn (4100.0 o Florid° 51.143, K5631, and me Con dlFinal Jodgmem Foreclosure dated 8001.4 I,r08,8 501 of thet Circuit Court df the Nineteenth Ju- icial Circuit in and 1o, Indian River Countthe Clerk oil t7he oridaCircuit NOTICE OF MEETING l.r•clo,ure isle ni leveJindc t ase Nd Agit Lava i, 2ot4 of the Circuitcuit Court I the 1M4 Judicial I•I than In and for - NOTICE OF aim River County, FORECLOSURE Feed., w.enln TM Reel out. Recon W THE CIRCUIT A.1013.lnn, COUII004614 Clinton* Th...... JUCICRL CIRCUR 01,11.,, del°^- IN ANO FOR MARTIN Wing/. the Clark it COUNTY, FLORIM 0,8,1, 1.211,5 R. CIVIL ACTION 0,44. 0)01 .NI 1. the GSN0.: Herm ,1d best bb 13IN: G-0E025A der for cash by 0100105: GENERAL TC H SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS r myna 0F FORECLOSURE JUM84COON THE BANK OF NY AS SUCCESSOR TO GAN CHASE 2008. PA65-T CE7- BE g %mM R, LOT A, BLOCK 1, PIP DC TO ROOPI- Ep5 LANDING PLA G ET. AL, 00, Tu0 51* D angel. TO THE PLA THEREOP ON 050,E FORENOIOSALE 75»E4OE E CN WR COURT IN NOTICE IS HEREBY FOR MARTIN CORM *4118)9 the the un- Ty, A Cou,1 ,1 MAPTIN CORDED PAGE FLORIDA,1.AT 1 y, will on the Any 'anon ar .31117 a, 62 Otto 1.125109 m Imo.., 3814 • 10 AM. in he°o surp50a, B arty Iror3d:�aem: io,«iurvn:a:. uh elle Imo gale and ad •r than the p1, public 043 n of ,he Gate he hiphen and b t or the Lie 5,04,,., 6144•. ler 4815. the re"a"m" n file a 14)1401,6 described . w4h 0,1:1'21:1;', yfpF y i 1e In 1 Court within 60 COMNRTIMNIUM days ggar the fore - NO. UNIT ODaure oak. N S 0,104,0 IN BUILD LNG 2, C FAIRWAY RATED this dry it PALMS CONOOMINI. Seger/0.2014saes M UM, A CONDOMINI10 Moises Medina, UM ACCORDINGn? Eceuim TXE DECLARATION 1116103No:91B53 THEREOF, 041480- Wllivm David Minnie, EO ON DECEMBER E03534swile Florida Bar Na: 3186 $Oath Can Main'g9 AEdrrs' wav Road, NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE Manin County, Rork da, cont an the 16th 2154,°.".°70, 'Or Node accord - nes close..., n' 2443 lrldo with of- for sale and sell Id,, iac'an(431 tb: iamibf wsP.he Ar 'n unry�Fliid ]0 Y8 1999903. INOROaFFI- S 2098, PAGE 193, RF 00E2EC ONW JA VARY DM FICIALL ARECORDS OOOK2O]°a.0B PAGE l PUBLI AME SUP FROM TIME PROPERTY AD- NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE participate 1, In°this .f11.3arowain You, to the pwAeion I certain asst..* of congas Come Johnson, AOA Coory 00,3:o.. 250 NW 80118 2177"700` 6i 16,).. 01 8 080, least ] dells 6004» Your.n°reled court Ilat•15 upon re- ilin: lemnifb: m. ien.emad Is Ie» :arty 1 You nue 711.icc ember 29, TCN262 608)e IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CMCUR N AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA DMSION: CIVK CASE NO.14 0916 CC PLANTATION BEACH CLUB CONDOMINI- UM ASSOCIATION, INC„ a Florida non - CLAYTON D. ALLEN 'd TINA K ALLEN, Defendants. 100110405 FORECLOSURE SALE 5011 1• ANN. herebbyv uu a CAClROLerk VN 01 nuiY mi Maniaunn orid, wi on October 16'2014, a the 10:00 a, via elm electronic ,ale •t ONDAV. SEPTEMBER 29, 2016 II SC NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE Public Record, of Manin County, Flori- da, lom dae end all amend m ntlal thereto, if Perymam to the Fina Judgment of Lien Foreclosure entered Id 40010ndnnlhe se Anw..Md »gaga. Y n•r. fn claiming e, In the ,ury plu: cont Ne eels, X a her tmmono- M owner asn lee dans the Lia.) Pen den,,, must Iib a .Aee1 N8.1.A a,y Dated this 22nd dell o Bvpambr,2oM MICHAEL J. BELIE. 238San.03dde 4 frui405F8, 56,4 3037 *4 801 IMHEname(' IWO9550317 BY U MIaoel J. Bane Michael J. Bdle, uire *561nw 13, 5,0110 Florida BU No: 81088E DESIGNATED PRIMAflY E-MMl 6EINICE 23110 PU. M0.J00 . 405AOM ]5166 Nott necheel son. with Oi30 5,, 13 :lib e en.MliRen h0 deeda am ,«omm. ation Inn der t. ' to `In thly 85°. r.4 ear R. tkto the °pprwnion certain rie M1n Ory AOA CCarMW St' 31) Port S SBO).31885,6, 358,4411 2 6600 5 epp•armPa, .r mudlm:°enaav Im- 1 1118ie11,,, 5*- ' r8leyer vosw rrawina eseil Pvb: 3pumbefor 28. DRESS: 6535 S.E. FETEM2 HIGHWAY, APT. for, STUART, FL 34697 punuam tie Final closuredgmenentered te red In Case No. 8- CA-0OA80 of theCP It cion o2 the NINETEENTH Judl- dal Gwlt In end for 1567 Nonhun Atkma, G a 30329 NOnCE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF P05110 HEAPING - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUEST t0d hese.' Iv '"id" the awroo°I N e nnwnen) 00meo- u• pNi Ory RO E4n and from 33.53,2 an :thence m ars F 5" h" oaimgaly 8.99 acres Ir.m PM -P In nldDevel MUNI Mice' Uae Ornnall lh rauy ls3Io Me he Planned . Otolsalem „60 V4rn, LLC 10 en"1" a 13le0lro be known .,Te Rnerve V85o Brach. The V leo gop0en Ise mulu-lamily nsl4vnd+1 ' tl ]comma cP`I out morcel, elle' SP60 !Dollop ayypr x4 ).unNSNae w ern, .10.mmercial ern. Ovnall reeldmtig dm BE um,✓ao.. me 1md ,u.. of just I vl,esrwim>eelCe Town Ranter/OliveeGard. MI. eas[Nof SPgr Oaks (see location mPl. m 1 "°""` h"'5"55. ead,* which po,U,, In 10185800 Ona 3814,,, shall have oto fie oar*, will he hdd byv me Board of y Com C6mmwai,ner 0)1,21., River County, FILM/win in tl, C9unq Com mins vis 088,34 ms 9:00 [6unry Adminlavanion Build:rap, IDn d 3014 at am.e en BuaOM1, Flora, In Tu.day. OttOb85 10,, Please dire. planning -related questions t0 Me current development at A6.40010A5. All document. panning section penwninp 10 mu in Ole in me brim River Count' Planning ,r, 421 I. r.3.114tfB01 0.. Snnwil4inll0*05 'A Nto 1 n I.m.ti.n compo. Dw4men1. mar b.° Iaai.w.a W n, mntl.04u1 6e6 pu9ic Burro° normal hauiA member 01nob an d at inviletl,o mend partici..m nmea public dn hnp. Anyone who may wish to appeal any derision, which may be .de at his meeting, will need to ensure that s verbatim record al the 0rvicedin99. made, which includes testimony and widen* mon wMcM1 IM.Ppe.I is baud ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH 01548110IES ACT IA5A1 COORDINATOR AT 2261223 AT LEAST ea HOURS IN A04PNCE OF THE MEETING. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY w Peter D.0'Bryan, Uaimwn Pub: September 29,3014 T042650809 Imeivine° :'IrrtR, Rr rec0.3,3 If th the eche hie on 111,,°] erygll7Ypu Imwoed c: PA,ub:Aft Septem T[N3610318 N THE GRCUR COURT IN ANO FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA GSE MI A1340085EG JPMORGAN 15404 ASSOCG1gN ORAL Pwn011, PICHARO J. 0ACHAR A/K/A RICHARD 2A. CHAR: DAWN K M - OMR AIK/A 0 Unit "A Condomlynium Number Y8 uaua cOneomin Dec1;11,1n of Can dominlum Xeeard, 6 ok 000 Page 1184, In the NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE oaecer9 201e itrussoins Your ultimate source for jobs, homes, wheels & stuff. Treasure Coast Classifieds Find your way into cyberspace Locate your Computer System in the Treasure Coast Classifieds. tcpalm.com classified There's Mus0C In Advertised Fled9 from piano 86 percussion. Treasure 1 classified NO0CE OF SALE NOTICE OF SALE NOTICE OF MEETING NINETEENTH September, 2014. REGULAR BOARD JUOIGA1 CIRCUIT MEETING WAND FOR Douglas G Rehm, PA ST. LUCEDul9nne4Email Ab NOTICE IS HEREBY COUNTY, FLORIDA dre,..5411B6 GIVEN tot a Land- GSE728 Amsom owners' Meeting and 20t3CA0p1]23 114,05, h S4en Regular Board Meed North,oSo, 3A Ing al the Sunwlntl WELLS FARGO fit P°nnWrg-FL Forme Community (450.11* 3336 0.vd.Pm.n1 0111:60 PI✓ntiR, TNvµon No. will he held n tt:aa R271538d91t THE UNKNOWN Anpnry 8: the M1en'3hveec00., HEIRS, 0, SENORS. %'INTIM 2230, .n Oc Me. DEVISEES, 5, 455. By TAM 0, 2014, in a Meed TRUSTEES, AN0 MCDONMD ' g Room 0.(1.1.5,,°, the CREDITORS OF 04. FBN 13M1 115,,, ,10. Branch 5014 JAMES LACI- 0010 l 604,4 at VITA NWA JOSEPH If YY person (04) SE Mvrmnas1,. J. LACIVITA, OE- Mtb4.eit,bill, moo Bouleyard. Pon SI. CEASED' JOSEPH n • •TIL n 01 l4de,FleNda 34952. JAMES_ �ACIVITA, .c om adaliin In 11`1:0 Panid ae Th.yy ry ppugr,:. pr0nI.3, 61 I the L.. 10 ,1.11 eu unnyiano ,re anWvd, n 7,:r:153114;;:4 elin la w elect w "'of tame hret 131 Supeniaors .08,rlr'vi140 . Please for Farms ommu"ty 00211.01 Please vel Community 1NOA JD4N H0L- ct Lor04 Development Di0- ddhlh,nn, AOA ThewgoaeN LIS' JEAN MARIE 004,1nnar, 25o NW td, lingular Boar - JO N 1.501 DANIEL Country 7 5 Drive, Id soling 4* to con - OWN U 1 Sui10 Tt2 'AIN: 6ua arry 5,2.4 , KNOWN SPOUSE aF Lucie, 7 34886, b fore the JOSEPH JAMES 5. 1»TI 30]-43)0 at 4d•r,. C.per 15 me LIVWN, JR; UN- va,,,,,,,L,117.1°,2:,1 AOnd» 185 th»• KNOWN SPOUSE OF 8558828 m 0a 46 I0(39 LINDA JOAN MOL- Pp..ran.s, ar in tl by g 518; UNKNOWN rmmedinely un n ma 0innc[ Maoa*ear SPODSE OF JEAN r c I.I0O f bts 1, 141) 3..... n MARIE VOELKER' 51151.1 cellon 1/ the A/0r loll Irv. at 1- UNUNKNOWN TN .Ton belie 6 2 3 es4.3T n kgat 'TAN' ALL wt :,1118,11051.,1f11; ,c, ::,11',71,,r1,:.: 0540*N PARTIES ion 1 4rya; 1100101 oar's CLAIMING BY. 08. THROUGH UNOFR baw13dcdi711. From time la time OR AGAItj0T THE neo more 5upervi- ABOVE NAMED OE- Publish: s•ptember one or participate 54046105). WHO N, 0045.10, 2011 ' `Ne Regular Board 6IAR 0 51011 W 01045 Meeting by t,1. - he location of rhe Y hem wiB he NTr R;YNo Nreloltldl catR°nanuunnei- . a intern a .lit e l s tine .1 q•se vehicles an IM1e above lOcatien Ort 10'0 am .rad 5.1004 imormed SPOUSES OR 0TH- 1808 N .STH ST of (58004448-003 ER 54.72. S; FORT PIERCE. Fl odnp p«e •Mer m D Nedant• NM]JOM wrwant parson or my tale - 501750000 of ;Ago TSl,6 c5ne von moa - /nice is - i .SPEEDY MO- Tnv mvetin9. wr•u•m Lo 001E TOWING •ybnecesarytr Summa Flnal r rvn the ryht (,mond_. necessary to e dement 7 For. ,�:w i. «I .ray Co lt(>11,5411,e 10:00 s electronic »a8l,Ae oantinrellw a corn. l offer OWOMINN TEN HIS e11642STHS E: BUSINEAO TM01 A C1' OF01 STATES CA W BANK CE550 ER TO BANK ASSO 23'0 ER'S CO iuH xfi, onto in lnia Nem peno3 decides curtm cHwit 1Nwko1myc1066o n portal my aeci- al 51. Lucie NISSAN de wllh rat County, .Il 6.11 lee Publish: 6epnmber a IarY shall sell M1v A• 301. dn�ldaenrol= ^'perry alwateE In TCN2 NOTICE OOK Y su h DIr- 6t . de Ced 504M sAO0JE ted of the ed Roddy d•awibd u: goose(' Nri1e iv herery glw Irl end wch penan BLOCK to m hg by need to rn,ury en Oaobe) m Y PORT 6T LUUE SEF 2 10:00 AM. that a verb 31,0 re 141: i6riewm m a mom 41 m. .n.i ob e w home and oll her 0 b mace at hi, or m r I prawny 1. her 3 ,.0160' e 'e 596.1 will 4, d wAid I« 4 in dd n WNi::tion dutles the tsnim.n5 for oam 10 ., a tl • Id once o wli<h the • .+I i, stars lana In appeal )36.Banca wirh FS. bred 109: 19]4 PARK I: 83A1,71 and S.St and It accordance with 'It1]8]25 ata by provisions al the 110)0, )50 8 0 4210,84 , .5 Die. le 51 ,.mina Raaf, hilitiaa 30 eny leen St. Lucie, Fl eon nTuinnp_n«nal 2; ❑n T.n.no. .went .damn. r 5.1'b:'bdr1 °1 4✓0 el5is 010. ne 0 Wynne Building Cor- Ing Anuld p Stion, 000 510 m°� 1116b4M2T3 in non Si 25095, FL alar loll Ire. al 1- T; raxd3s-ssty 8608] 00 le 01 y yl,pn Pubo: 9/22/14 6 101515. 4a34. n9n4 nustings. INC. (INACTIVE MERGEE0 WOO PIP ER's LANDING, INC, reit "5"5120 253°05°M, LAND IRO RS ERTY OWNERS *880CIA- TION, ING; MARTIN COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COIdM15- SIONERS, MAPTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA, 11:14,"v3:117:7.r. ,, incl penvr 05050041 yyo4 da011,1 b IHr cy n .r rynoo1N1le bor.'- Deds Ohs.'" s, meama. NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE SALE NOTICE n t .1Pr' 5, 401 M1 1C' I C 1 Dated this 22nd day MICHAEL J. BELLE, AM RdA Sarasota. F.+ Tekp Mg, ggs Panlmi1e: Mel -034 BY/✓M'055meel J. Michael J. B✓k bquira 2.6,516. ifb2da 800 810002 DESIGNATED PRIMARY E-MAIL SERVICE P855UAM TO FLA RAID. ADMIN. 2.516 Notice micla PelY Persons with Disabilities: 11 dwa5 • dl,eMery`wM10 d try TH00RE 708110 RE - 05 CN COUNTY, FlORI- . 0 9636 SW CADET 11(5.IE, F505L SO*SAI031 NT 1AC- n 51541and I.. 3 M4 far c„A, online ctio elearOnic elle g 1d]an Octo- ber 1YM begin- ning 410800 AM. 1funds remains to RII the remaining my sfik a *aim with ,becert rt3+[811 n e9 cavea ane te sale n you Mil woi111inoot beentitledio Try nmwni g b1d,. 4.630 n Sl. Pegan- 2 39,6Ied is Y thin TU62648319 '"oh u nnylpnd Forme Comma) 0.0,035. POOUSII: NOTICE OF MEETING St, Lucie News Tribune 0899131810N6.114 M2451121 511NNYL.05D FARMS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NOTICE OF LANDOWNERS MEETING AND Cons Clfr Gwtlndm for carer Oppo unlves mi._ SCRIPPS SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST NEWSPAPERS Indian River Press Journal 1801 U.S. 1, Vero Beach, FL 32960 AFFIDAVIT OF PUBLICATION STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Before the undersigned authority personally appeared, Michael Merone, who on oath says that he is Classified Sales Assistant of the Indian River Press Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement was publshed in the Indian River Press Journal in the following issues below. Affiant further says that the said Indian River Press Journal is a newspaper published in Vero Beach in said Indian River County, Florida, and that said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, daily and distributed in Indian River County, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid or promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. The Indian River Press Journal has been entered as Periodical Matter at the Post Offices in Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida and has been for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement. Ad Pub Customer Number Date Copyline PO # (D. A. INDIAN RIVER CO PLANNING 2650869 9/29/2014 PUBLIC HEARING 10-14-14 RESERVE Sworn to 9,nd subscribed before me this day of, September 29, 2014, by , who is Michael Merone [X] personally known to me or [ ] who has produced as identification. Mary T. Byrne rn7 MARY T BYRNE Notary Public - State of Florida ty Comm. Expires Aug 2.2018 Commission / FF 142429 Notary Public NEWSPAPER E -Sheet® LEGAL NOTICE ATTACHED DO NOT SEPARATE PAGES ORIGINAL TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM Joseph A. Baird; County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: `N d Stan Boling, AICP; G6munity Development Director John W. McCoy, AICP; Senior Planner, Current Development October 2, 2014 PUBLIC HEARING PDMXD REZONING QUASI-JUDICIAL SR 60 Vero, LLC's Request to Rezone Approximately 19.99 Acres from RM -8 Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units per acres) to Planned Development Mixed Use District (PDMXD) and to Obtain Conceptual PD Plan and Concurrent Preliminary PD Plan Approval for a Project Known as The Reserve at Vero Beach [98010178- 72229 / PD -14-06-04] It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its meeting of October 14, 2014. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: This is a request by SR 60 Vero, LLC, through its agent Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., to rezone approximately 19.99 acres from RM -8, Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units per acres) to PDMXD (Planned Development Mixed Use District). As part of the rezoning request, a conceptual PD plan has been submitted for the overall site and preliminary PD plan. The applicant is requesting concurrent approval. The site of the proposed mixed use development is located between SR60 on the north, College Lane on the south, Century Town Center/Olive Garden on the east and Sixty Oaks on the west. In 2005, the subject site was approved for multi -family residential development, was substantially cleared, but was not developed. The site is currently vacant. The purpose of this request is to secure a zoning district and an approved conceptual PD plan that allows development of a mixed use project containing a mixture of residential and commercial uses. In this instance, the proposed conceptual PD design contains 3 commercial parcels integrated with multi -family residential development. Planning and Zoning Commission Action: At its meeting of September 11, 2014, the Planning & Zoning Commission (PZC) voted 5-1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners (Board) approve the project as recommended by staff, with an added condition (see attachment #3). That added "condition" was that additional evidence be presented to the Board with respect to project traffic impacts, especially impacts on the 58th Avenue/SR60 intersection. To address the PZC's added condition, additional information has been provided in the traffic analysis section of this staff report and in attachment #4. In addition, the applicant's traffic engineer and the Public Works Director will be available at the Board's October 14th hearing to discuss project impacts. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 1 166 t • Planned Development Rezoning Totaling approximately 19.99 acres, the project site is located adjacent to a major Thoroughfare Plan road (SR 60), is designated M-1 (Medium Density Residential up to 8 units/acre), and is adjacent to a C/I (Commercial/Industrial) node to the east and a Regional Commercial node to the north. As allowed under the county's mixed use policies and regulations, the applicant is proposing to rezone the entire area to PDMXD, a mixed use planned development zoning district. Based on Objective 5 of the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, the proposed project is subject to specific mixed use criteria and is required to be reviewed through the Planned Development (PD) rezoning process. The PD Zoning District Generally In the past, the county has reviewed and approved PD rezonings involving both residential, non-residential, and TND (Traditional Neighborhood Design) projects. Those include: Wal-Mart/Sams, Hedin Commercial, Magi Mini Storage, Randall Mini Storage, Ansley Park, Arbor Trace, Old Orchid Groves, Pointe West, Liberty Park, and Providence Pointe. The PD mixed use district concept is similar to the PD Traditional Neighborhood Design (PDTND), but smaller in scale and with fewer design criteria. The Family Dollar Gifford mixed use development is the most recent and first mixed use PD approval to date. Unlike standard zoning districts, PD districts have no specific lot size or dimensional criteria. Instead, the PD district is based on the underlying land use plan designation for density, use, and compatibility. Sites located on less than 40 acres in areas designated L-1, L-2, M-1, and M-2 may be considered for PDMXD rezoning if located along US 1, Indian River Blvd., 58th Avenue, CR510 (west of the Indian River Lagoon), Oslo Road, or SR 60. Additionally, mixed use PDs may be approved on sites designated M-1 and M-2 if such sites are adjacent to C/I nodes. In this case, the subject site is designated M-1, fronts SR 60, and is adjacent to a C/I node. In a PD zoning district, setbacks and other typical zoning district criteria are established on a site -by -site basis through approval of a conceptual PD plan that is adopted as part of the PD rezoning ordinance. The conceptual PD plan, which in this case includes a mixed use design, serves as the zoning standard for the site. Thus, a PD rezoning establishes a unique PD district that is consistent with the site's underlying land use designation(s) and applicable land use policies, and is governed by a binding conceptual PD plan. In this case, the conceptual PD plan proposes 159 multi -family residential units and 3 commercial parcels containing a 4,876 sq. ft. fast food restaurant with a drive through, a 7,200 sq. ft. retail building, and a 6,242 sq. ft. sit down restaurant. The proposed commercial uses can be modified in the future if the new use is consistent with the mixed use criteria for commercial uses. Aspects of the proposed conceptual PD plan, including satisfaction of Objective 5 mixed use policies and criteria, are addressed in the "plan analysis" section of this report. The PD Rezoning Process The PD rezoning review, approval, and development process is as follows: STEP 1. Rezoning and Conceptual PD Plan Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff and by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Final action taken by the Board of County Commissioners. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 2 167 STEP 2. Preliminary PD Plan/Plat (combination of site plan and preliminary plat) Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Must comply with the approved conceptual PD plan and any conditions imposed by the Board at the time of PD zoning approval (Step 1). STEP 3. Land Development Permit or Permit Waiver: Reviewed and issued by staff for construction of subdivision improvements (road, utilities, drainage). STEP 4. Building Permit(s): Reviewed and issued by staff for construction of buildings. STEP 5. Final PD plat Approval: Review and recommendation made by staff. Final action taken by the Board of County Commissioners. STEP 6. Certificate of Occupancy: Reviewed and issued by staff for use and occupancy of buildings. At this time, the applicant is pursuing approval of Steps 1 and 2. If approved by the Board, the rezoning, conceptual PD, and preliminary PD plan will be approved. The applicant has indicted that, in the future, there may be minor design modifications on the eastern and western commercial parcels based on additional information from the end users of those two parcels. Any modifications to the preliminary PD plan will need to be consistent with the approved conceptual PD plan and mixed use criteria. Once a conceptual PD plan is approved, minor modifications to the conceptual plan can be approved at a staff level. Any proposed changes that would intensify the site use (e.g. increase the maximum building area or density) or reduce compatibility elements (e.g. reduced buffering) may be approved only via a process involving public hearings held by both the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. Proposed PD District for the Project Site Because this is a mixed use project, Objective 5 of the County's Comprehensive Plan and section 915.20 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) control the allowed uses and density of the subject property. As with all mixed use PD's, the proposed PDMXD zoning district and corresponding conceptual plan set the limits on the type and location of specific uses, the intensity and location of development, and certain project design elements. Although PD zoning district parameters are flexible, certain standards related to uses, compatibility (buffering), infrastructure improvements, dimensional criteria and open space apply to all PDs. Those standards are set forth in Chapter 915 (P.D. Ordinance) of the county's LDRs. Based on the proposed conceptual PD plan, the proposed PD district for the subject site complies with applicable mixed use policies and regulations and contains special mixed use design elements. The proposed retail, restaurant, and fast food commercial uses and residential uses are consistent with and are subject to Section 915.20 mixed use criteria. Those criteria are provided in the analysis section of this report along with an analysis of the proposed project's compliance with those criteria. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 3 168 REZONING ANALYSIS: L. Existing Zoning and Land Use Pattern The subject project site consists of approximately 19.99 acres located on the south side of SR 60. The site was previously cleared based on a previous site plan approval, with groupings of native trees and a conservation area remaining. To the north of the subject site, directly across SR 60 is Lowes home improvement store. The Lowes site is zoned CG, General Commercial and has an RC, Regional Commercial land use designation. To the south, across College Lane is property owned by Indian River State Collage (IRSC), which includes the Indian River Charter High School Campus as well as IRSC facilities. Those properties are zoned RM - 6, Residential Multi -Family (up to 6 units/acre) and have an M-1 Medium Density (up to 8 units/acre) land use designation. To the west of the subject site is Sixty Oaks planned development, which is an attached single family residential planned development containing 60 lots. The Sixty Oaks site is zoned RM -6, Residential Multi - Family (up to 6 units/acre). To the east of the subject site is the Century Town Center shopping center and Olive Garden restaurant which are zoned CG, General Commercial and have a C/I Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with the policies of the comprehensive plan and must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Those include agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and residential densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan that identify the actions that the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives. Land Use Policy 1.4: Indian River County's land development regulations shall, through various means, ensure that adjacent land uses are compatible. Those means shall include, but not be limited to, use of the following: • vegetative buffers; • setbacks; • open space; • physical separation; • regulation of lighting; • regulation of hours of operation; and • regulation of access. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 4 169 Note: The proposed rezoning/conceptual PD plan meets or exceeds applicable land development regulations and provides special setbacks, buffers, open spaces, and aesthetic improvements to ensure compatibility internally and externally. Those project design elements are guaranteed via the binding conceptual PD plan and proposed PDMXD zoning. Land Use Policy 5.3: Indian River County zoning districts shall permit a variety of residential building and development styles. Note: The proposed rezoning/PD conceptual plan provides for an appropriate type of residential buildings and housing within the project that will be conveniently integrated with an adjacent commercial uses. Land Use Policy 5.5: Indian River County LDRs shall contain a special Planned Development (PD) zoning district. That district shall be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD zoning district is intended to provide for the development of projects which require flexibility in order to maximize open space and conserve natural features, provide alternative designs, incorporate recreational facilities, and incorporate a mix of uses. Note: The proposed PDMXD zoning implements this policy by proposing a mixture of uses within an integrated design that provides an alternative to conventional, separate, single use projects. Land Use Policy 9.3: Indian River County shall maintain plans along roads that serve as entranceways to the county and along other roads, as determined by the county. The county shall continue to implement the recommendations of the Other Corridor Plan and the SR 60 Corridor Plan. Note: The entire development, including residential portions of the project as well as the commercial component, implements improvements and architectural design guidelines consistent with the SR 60 Corridor Plan. Policy 5.7: PDs shall be permitted throughout the county, without amendment of the future land use map, provided the proposed development is shown to be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. PDs shall be consistent with the maximum density permitted by the future land use map unless density bonuses are permitted consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 5.8. Note: The proposed PD is consistent with the maximum density for M-1 designated property and is consistent with Comprehensive Plan mixed use policies. Compatibility with Surrounding Areas The parcels immediately east, west, north across SR 60, and south across College Lane are all developed. Therefore, the subject project site is an infill parcel. As an infill mixed use project, the layout and project design provide a transition from the more intense commercial uses to the north and east to the residential and institutional uses to the west and south of the project site. The conceptual PD plan design locates 3 commercial parcels on the north side of the site, along the site's SR 60 frontage. Those commercial parcels have a north/south depth of approximately 300' with the remaining overall site depth (approximately 980') to the south devoted to multi -family residential uses. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 5 170 The existing Sixty Oaks residential development immediately west of the subject site will be the most �•" affected adjacent property and it is along the project's west property line where compatibility measures are most concentrated. Along the north 300' of the west perimeter, where a commercial parcel (use) is proposed, the conceptual PD plan provides a 35' wide buffer and a 99' building setback. The 35' buffer includes an existing ditch (to remain), vegetation to be preserved, and specially enhanced Type "B" buffer plantings with a 6' opaque feature. In addition, a special use restriction is recommended by staff for the western commercial parcel. That restriction, if approved, would prohibit a fast food restaurant with a drive-through facility on the commercial parcel (Lot 1) that will abut Sixty Oaks. In staff's opinion, such restriction would prevent potential adverse impacts on Sixty Oaks relating to noise and odor from queued vehicles, and make the requested rezoning more compatible with the abutting, existing use. To the south of the project's proposed commercial area, along the west property line, an existing heavily vegetated conservation easement area will be maintained and surrounded by a newly planted 15' wide upland buffer. The conservation area varies in width from 69' to 120' and is approximately 450' in length. Along the west perimeter, south of the conservation area and upland buffer, a multi -family residential area is proposed with a 25' Type "B" buffer and a 6' opaque feature. The conceptual PD plan provides a 25' setback between the west boundary and an adjacent residential parking lot area, and provides a 105' setback to the closest residential building. The south 150' of the west perimeter includes a 25' Type "B" buffer with 6' opaque feature and a dry detention area (green space). Along the north (SR 60) and south (College Lane) perimeters, standard arterial roadway landscape buffers will be provided. Along the east perimeter, where the proposed residential development is adjacent to L, Century Town Center, a 25' wide Type "B" buffer will be provided. Along the northern portion of the east perimeter, where the proposed commercial is adjacent to the Olive Garden site, a local road buffer is provided. Concurrency Impacts Consistent with county requirements, the applicant conducted a conditional concurrency review to evaluate potential project impacts on various facilities, including roads, water and sewer service, and other systems. In this case, the conditional concurrency review indicated that there will be adequate facilities in place to accommodate project impacts, subject to the conditions contained in this report's recommendation. Further concurrency determinations will be required at the time of permitting for each phase or building. Environmental Impacts Environmental issues are addressed in the analysis section of this report. PD PLAN AND PDMXD ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Site: 19.99 acres 2. Zoning Classifications: Current: RM -8, Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units per acre) Proposed: PDMXD, Planned Development Mixed Use District 3. Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density 1 — Residential (up to 8 units per acre) F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 6 171 4. Buildings Proposed: Lot 1 (Western) 6,242 sq. ft. (sit down restaurant) Lot 2 (Center) 7,200 sq. ft. (retail building) Lot 3 (Eastern) 4,876 (fast food with drive-thru) Note: The residential (southern) portion of the project includes seven (3 story) multi -family buildings, 1 clubhouse building, and garage buildings. 5. Total Residential Units: 6. Density: Proposed: Allowed: 7. Surrounding Land Uses: 159 units (maximum allowed under MXD policies) 8 units/acre 8 units/acre North: SR 60, Lowes / CG South: College Lane, Charter High School, IRSC / RM -6 East: Century Town Center Shopping Center, Olive Garden / CG West: Sixty Oaks / RM -6 8. Open Space and Recreation: Open space and PD recreation area requirements will be exceeded through the provision of common open space. Recreation Area: Required: 1.09 acres (7.5%) Provided: 1.73 acres (11.8%) Note: The recreation area will be provided by clubhouse facilities, upland preservation area, play areas, and pedestrian paths. Open Space: Required: 40% Provided: 41% Note: The open space required figure is based on the M-1 land use designation criteria, and exceeds the required open space for commercial zoning districts (25%). 9. Phasing: The project is divided into two overall phases. Phase I includes the commercial buildings on Lots 1 and 3, and two of the residential buildings (Buildings A-5 and B-1) totaling 39 residential units. Phase II will consist of the commercial development on Lot 2 and the remaining 120 residential units. Lot 2, in combination with Lots 1 and 3, will exceed 3 acres of commercial area and, under mixed use policy criteria, cannot be developed without development of at least 25% (40 units) of the project's residential units. 10. Landscaping and Buffering: A landscape and buffer plan has been reviewed and approved for the subject site. With respect to buffering, the plan depicts buffer types, locations, and the physical width and components of the buffers on all of the project's perimeters. In this instance, a Type "B" buffer or equivalent is proposed along the west perimeter where multi -family development is proposed adjacent to Sixty Oaks. The buffer will either be a planted 25' wide Type "B" buffer or a preservation area which will vary in width from 60' to 120'. Along the west property line, where the commercial is proposed adjacent to Sixty Oaks, a 35' wide enhanced Type "B" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is provided. In that buffer, the shrub and understory tree planting quantities will be increased to meet the Type "A" buffer standards. For the north and south perimeters, 25' wide arterial road landscape strips are proposed (along College Lane and SR 60). F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 7 172 Along the east property line, where the commercial lot is proposed adjacent to the existing Olive Garden site, a 10' wide local road landscape strip is proposed. The remainder of the east property line, where the multi -family is proposed adjacent to the Century Town Center, a 25' wide Type "B" buffer is proposed. In addition, the plan adequately addresses interior landscape requirements such as lakeshore trees around the project's stormwater pond, street trees, parking lot landscaping, and common area landscaping. 11. Parking: Required Proposed Lot 1 Restaurant 84 126 Lot 2 Retail 36 38 Lot 3 Restaurant 65 75 Multi -Family 318 342 Total 503 581 Note: For the multi -family development, 32 of the proposed spaces are proposed as garage spaces. 12. Traffic Circulation: The conceptual PD plan provides two driveways to public streets and a driveway inter -connection with the commercial property to the east. There is a 26' wide two-way driveway proposed on SR 60, which will allow right-in/right-out movement. The SR 60 driveway will be served by an east bound right -turn lane. A median divided driveway is proposed to College Lane with 14' wide in bound and out bound lanes. The College Lane driveway is a full movement driveway and will be served by a west bound right -turn lane. A 25' two-way driveway connection is proposed to connect to the commercial parcel to the east. The driveway connection is located south of proposed commercial parcel #3 and the Olive Garden. That connection will tie into a driveway stub -out constructed during development of Century Town Center. As proposed, the project's commercial uses and residential uses will be inter -connected via a main north/south driveway (connects to SR 60) and an east -west driveway (connects to Century Town Center). No part of the development is proposed to be gated. The driveway designs and locations, internal circulation plan, project traffic study, and proposed off-site improvements have been approved by Traffic Engineering and Fire Prevention. To address the PZC's recommendation regarding the project's impact on the SR60/58th Avenue intersection, the approved project driveway trip assignment sketch has been attached to this report (attachment #4). In addition, planning staff has re -confirmed with Traffic Engineering that, based on the County's traffic impact study requirements and data provided in the approved traffic study, an intersection analysis for the SR60/58th Avenue intersection is not required (see attachment #4, table 2). Also, Traffic Engineering re -confirmed that the northbound to westbound left turning movement at the SR60/58th Avenue intersection should be relieved to some degree by recent improvements to 66th Avenue, and that access to the project site from College Lane is a logical alternative for northbound traffic on 58th Avenue. 13. Dedications and Improvements: Transit stop: The applicant has coordinated with MPO staff and is providing a transit stop and shelter at an approved location along the site's SR 60 frontage. In addition, sidewalk improvements are proposed along the site's SR 60 frontage and within the project so as to provide convenient pedestrian access between the commercial and residential uses within the project and the proposed SR 60 transit stop and shelter. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 8 173 - Other Required Roadway Improvements: The approved traffic impact analysis indicates that the following site related traffic improvements are required: a) An east bound right -turn lane is required on SR 60 at the project driveway. The right -turn lane must be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in phase I. b) A west bound right -turn lane is required on College Lane at the project driveway. The right -turn lane must be constructed prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy in phase I. External Sidewalks: A 5' wide sidewalk is required along the site's College Lane frontage, and the applicant is proposing to build other off-site sidewalks on the north side of College Lane to the east of the subject site. That off-site work will result in a continuous sidewalk segment from the subject site to the north/south sidewalk on 58th Avenue. There is an existing sidewalk along the subject site's SR 60 frontage that will be maintained through the course of project construction. Internal Pedestrian System: The development will have an internal sidewalk system that will link all of the uses and provide pedestrian access within the project for residents and commercial customers. That system will connect commercial and multi -family buildings to other buildings and to sidewalks at project entrances. In addition, the internal pedestrian system will be connected to the external pedestrian system along College Lane, SR 60, the SR 60 transit stop and shelter, and to Century Town Center. 14. Stormwater Management: The preliminary stormwater plan proposes multiple dry detention areas and a single stormwater treatment pond that outfalls to a canal on the south side of SR 60. The preliminary plan has been approved by Public Works. Prior to release of the preliminary PD plan, the applicant will be required to submit detailed plans and obtain a Type "B" stormwater permit. 15. Utilities: The entire development will be served by county water and sewer. Those utility provisions are consistent with applicable LDRs, and have been approved by the Department of Utility Services and the Health Department. The developer will need to obtain a land development permit or waiver and utility permits prior to construction of the each phase. 16. Concurrency: As required under the county's concurrency regulations, the applicant has applied for and obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project. The concurrency certificate was issued based upon a concurrency analysis and a determination that adequate capacity was available to serve this project at the time of the determination. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the developer will be required to obtain a final concurrency certificate in accordance with county concurrency regulations. 17. Environmental Issues: • Uplands: Since the site is over 5 acres, the native upland set aside criteria of section 929.05 apply. In this instance, the subject site was approved in 2005 for a residential development and the site was cleared consistent with the approved project design and upland set aside area for F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 9 174 that project. At that time, the native upland set aside was determined, a .91 acre area was preserved, and an upland conservation easement was established. The conservation area is rectangular in shape, is located along the west property line, and will remain in place and serve as part of the buffer between the subject site and Sixty Oaks. • Wetlands: Based on a survey of the subject site and staff verification, there are no jurisdictional wetlands on the subject site. Consequently, no wetland regulations apply. • Tree Preservation/Mitigation: After the 2005 residential project was reviewed and approved, the subject site was substantially cleared, tree mitigation for that project was addressed, and the conservation easement was established. Two specimen trees were preserved based on the previous project design that will now need to be removed based on the proposed mixed use design. The two specimen trees to be removed are located outside of the conservation easement. Removal of those trees is allowed under County regulations subject to mitigation. In this case, mitigation will involve the planting of 24 additional canopy trees on-site. The mitigation trees will need to be planted prior to the issuance of the project's first C.O. 18. Corridor Architectural Requirements: SR 60 corridor criteria apply to the commercial and residential buildings within the project. With respect to the commercial portion of the project, architectural building elevations have been provided to document consistency with corridor criteria. In addition to the corridor criteria, all buildings within the project share common architectural elements, including slope roofs, natural stone finishes, and some common colors. Consequently, the commercial buildings will have aesthetic characteristics that blend with the project's residential buildings as opposed to what is typical for stand-alone "strip" commercial buildings. Finally, the three proposed commercial buildings are designed to "front" on internal north/south driveways rather than fronting east/west along SR 60 in a typical strip commercial orientation. 19. Planned Development Waivers: Through the planned development process, the applicant can request a variety of design based waivers from the land development regulations (LDRs). In this case, the applicant is not requesting any design waivers but is going through the planned development (PD) process to meet mixed use regulations and commit to certain design parameters and public benefits provided by the project. 20. Public Benefits: For all PD projects, applicants must identify the public benefits that the project will provide in exchange for requested waivers or incentives being sought by the applicant. For the Reserve at Vero Beach Mixed Use, the public benefits are as follows: Right -of -Way Dedications: None are required as proposed with this development. Off-site College Lane Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to build an off-site sidewalk improvement that fills in the existing College Lane sidewalk gap between the subject site and the 58th Avenue sidewalk. This off-site improvement will provide pedestrian access for residents and commercial customers of the subject project as well as students from the adjacent charter school and nearby IRSC Mueller Campus. This improvement provides for the project's integration into the area's existing/planned pedestrian system. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 10 175 Transit Stop & Shelter: The applicant will be responsible for providing a transit stop and shelter on SR 60 in front of the commercial uses at a location and in a manner approved by MPO staff. Provision of the stop/shelter will integrate the project into the public transportation system. The transit stop and shelter must be constructed or funds escrowed for construction prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for the project's first phase. 21. Mixed Use (MXD) Criteria: Section 915.20 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs) has the following criteria for mixed use developments: (1) Mixed use P.D.s shall be approved through the P.D. rezoning process. Note: The applicant has applied for a PD rezoning, and the application is being processed through the PD rezoning process. Development Parameters (2) The maximum project area for a mixed use P.D. in a residentially designated area shall be forty (40) acres. Mixed use projects exceeding forty (40) acres shall be designed as Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) developments and shall comply with the requirements of section 915.21 Note: The subject site is 19.99 acres in size which meets this criterion. (3) Mixed use P.D.s shall be limited to areas designated L-1, L-2, M-1, and M-2 and shall be located along SR 60, US 1, Indian River Blvd., 58th Avenue, CR 510 (west of the Indian River Lagoon), CR 512, or Oslo Road. Additionally, mixed use P.D.s in M-1 and M-2 designated areas may be located on sites that are adjacent to C/I nodes. Note: The subject site is located on SR 60 in an area designated M-1, and is adjacent to an existing Commercial/Industrial node that abuts the eastern perimeter of the project site. Mix of Uses (4) To ensure that mixed use P.D.s contain an appropriate mix of residential and commercial uses, commercial uses shall be allowed to constitute no more than twenty-five (25) percent of a project's land area, except as modified below in subsection (5), where uses are vertically mixed. Note: The applicant has provided calculations that demonstrate the proposed commercial area is limited to less than 25% of the project's land area. (5) The vertical mixing of uses is allowed and strongly encouraged. Where residential and/or office uses are designed and located above commercial uses, the amount of commercial area may constitute up to thirty (30) percent of the project's land area. Note: Vertical mixing of uses is not required, and is not proposed with this application. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 11 176 (6) For purposes of these mixed use regulations, commercial area shall include buildings, parking areas, and adjacent improvements that serve commercial uses. Open space areas and common areas/improvements that are shared with residential uses, however, shall not be treated as commercial area. Note: The area proposed for commercial development is consistent with this criterion. (7) Commercial uses allowed in mixed-use P.D.s shall be limited to lodging, institutional, office, retail (excluding gas stations but including fuel sales), personal services, and restaurant uses. Note: In this case, the applicant is proposing restaurant and retail uses which are consistent with this criterion. (8) Drive -up windows are permitted for banks and pharmacies or similar retail uses. Drive -up windows shall be designed to not impede pedestrian access to any buildings. Drive-thru and drive -up facilities for restaurants are allowed in mixed use P.D.s, subject to the following criteria: a. Drive-through facilities shall be designed to not "wrap around" more than two (2) sides of the restaurant building and to not adversely impact safe and convenient pedestrian access from adjacent residential areas, public sidewalks, and parking areas that serve the restaurant. b. Project designs shall provide conspicuous and well -articulated pedestrian routes clearly signed and marked by decorative paving, textured or colored paving, or similar means. c. Drive-through facilities shall not be located adjacent to an off-site property with an existing residential use, a residential zoning, or a residential land use designation. d. Drive-through facilities shall be visually screened from adjacent public roads and major access driveways. e. Order boards for the drive-through facilities shall be located to minimize noise impacts on adjacent residential uses within the mixed use PD and outside the PD. f. Outdoor lighting shall be designed to minimize impacts on adjacent residential uses within the mixed use PD and outside the PD. Note: The applicant proposes one restaurant with a drive-thru which is located as far east as possible (450') from the existing Sixty Oaks development, the only nearby existing residential area. In addition, the proposed drive thru is proposed 200' away from the closest residential unit within the proposed development. The applicant has provided a design which meets the criteria above, including well -articulated pedestrian routes from project sidewalks and parking areas to the commercial building. Additional details will be provided with an updated site plan for this parcel, and those details will be evaluated against the above criteria. (9) Within mixed use P.D.s, the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for commercial uses shall be applied to the commercial area. For the commercial area, the maximum FAR shall be 0.35. Note: The proposed floor area ratio (FAR) for the commercial use is substantially less than .35. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 12 177 (10) Within mixed use P.D.s, the maximum number of allowable residential units shall be derived by applying the applicable comprehensive plan land use designation maximum density to the entire area of the project and, in addition, may include any applicable density bonuses provided in other sections of the land development regulations. Note: The proposed maximum density for the site's PDMXD zoning is 8 units/acre which allows up to 159 units, the number of residential units proposed. (11) Within mixed use P.D.s, commercial areas may be situated internal to the project or may be located along a project's boundary, where such boundary abuts CA -designated property or a road designated in the comprehensive plan as a collector or arterial roadway. Where commercial uses are situated adjacent to residential uses located outside the project, buffering and compatibility improvements shall be provided in accordance with subsection 915.16(2). In addition, the design of nonresidential buildings adjacent to residential uses located outside the project shall comply with the requirements of paragraph (16) below. Note: The commercial use is located adjacent to SR 60 (Thoroughfare Plan road) on the project's north side. On the west side, where the commercial use is adjacent to a residential use outside of the proposed PD, a 35' wide specially enhanced Type "B" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is proposed, consistent with the above criteria. Along all other commercial perimeters, the project borders commercially designated properties. Where residential uses are proposed, the project perimeter is adjacent to other residentially designated properties except for the east perimeter, which is commercial. The paragraph 16 criteria are addressed below. Therefore, the location and design of the project's proposed commercial development complies with applicable criteria. (12) On -street parking along internal streets shall be allowed within mixed use projects. Note: No on -street parking is proposed. (13) All mixed use P.D.s shall be designed to include at least one (1) transit stop within the project. Note: A transit stop and shelter are proposed along the sites' SR 60 frontage and will need to be in place or funds escrowed for construction prior to the issuance of a C.O. for phase I. Building Design and Setbacks (14) Within mixed use P.D.s, common architectural themes, common hardscape and signage themes, and multiple pedestrian connections shall be provided to integrate nonresidential uses with residential uses. Common architectural themes shall apply to both commercial and residential areas of the project. Note: The project has been designed to meet this criterion by providing common architectural themes for commercial and residential buildings. While the final architectural plans for two of the three proposed commercial buildings are being finalized, the conceptual PD plan proposes common architectural themes that will apply, and the conceptual architectural elevations for those two buildings reflect the common theme. As the elevations are F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 13 178 finalized, more details will be provided and will be reviewed for compliance with this mixed use criterion. Prior to site plan release, final building elevations will need to be approved by staff. (15) Within mixed use P.D.s, no individual commercial building shall exceed twenty-five thousand (25,000) square feet in commercial floor area. Lodging uses are exempt from this limitation. Note: The largest proposed commercial building has a floor area of 7,200 sq. ft., which is less than the 25,000 limit. (16) Where a nonresidential building in a mixed use P.D. is situated adjacent to residential buildings located outside the project, the nonresidential buildings shall be designed to be compatible with nearby residential buildings. The scale of such nonresidential buildings may be minimized by articulating the building's mass, using sloped roofs instead flat roofs, and/or by planting canopy trees around the building's perimeter. Perimeter buffers may be waived where residential uses within a mixed use P.D. are situated adjacent to similar residential uses located outside the project. Note: The PD plan proposes 3 commercial building which range in size from 4,876 sq. ft. to 7,200 sq. ft. The building closest to Sixty Oaks is proposed to be a single story 6,242 sq. ft. building compared to "duplex" style buildings in Sixty Oaks of roughly 4,000 sq. ft. each. All of the commercial buildings are proposed to be single story and have a smaller size and building mass than many of the multi -family buildings in the SR 60 corridor. Street Network (17) Each mixed use P.D. shall offer alternative routes and connections between destinations within the project, and to appropriate uses on adjacent sites, by designing and constructing a street network that consists of a grid or modified grid pattern and stub -outs or connections to adjacent sites. Note: The site will provide vehicular connections at the north, south, and east perimeters. No inter -connection to Sixty Oaks is proposed due to the Sixty Oaks design and plat. (18) The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and pathways. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than concentrate it. Sidewalks shall be provided on both sides of project streets. Note: The project will have driveway connections to SR 60, College Lane, and the commercial shopping center to the east to distribute and diffuse both the project's commercial and residential traffic. In addition, the project's internal and external sidewalk systems will connect to the proposed transit stop/shelter located along the site's SR 60 frontage. (19) Street trees shall be provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer sidewalk areas from automobile traffic. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 14 179 • Note: Although there are no internal streets, "street trees" will be provided along project driveways. Timing of Construction (20) In each mixed use P.D., construction of no more than three (3) acres or fifty (50) percent of the total commercial area allowed, whichever is greater, shall be constructed until at least twenty-five (25) percent of the proposed residential development (units or lots) has been constructed, and no certificate of occupancy shall be issued for commercial area exceeding three (3) acres or fifty (50) percent of the total commercial area allowed, whichever is greater, unless at Least twenty-five (25) percent of the total residential development has received certificates of occupancy or certificate of completion. Note: The applicant is proposing to construct the commercial buildings on Lots 1 and 3 in the first phase which totals less than 3 acres of commercial. The applicant will commence construction on at least 25% (40 units) of the total number of project residential units prior to release of the site plan/building permit for commercial Lot 2. The proposed development timing meets this criterion. Based on the above analysis, staff has determined that the proposed PDMXD zoning and conceptual PD plan meet all applicable mixed use criteria. 22. Reverter to Original Zoning: The PD rezoning ordinance will contain a reverter clause which will return all of the subject property to its original RM -8 zoning if construction has not commenced within 7 years of the conceptual PD plan approval date. Once project construction starts, the PDMXD zoning will be permanent, unless rezoned by the Board. All conditions recommended by staff have been accepted by the applicant, except that the applicant does not agree with recommended condition #4 which would prohibit a fast-food restaurant with a drive-through on the proposed commercial lot (Lot 1) that will abut Sixty Oaks. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the oard of County Commissioners approve the proposed Planned Development Mixed Use District (P XD) rezoning and the conceptual PD plan, with the following conditions: /.S6 PAGE 181.14 1. Prior to site plan release, the;applicant shall obtain staff approval of the final architectural elevations for all proposed structures. 2. Prior to the issuan, of the first certificate of occupancy (C.O.) the applicant shall: a. Insta11/611 required on-site mitigation trees. b. Cquriplete all landscape and opaque feature improvements along the project site's stfitire west property line, as depicted on the approved conceptual PD plan. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 15 180 c. Construct a sidewalk along the overall site's entire College Lane frontage and repair the site's SR 60 sidewalk if so required by Public Works. d. Install the west bound right turn lane on College Lane at the project's entrance, install the east bound right -turn lane on SR 60 at the project's entrance, and obtain Public Work's approval of turn lane construction. e. Install or escrow for construction of the proposed transit stop/shelter along the project's SR 60 frontage. f. Install the off-site sidewalk segments along College Lane between the project site and 5811' Avenue. 3 -Ea PA Ca E ,IA 3. The Reserve at Vero Beach project site shall revert to its original RM -8 zoning if project construction has not commenced within 7 years of the approval of the conceptual PD plan and PDMXD rezoning.. 4. Any fast food re, talurant with a drive through is restricted to the easternmost and middle commercial pfcels (commercial Lots 2 and 3). 5. Const ion on commercial Lot 2 shall not commence until construction has started on 25% 40 units) of the project's total number of residential units. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Approved Minutes from September 11, 2014 Planning & Zoning Commission Meeting 4. Traffic Summary 5. Rezoning Ordinance 6. Building Elevations (Commercial and Residential) 7. Conceptual Plans (Site Plan, Aerial, Landscape Plan) APPROVED AGENDA ITEM: FOR: October 14, 2014 BY: : ,cam _t) ly • .l fid Indian River Co, A oved Date Admin. ire 10/g//� Legal L" iC1- ,21 - (`I _ Budget 10014 Dept. . 1° 7// y Risk Mgr. - F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\Thereserveatverobeach(PD-14-06-04).doc 16 181 .2-ti, COAT - R RECOMMENDATION: Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed Planned Development Mixed Use District (PDMXD) rezoning and the conceptual PD plan, with the following conditions: 1. Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall obtain staff approval of the final architectural elevations for all proposed structures. 2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy (C.O.) the applicant shall: a. Install all required on-site mitigation trees. b. Complete all landscape and opaque feature improvements along the project site's entire west property line, as depicted on the approved conceptual PD plan. c. Construct a sidewalk along the overall site's entire College Lane frontage and repair the site's SR 60 sidewalk if so required by Public Works. d. Install the west bound right turn lane on College Lane at the project's entrance, install the east bound right -turn lane on SR 60 at the project's entrance, and obtain Public Work's approval of turn lane construction. e. Install or escrow for construction of the proposed transit stop/shelter along the project's SR 60 frontage. f. Install the off-site sidewalk segments along College Lane between the project site and 58th Avenue (Prior to the first residential C.O.). 3. The Reserve at Vero Beach project site shall revert to its original RM -8 zoning if project construction has not commenced within 7 years of the approval of the conceptual PD plan and PDMXD rezoning. 4. Any fast food restaurant with a drive through is restricted to the easternmost and middle commercial parcels (commercial Lots 2 and 3). 5. Construction on commercial Lot 2 shall not commence until construction has started on 25% (40 units) of the project's total number of residential units. F:\Community Development\CurDev\BCC\2014 BCC\ThereserveatverobeachCorrectivePage.doc 1g1-4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION Please indicate the type of application being submitted: Conceptual PD Special Exception: Concurrent Conceptual PD Special Exception & Preliminary PD: Preliminary Planned Development: Final Planned Development: Note: For a PD rezoning please use the appropriate rezoning application. PROJECT NAME: The Reserve at Vero Beach X Plan Number: PD- 1— (3(C) 1-4 PROPERTY OWNER: (PLEASE PRINT) SR 60 Vero, LLC NAME 6045 20th Street ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL 32966 CII Y, STATE, ZIP 561-789-5558 PHONE NUMBER scohenC capanoinc.com EMAIL ADDRESS Steven Cohen CONTACT PERSON PROJECT ENGINEER: (PLEASE PRINT) K.imhry-Hom and Associates, Inc. NAME 445 24th Street, Suite 200 ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL 32960 CITY, STATE, ZIP 772-794-4100 PHONE NUMBER aim. vittcr(a,kirnley-hom.com EMAIL ADDRESS Jim Vitter, P.E. CONTACT PERSON YS SI! AT F:tCommunity Development\Use\GuriDev\Applications\PDAPP.doc (/\ Project #: ciS)U/o/ 7,42 7-22Z? APPLICANT (PLEASE PRINT) K.innlcy-Horn and Associates, Inc. NAME 445 24th Street, Suite 200 ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL 32960 CITY, STATE, ZIP 772-794-4100 PHONE NUMBER jim. vitter(alkimiey-horn.com EMAIL ADDRESS Jim Vitter, P.E. CONTACT PERSON AGENT (PLEASE PRINT) NAME ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP PHONE NUMBER EXAM ADDRESS x,90500001010000001.0 >! `ONTACT PERSON WNEIR: R AGENT kevised January 2011 ATTACHMENT 1. Page 1 of 3 c 1 TAX PARCEL ID #(s) OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: PROPERTY CLASSIFICATION(S): Land Use Designation Zoning District Acreage M-1 RM -8 12.99 acres TOTAL PROJECT ACREAGE: 19.99 EXISTING SITE USE(S): Vacant PROPOSED SITE USE(S) AND INTENSITY (e.g. # of units, square feet by use): 159 multi -family units and 3 commercial outparcels containing 4,876 sf -+ 700sf patio seating 5,576sf restaurant with drive-thru, 7 200sf specii itv retail and 16,400sf retail in outparcel #1 ** PLEASE COMPLETE THE SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST ** The following items must be attached to the application: N/A If the applicant is other than the owner(s), a sworn statement of authorization from the owner; X Two deeds and a verified statement naming every individual having legal or equitable ownership in the property; If owned by a corporation, provide the names and address of each stockholder owning more than 10% of the value of outstanding corporation shares; Two copies of the owner's recorded warranty deed; X A check, money order or cash made payable to "Indian River County": Planned Development Request - Conceptual PD Special Exception less than 20 acres 20-40 acres over 40 acres $ 2075.00 2475.00 2575.00 Preliminary PD Plan I less than 20 acres $ 1150.00 20-40 acres 1250.00 over 40 acres 1300.00 Final PD Plans $ 1400.00 + 100.00 for each additional 25 acres over 40 acres + 50.00 for each additional 25 acres over 40 acres For conc¢rrent application fees combine the appropriate fees and subtract 5400.00. F:1Community Development \Users\CurDev\Applications\PDAPP.doc Revised January 2011 Page 2 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 X X X X X X Ten sets of complete Conceptual, Preliminary or Final PD (find plat plans must be signed and sealed by surveyor). Plans as per Chapter 915, pursuant to the type of approval being requested. Any requirements of the zoning or subdivision ordinance which the applicant is requesting to be waived (such as minimum lot width and size, street frontage requirements, setbacks, etc.), shall be clearly indicated by section and paragraph numbers, together with the rationale for the waiver request(s), on an attached sheet. 2 Aerials for conceptual or preliminary PDs Itemized response to pre -application for conceptual or concurrent applications 2 sealed surveys 3 sets of floor plans and elevation for commercial or multi -family buildings Written Statement and Photograph of Posted Sign For Final Plat's only CONSTRUCTION COMPLETE - BUILT OUT: (A) Certificate of Completion from Public Works or copy of' letter to Public Works and Utilities requiring inspection of improvements IF IMPROVEMENTS ARE DEDICATED TO THE PUBLIC: (B) Original Engineer's Certified Cost for Improvements (Signed and Sealed) OR CONSTRUCTION INCOMPLETE - BONDING OUT: (A) Original Engineer's Certified Cost Estimate for Improvements (Signed and Sealed) COPIES OF DOCUMENTS TO BE RECORDED WITH THE FINAL PLAT: a. Covenants, Deed Restrictions, Bylaws, etc. or Statement There Are None b. Property Owner's Association Articles of Incorporation or Statement Indicating Why Recording of POA is Not Required F:\Community Development\U ers\CurDev\Applications\PDAPP.doc Revised January 2011 Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENT 1 184 APPLICATION FORM REZONING REQUEST (RZON) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Each application must be complete when submitted and must include all required attachments. An incomplete application will not be processed and will be returned to the applicant. Assigned Project Number: RZON - (f'a�'0/ 1 ?S — 72 zzi Current Owner Applicant (Contract Purchaser) Agent Name: SR 60 Vero, LLC Complete Mailing Address: 351 N. Congress Ave #142 Boynton Beach, FL 33426 Phone #: (including area code) 561-789-5558 Fax #: (including area code) 561-752-9677 E -Mail: scohen@capanoinc.com Contact Person: Steven Cohen Signature of Owner or Arent: Property Information Site Address: 6045 20th Street, Vero Beach, FL 32966 Site Tax Parcel LD. #s: 33390500001010040001.0 Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) Existing Zoning District: RM -8 Existing Land Use Designation: M-1 Requested Zoning District: MXD-PD Total (gross) Acreage of Parcel: 19.99 Acreage (net) to be Rezoned: 1.9.99 Existing Use on Site: Vacant Proposed Use on Site: Multi-familyresidential, retail and fast food restaurant ATTACHMENT 1 185 THE APPLICANT IS STRONGLY ENCOURAGED TO ATTEND A PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE WITH LONG-RANGE PLANNING SECTION STAFF PRIOR TO APPLYING IN ORDER TO RESOLVE OR AVOID PROBLEMS CONNECTED WITH THE REZONING REQUEST. REZONING APPLICATION CHECKLIST Please attach the following items to this application. Do not ignore any of the items. Indicate "N/A" if an item is not applicable. ITEMS Applicant's Checklist I Staff Checklist 1. Fee: Property Size - Less than 5 Acres $1,550.00 - 5 to 40 Acres $2,000.00 - 41 to 100 Acres $2,300.00 - More than 100 Acres $2,500.00* * $125.00 for each additional 25 acres over 100 acres 2. Completed Rezoning Application Form (front page) X 3. Letter of Authorization from Current Owner(s) OR Current Owner is Applicant X 4. Verified statement (separate letter) naming every individual or entity having legal or equitable ownership in the property. X 5. One (1) Copy of the current Owner's Deed X 6. A Current Owner's Title Policy OR A Certificate of Title from a Title Company X OR An attomey's written opinion evidencing fee ownership of the property. 7. One (1) SEALED boundary survey of the area to be X rezoned. The boundary survey shall include, but not be limited to the following: o a legal description of the land to be rezoned o the size of the land to be rezoned o the public road right-of-way width of adjacent roads; and o a north arrow 8. Electronic version (MS Word is preferable) of the legal description X 9. Copy of Approved Concurrency Certificate OR Copy of filed application for Concurrency X Certificate, including traffic study, if applicable NOTE: ITEMS 2-6 MUST INDICATE THE SAME OWNERSHIP OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. Revised: January 10, 2008 F:\Community Development\Users\VICKIEIFORMS\rezoningrequestform,doc 2 ATTACHMENT 1 186 In 9 AV HJ U —0— V TRACT w2 (4 VI (lMH SOHO() AV HMIS 0 U U U L U Hi a. 0 V 0 • m yy� 1:1a2JL�- ,v� U 0 6— Ua' 0 U 0 ld 0314 Oa't3NZRJ Nl V2J013 ..� (W 31..'0121k.g. OMZ9 II a,A AV 02i£9 w U)1, r: AD v -a r.t 4E i—at, YF w., ., m A 50i F7& R >ef aEV * I 2 h ci COLLEGE V4-7 1- W PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) on Thursday, September 11, 2014 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1801 27th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. You may hear an audio of the meeting; review the meeting agenda, backup material and the minutes on the Indian River County website www.ircgov.com/Boards/PZC/2014. Present were members: Chairman Sam Zimmerman, District 2 Appointee; Charles Rednour, District 1 Appointee; Dr. Jonathan Day, District 4 Appointee; Brad Emmons, District 5 Appointee; Jordan Stewart; Todd Brognano, Members -at -Large; and Carol Johnson, non-voting School Board Liaison. Absent was Maria Caldarone, District 3 Appointee (excused). Also present was IRC staff: Bill DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney; Stan Boling, Community Development Director; John McCoy, Chief, Current Development; and Reta Smith, Recording Secretary. Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. and all stood for the Pledge of Allegiance. Approval of Minutes ON MOTION BY Mr. Brognano, SECONDED BY Dr. Day, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the minutes of the meeting of August 28, 2014, as presented. Items on Consent: Chairman Zimmerman read the following into the record: A. The Reserve at Grand Harbor: Request for modification of an approval condition for The Reserve at Grand Harbor development. GH Vero Beach Development, LLC, Owner. Carter Associates, Inc., Agent. Located immediately north of the intersection of Indian River Boulevard and 53' Street, immediately west of the River Club Golf PZC/Approved 1 ATTACHMENT September 11, 2014 188 course. Zoning Classification: RM -6 Residential Multi -Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: M-1 Medium Density 1 (up to 8 units/acre). (PD -13-10-03 / 2001020101-71163) [Quasi -Judicial] Chairman Zimmerman asked if any members of the audience wished to be heard on this issue. No one came forth. ON MOTION BY Mr. Brognano, SECONDED BY Mr. Rednour, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the modified condition as stated in staff's report. Public Hearing: Chairman Zimmerman read the following into the record: B. The Reserve at Vero Beach: Request to rezone approximately 19.99 acres from RM -8 (Residential Multi -family up to 8 units/acre) to PDMXD (Mixed Use Planned Development) and to obtain conceptual PD plan and concurrent preliminary PD plan approval for a project to be known as The Reserve of Vero Beach, consisting 159 multi -family residential units and 3 commercial out parcels along SR60 totaling approximately 4.60 acres of commercial area. Located between SR 60 on the north, College Lane on the south, Century Town Center/Olive Garden on the east, and Sixty Oaks on the west. SR 60 Vero, LLC, Owner. Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., Agent. Zoning: RM -8 (Residential Multi -family up to 8 units/acre). Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Density: 8 units/acre. (PD -14-06-04 / 98010178-72229) [Quasi - Judicial] Chairman Zimmerman asked the Commissioners to reveal any ex -parte communication with the applicant or any contact that would not allow them to make an unbiased decision. He revealed he had discussed this matter with Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Community Development Director, but was more than capable of rendering impartial judgment. The secretary administered the testimonial oath to those present who wished to speak at tonight's meeting on this matter. Mr. John McCoy, IRC Chief of Current Development, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum dated September 5, 2014 and gave a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on file in the Commission Office. PZC/Approved 2 ATTACHMENT �3 September 11, 2014 189 • He concluded with staff's recommendation that the PZC approve the preliminary PD plan subject to BCC approval, and recommend that the BCC approve the proposed Planned Development Mixed Use District (PDMXD) rezoning and the conceptual PD plan with the conditions outlined in staffs report. Dr. Day noted there was quite a Targe discrepancy between required and proposed parking for restaurant and retail property, and wondered if it could be more evenly balanced. Mr. McCoy explained typically within a commercial development there was a reciprocal easement so they could share parking back and forth. He indicated some of the national franchise restaurants users had their own standards that exceeded the County standards for parking, which he thought was likely the case in this instance. Dr. Day thought it was good that the applicant was proposing to build off- site sidewalks on the north side of College Lane, and wondered if the road going through the development from Route 60 (SR 60) to College Lane would be a popular shortcut for students attending the college. He asked if there would be a left-hand turn light coming out onto SR 60. Mr. Boling responded there would not be a left-hand turn lane and the development would not be gated. He observed it would be a circuitous route for students to use the development as a shortcut and a more direct route would be to use the driveway across the western perimeter of Century Town Center. Chairman Zimmerman felt properties to the north and east of the subject property were appropriately zoned General Commercial (CG) because they were heavily retail; however he felt the current zoning of RM -8 was an appropriate zoning for the subject property and did not see any reason to rezone it to allow commercial on SR 60. He pointed out the current zoning allowed for 159 units of multi -family on the parcel and the developer was proposing to build the same number of units on a smaller portion of the site, plus 18,318 square feet of commercial. Chairman Zimmerman added he did not know why the applicant wasn't asking for a simple rezoning to have commercial on part of the parcel rather than through a PD process, as he perceived this development being commercial on the front with multi -family on the back and he saw no public benefits. He took issue with the location of the proposed drive -up facilities, the density on the rear of the property, the common architectural theme for commercial and residential buildings, and did not believe the project met the spirit of what mixed-use PD was meant to be. PZC/Approved 3 6 ATTACHMENT 3 September 11, 2014 190 1 Chairman Zimmerman stated 58th Avenue and SR 60 was a very busy intersection and opined this project would add considerably to traffic in the area. Mr. Boling noted increase in traffic from the proposed development was not considered significant and IRC Traffic Engineering did not see any substantial impact to the current Level of Service. Mr. Boling explained it was in the County's Comprehensive Plan to try to have an overall mix of residential and commercial uses along SR 60 from 1-95 to 43rd Avenue because it enhanced commercial areas to have residents nearby providing there was good access, so he thought it was important for there to be multi -family residential development on the site. He stated the public benefit was to have an integration of commercial and residential uses with vehicular interconnections and shared north/south and east/west streets, along with pedestrian interconnections. Discussion followed. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing the applicant, distributed a letter dated July 1, 2014 from Ms. Jody Owens, a representative of the neighboring 60 Oaks Homeowners Association, indicating they had no objections to the project, and a copy of this is on file in the County Commission Office. He mentioned one of the public benefits was the turn lane on College Lane, which was not a required project improvement. Attorney Barkett advised this specific parcel was one of the properties staff had looked at when the PDMXD ordinance was drafted. He stressed the property would not be developed residentially at eight units per acre because it would not be economically viable and even if the density was doubled to 16 units per acre there would not be the absorption rate to make it economically viable; so the commercial use made the residential use possible. He related the applicant was ready to go forward and build the residences, but only with the commercial component, adding the applicant had been working with staff for over a year on this particular site plan. Attorney Barkett said the applicant supported staff's recommendation 100% with the exception of the condition prohibiting drive -up restaurants on the western -most Parcel 1. He observed the County's drive-through window restrictions did not prohibit drive-through restaurants adjacent to residential properties because the ordinance read "drive-thru facilities shall be designed not to wrap around more than two sides of the restaurant" and they differentiate between a facility and a restaurant; and the prohibition said "drive-thru facilities shall not be located adjacent to an off-site property with an existing residential use". Attorney Barkett maintained the facility was the drive -up window itself but PZC/Approved 4 ATTACHMENT September 11, 2014 191 O 1 1 1 properties adjacent to Lots 2 and 3 within the project were not off-site properties but were part of it, so the proximity to those lots was not relevant under the ordinance. He requested the PZC approved the project, but also requested they not put a restriction on prohibiting a drive-thru restaurant on Lot 1 in the event the Longhorn Steakhouse restaurant did not come in as a tenant on that site. Mr. Emmons asked why staff recommended a drive-through be restricted on Lot 1. Mr. McCoy explained Lot 1 was on the western boundary immediately adjacent to the Sixty Oaks development, and agreed it went above and beyond the criteria. Discussion ensued about the common architectural themes for the commercial and residential buildings and the traffic impact study that had been done by IRC staff. Chairman Zimmerman opened the public hearing at 8:11 p.m. Ms. Kit Shappie, 1936 60 Oaks Lane, Vero Beach, stated her property directed abutted the subject property and expressed concerns about whether or not the commercial area would abut her lot; safety of students due to traffic in the area; water run-off from the parking area and noise and fumes from the drive-thru restaurants late at night. Mr. Boling confirmed Ms. Shappie's lot was south of the proposed commercial area and part of the conservation area and buffering should help muffle any sound. He pointed out concerns about drive-through windows was why staff was recommending not to have it on the parcel closest to the 60 Oaks development. Mr. Boling acknowledged students presently crossed at a crosswalk on College Lane and hopefully the sidewalks would be helpful. Mr. Jim Vitter, Engineer for Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc., stated the property was in a flood zone and all the run-off from the site would be routed into an on-site stormwater pond with none of the water going onto any adjacent properties. Chairman Zimmerman closed the public hearing at 8:20 p.m. Mr. Emmons felt the applicant had demonstrated and satisfied the requirements for a PD, but he expressed concerns about traffic at the 58th Avenue and SR 60 intersection and said he would like more of a level of confidence of proving the project would not have an impact. Chairman Zimmerman asked if Mr. Emmons was proposing the request be tabled until he got further information. Mr. Emmons said he would not feel PZC/Approved 5 ATTACHMENT September 11, 2014 192 • • comfortable making a decision without that specific issue being addressed by the applicant and County staff. Mr. Stewart and Dr. Day agreed with Mr. Emmons and observed there was no Traffic Engineer present. Dr. Day did not want to table this matter and suggested recommending the members' traffic concerns be presented to the BCC for their consideration. Attorney Barkett asked the PZC not to table the request and said if the members wanted to have more testimony presented to the BCC, the applicant would provide it. He stressed the project was on a very tight schedule, adding everyone had been working on it for a long time and all of the traffic engineers connected with the project were in agreement. ON MOTION BY Mr. Emmons, SECONDED BY Mr. Brognano, the members voted (5-1) to approve staff's recommendation with a further condition to have both the applicant's Traffic Engineer and the IRC Public Works Director provide more detail to the Board of County Commissioners to adequately address concerns related to traffic pertaining to the project. Chairman Zimmerman opposed. Commissioners Matters There were none. Planning Matters Mr. Boling announced a public hearing was scheduled for the next PZC meeting so there would be a meeting held on September 25, 2014. Attorney's Matters There were none. Adjournment There being no further business, the meeting adjourned at 8:32 p.m. PZC/Approved 6 A'T'TACHMENT 3 September 11, 2014 193 • <L17 MOTORIST DESIGN OF MERRITT ISLAND, INC. Traffic Engineering and Planning Consultants 1237 Guy Road, Orlando, Florida 32828 Phone: 772 539-8512 (IRC) or 321459-2905 (Brevard) Erna] motortsblesIun1 aol,c4m EB/BA 18720 Ptes 9RDu9 x'78 The Reserve at Vero Beach (aka SRO) Vero LLC) TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY 1. Location: Between SR 60 and Colkge Lane, west of 58* Avenue. 2. Size Up to:159 multifamily units, 6,242 if of sit-down restaurant, 7,200 sf specialty retail, and 4,876 sf fast food restaurant with drive-thru. 3. Trip GeneratIoa: See attached. 4. Area of Inflseece Boundaries: 456 Street (north), Oslo (south), 20a Ave. (mat), 1-95. (west). 5. Significant Roods: SR 60 (I-95 to 20a Ave.), 58* Ave. (44 to 41" St.), 66th Ave (SR 60 to CR 510), 266 Street (58* Ave. to 27* Ave.), and Aviation Blvd. (26* St. to 27* Ave.) 6. Sigaifiant Intersections: Noise 7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A 8. Internal Capture Rate Applied: none 9. Pass -by Capture: n/a 10. Peak Hoar Directional % (iagross/egreea): See attached. 11. Traffic Count Factors Applied: none. 12. Off -Site lmpe vements: Construct a nghttarer deceleration kw on SR 60 eateries the Ate at tire proposed new SR 60 drivewa . The project will abo construct a ilghBttitis - deminankter ieoe ante the site on College Last per the County's request even thosgb the County's volume thresholds are not tripped by the site's proposed traffic. 13.,Roadrsay Capacities (IRC Liak Sheets): See Appendix B 14. Assnimed roadway and/or intersection improvements: none 15. Significant Dates a. Pre -study a fereece: October 2013 b. Trac counts: intersections — none required roads — link shed based Epos year 2013 seasonally -adjusted traffic counts provided by Indian Ricer Coaaty c. Study approval: 16. The proposed site is projected to contribute a aaximrum of 15 pat peak hour trips to westbound SR 60 between 82°s Ave. and 66* Ave. Based upon IRC's current rate (54054 per trip), the site's contribution requirement is calculated at 861,81•.60). • SR 60 . APPRO\'ED INDIAN RIVER Ct+ NTY Tom{-{jjf NGINEER[ G 06/162014 © 2014 Motorist Design of Merritt Island, Inc. Faithfully Serving Florida's Treasure Coast and Space Coast for 7 wenty-Five Years /7/Ih1 ATTACHMENT 4 194 1 1 1 11 1 DETERMINATION OF SIGNIFICANT INTERSECTIONS - TABLE 2 SIGNIFICANT LINK FROM TO 80% OR. MORE OF LOS D? Schumann SR 60 SR 60 SR 60 SR 60 SR 60 SR 60 58th Ave 58th Ave 58th Ave 58th Ave 58th Ave 58th Ave 58th Ave 66th Ave 66th Ave 66th Ave 66th Ave 66th Ave 66th Ave 26th Ave 26th Ave 26th Ave Aviation Blvd CR 510 1-95 82nd 66th 58th 43rd 27th Oslo 4th 8th 12th 16th SR 60 41st SR 60 26th. 41st 45th 65th 69th 58th 43rd Aviation 26th City Limit 82nd 66th 58th 43rd 27th 20th 4th 8th 12th 16th SR 60 41st 45th 26th 41st 45th 65th 69th CR 510 43rd Aviation 27th 27th NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO No NO No significantly impacted links found to operate at 80% or more of LOS D. Therefore no intersection analyses required per IRC policy. Per Indian River County policy, 2 -lane roadways impacted by 8 or more peak hour directional trips, and multilane roadways impacted by 15 or more peak hour directional trips, are considered to be significantly impacted. Links operating at greater than 80% of LOS D require link analysis if significantly impacted by the new project trips. None required for this project. Major intersections on significantly impacted links operating at greater than 80% of LOS D (IRC adopted capacity) require analysis. None required for this project. See Appendix G of this report for specific LOS D percentages on each link. 4 ATTACHMENT 4 195 • 43/49 19/22 69/76 1 SR 60 COLLEGE LANE r J L r J 0/0 LEGEND: AM/PM L 34/30 IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT SOME TRIPS IDENTIFIED IN THIS GRAPHIC ARE SHOWN TO USE MULTIPLE ACCESS POINTS DUE TO THE NATURE OF THE SITE DESIGN. THE PROPOSED PROJECT TRAFFIC MEETS THE IRC THRESHOLD AND REQUIRES A RIGHT TURN DECLERATION LANE ENTERING THE SITE AT THE PROPOSED NEW SR 60 ACCESS. THE PROPOSED NEW ACCESS ON COLLEGE LANE DOES NOT TRIP ANY IRC THRESHOLDS FOR TURN LANE REQUIREMENTS. THE TWO TOWN CENTER DRIVEWAYS ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED SITE EACH ALREADY PROVIDE RIGHT TURN DECELERATION LANES. THE ONE ON STATE ROAD 60 ALSO HAS AN EXISTING LEFT TURN LANE TO ACCOMMODATE THE LEFTS ENTERING. FIGURE 5 4110 PROPOSED PROJECT DRIVEWAY TRIP ASSIGNMENTS 13 10/03/2014 rA``TACHMENT 4 196 ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -8, RESIDENTIAL MULTI -FAMILY (UP TO 8 UNITS/ACRE), TO PDMXD, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MIXED USE DISTRICT, FOR APPROXIMATELY 19.99 ACRES OF LAND GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SR60 APPROXIMATELY 1,200 FEET WEST OF 58TH AVENUE AND DESCRIBED HEREIN AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, held a public hearing and subsequently considered 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 determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners 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 the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: LEGAL DESCRIPTION: THE EAST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 10, SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY, RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND SUBJECT TO A CONSERVATION EASEMENT IN FAVOR OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AS RECORDED IN ORB 1913, PG. 2060 AND SUBJECT OF EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS AND RESERVATIONS OF RECORD. is changed from RM -8, Residential Multi -Family (up to 8 units/acre), to PDMXD, Planned Development Mixed Use District, with the general project layout as depicted in the attached conceptual PD plan (Exhibit "A") and subject to public benefits and conditions (Exhibit "B"). The uses allowed shall be limited to the residential uses allowed in the RM -8 District as listed in the use table in section 911.08 by the approval process specified in the same table, commercial uses shall be allowed consistent with the Mixed Use PD criteria in section 915.20. If no project construction has commenced within 7 years from the approval of this ordinance, then the PD zoning of the entire site shall terminate, and the zoning of the property shall revert to RM -8. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. F:\Community Development\CurDev\Ordinances\2014\2014-_Reserveatverobch. pCHMENT 5 1 ORDINANCE NO. 2014- • All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the day of , 2014, fora public hearing to be held on the day of , 2014, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner , seconded by Commissioner , and Chairman Peter D. O'Bryan Vice Chairman Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Tim Zorc Commissioner Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner Bob Solari BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller BY: Deputy Clerk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY "Dylan Reingold, County Attorney �T APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS Stan Boling, AICP( mmunity Development Director ATTACHMENT 5 F:\Community Development\CurDev\Ordinances\2014\2014-_Reserveatverobch.doc 2 198 Exhibit A E V o ." 11••••••••=.6.011•6411•IM '1_1011' ttlotnti.: Gfiftfiji .1••• 110 11 I+IfoL 111n 1L111 1 1, If11.11.1.1 .1 1 i g I gg 0 - I g I:N.4111am " BEM ono ono wo 000 1888 ow, fl°8888 1171-1 F1 1, 111M ATTACHMENT .t'D\ 4.•to - Kottoorta.A20, .-{Z ao root 10 IIC adlz.• ORDINANCE NO. 2014 - EXHIBIT "B" Public Benefits: For all PD projects, applicants must identify the public benefits that the project will provide in exchange for requested waivers or incentives being sought by the applicant. For the Reserve at Vero Beach Mixed Use, the public benefits are as follows: Right -of -Way Dedications: None are required as proposed with this development. Off-site College Lane Sidewalks: The applicant is proposing to build an off-site sidewalk improvement that fills in the existing College Lane sidewalk gap between the subject site and the 58th Avenue sidewalk. This off-site improvement will provide pedestrian access for residents and commercial customers of the subject project as well as students from the adjacent charter school and nearby IRSC Mueller Campus. This improvement provides for the project's integration into the area's existing/planned pedestrian system. Transit Stop & Shelter: The applicant will be responsible for providing a transit stop and shelter on SR 60 in front of the commercial uses at a location and in a manner approved by MPO staff. Provision of the stop/shelter will integrate the project into the public transportation system. The transit stop and shelter must be constructed or funds escrowed for construction prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy (C.O.) for the project's first phase. Conditions: 4. Any fast food restaurant with a drive through is restricted to the easternmost and middle commercial parcels (commercial Lots 2 and 3). 5. Construction on commercial Lot 2 shall not commence until construction has started on 25% (40 units) of the project's total number of residential units. F:\Community Development\CurDev\Ordinances\2014\2014-Reserveatverobch.dATTACHMENT 3 200 Chick Fil A Elevations (OP #3) ATTACHMENT Ca 201 • • C 9 1 ATTACHMENT CD 202 .111.1411 711, IIIIOIIIIII• 7.w•.oa;wj 1/1 IyTi L7ir7Y 43/11.10-410re Milt I 7.1.1 7fr, if 01111111111 VOIb0l3',U.Nf100 b3A1?1 NVIONI HOV3Q MBA .LY S37N301S-413F11 9 gni } ti 11' 1.00 1;i ATTACHMENT G OPN 203 iiiIuuIuiiiiI 11111111111 111 11 . A I isrosew 1•••••• 411 i tistrheaerumicati Npoottio3iivri s 1111 111 OMNI YCISOld N3A121 NVIC NI FdriiTa3ATTSMINTIT;321-1111 ran rrrrn ATTACHMENT 204 I1 ; 1121.11.1..A1.01 I 111,894.011.11, � _ n7MLLAIF4I N �V1V 'JIfVW; 1 1 1 MEMO VOINOld'UNf1OO Nam NVIONI a NY.aa•••sO ATTACHMENT (0 lA11 .0L ta0a I' 101,000 ILCk: 205 • [1111111111111111 •j1,11.11".‘TI .1 11.1 •••lerielor•sr....1 1•0119.110 Olt I 11111,111,11 11, .,uNno AAI? NVICINI RIVITOMIVUSFIRITS7931:1I prm Q.1 ATTACHMENT (c ortc,l 4)s et.,1% • will -10'0v • (MI 206 wr II f• 41 4+4a01.I I ,d- r rYlatg trtiruFnI O _7 o>r VONOld NYIONI K1v36 MBA lv N3a1S38 3HJ 11d I urn AWL 2 (356 OL gram : iou WICK- a0 1-10071 dA6 ATTACHMENT 207 • • • 1311111111-11111 00111011111 ,!1j,11:fr711.11114017130 ......10011). . Vile. ; naserf alassfkmos WPM 11/ 1 1 . 1 1 1 ONThItYLIMI/U...121UPVI . 11 19114A, 3iY111 1 I 1 . ,N41:+? ,,11111,11,1•1 1, vaoso-u S3A111 WON! FO9ATOMWSMIFERE57131:1I 11] arm ATTACHMENT Co 208 a ca7 • 11 k Jr }I SIMON 1,3 liCloor.TIo•ri• .2160 UJOH* 111111111 (11•111'.1 ITU V J ••11 1111111-tii Ii a 1 IwD1 sow rICP 411.1. ••d • [WA 1 Mc 1 aoOdlor s'on 1181HX3 NV1d 31IS I- 11 yftl1!f0 (• 11111111011 (31111.128=11 •- • fliii 111Y • • 1 •1 • /. Ts 1 ;i i ."..., E_ y, 14 41E4' 1 1111111=.710111111i 411111111 1111111 1," :i ii; lU.UJ1i1JiJii i?. • . • .000714 10.30 CO3. 311 'OLGA 092IS 1102I 03iNd34d HOV38 CM13A 1V 3AN3S3U 31-11 209 0 li 0 JV 100.00 0.1010100,3•10.00 �u anw UJOH4diaiwpi 10.0 3d . all.. , :VW tl-It -LO COOLSS[tO 1.I8IHX3 1V1a3V 37 30 ON' Oa3AO9 S 003 03:3rd3ld H3V38 O1J3A 1V 3A3S3d 3H1 N d ATTACHMENT 7 as 10..1 non-lsos-0.70 fors anr-te-su raw. ""4.Y4.1110.1.1.110,ATIZI - • V • :t1 I oar. Lassa ...ara r• 'MECO I a, a air an te-.•• SI OM• WOO 11. pwu ••-al-B6 1•• 40L$0 LIM. SW J.11111HX3 3dYJSCINV1 • COSCII 0: 30 0U3, o -n '0213A 09):IS CIP••431•1 'was... • • • • , •••• 'OP .•••••• ••• 00 ••1, .• •••,-N-a Roan sna AT. ATTACHMENT r7 HOV38 ON3A JV 3A83S31:13H1 • • Is au ta 211 Indian River County Planning Depa... 0) co co E1) E0 N Ad Number: Z 0 0 0 Z Insertion Number: En U Section-Page-Zone(s): NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEA 0 Q U L/) 0 0 g ,„, re Monday, September 29, 2014 NOTICE OF NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FLORIDA PROBATE claims with this court CODE WILL BE FOR- WITHIN 3 MONTHS AFTEENOTWITHSTANDING 1750 07RRSST PPU`UBIIICTE A - THE TIME PERIODS 7105 OF THIS NO - SET FORTH ABOVE, ANY CLAIM FILED All CLAIMS N TWO 1131 YFARS OR FILED WITHIN 1 3070 31145 TME TIME PEI OECEOENT'S OATS FORTH IN S OF DEATH IS )33,)03 0 BARRED, FLORIDA The due 47 the fins COOS WILL BE FOR - publication of 13.. EVER BARRED. YIs September TM1e date of The Arat J. 3014. pubHctice 41be.77Mr Ntholo M. Pw°N 22, 2014 Ptem ReWenntavue Seacoast NadBrannaYl BBuel.5.0k Personal CRepresentative istinaW us,: Sy"TmLi Mar fits L4raa° A7.ue Stuart, Florida 34981 Margaret E Wood Esquire Attorney for Personal Re liTa7i ioe Flonda Bar No.: doll NOTICE OF ADMIMSTWEIION DATE OF SERVICE OFA COPY OF THIS Alla NOTICE Er020 003. of the decedentand 0759? pen0ma avi ne dalmF v dm tete'evearele Nr NOTICE OF NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE FORECLOSURE Court will sell to the electronic sale at hdeo for cash d best on 000 1'varr7..Itel.ci, se. 50015, 2014 9,1020 3. 1171,1g ° c100k 4.04., b' 10:00 Afit 9n Oao- elsctr Ic sale a her 15, 2014, tba f•el .Ibei.n-river- la deacrib ed ea 11 11 oe 4 14 peeylu I,rth 1.71 0 Pwp.fY to Judghmmtd kn a l coanc I: barcel Unb tern r,uncw 7523; Vacatlor 750.:36: OCATED WITH oraincc IM 01,711:,10 of The Reel Ocean Re q, m l n 19 m .en, . c4na,minl m,eeerfOp10ga .al Rec ge Berninium, 01 reo pe do e1nlMm, ,nano Public r care! . •n River Lours cl•I Rel Armory `lor'Paiunal JoJordanield. A. dtrdan Nelda PA 6 Carter 499423 F Stun, FL 484 Phene: 21 212962080 Faiary prim4- Pandilema1. ry onllpalawwm Secondary email: McGanM1y m ,, 011e lawsam Bobkr.W Sdm Pub: S op ember 32. Nwmm, bar B 29.244 T00624945 11`40S.E. ederal IN 140 CIRCUIT Stuart, FIo,de0494 COU# FOR MARTIN Tet Irt)31 ride 340 COUNTY FLORIDA prim 11 Mad;PROBAT147, 500,3.,, maw•inc084 k' '*oo CP Secondary Email: IN RE:ESTATE OF . 4.150 fa rlhyaum HAROLD ATMS, 70b45enember 22, and, MAROC° 29, 2014 ALBERT TRUE, TC0364994 Deceased, NOTICE 00 N THE GR5MAIT 48 FOR RTIN TO CREDITORS COUNTY. FLORIDA The ,tlmirni4114,1 72 PROBATE DIVISION x.1714 file tit: Albert ,,, , de- 4]714CP70020 Albert Tits,., de- fAA%M% < a,tredate I .2014 w,F pending IN 5074 3. 00 0 OF 13. 3014, Is, it Cour JOSEPH . DONDEIIO m m. Circuit coon Deceased. lNornMan mC4su° y0 01rhhc..d0 07TeTOm00evolns o OreBoulevard, Me rtne 013000P11 The nomle.d.nd a, J. D d whoa' Ear dr,.,., al the per- 4 death was .July ^. andeta am0,,91 re pe e t th of rse I be ,<un Ccun for Perry .n ..:740)1 4.."700. 0, Flori, bel*, the address el which All creditors of the Is 100 Fest Ocean decedent and other Boulevard, Stuart persons er having mand4 Forme 04 944r:ua again l decedent's as of the Persona wcem • entat, a 074 required of re n 0 :he Person I rape servedimu eRlelm : :rt knhndow. Y ;aim, wnh 1Mv won A107e:ei s 47th. ON OR BEFORE THE 4,004.,I and ether DF a AFT OF T OF THIS NOTICE ON THEM. All other creditor. the decedent other persons ha aim. demwt against ms01lh If 0,1.4,0 neving Jaime o 4emands Pow,it ae.7.9"" of ui. n°tir is :wed tman Rte Nwr FIRST PUBLICATION DF THIS NOTICE OR 7 DAYS AFTER THE ORDINANCES ORDINANCES i PETITIONS &PETITIONS BEFORE TH 00070 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that the Board :i.^ve of the proposed o N ORDINANCE OF COUNTY COMMISS RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TLE X, IMPACT FEES. OF TH I50M5 RIVER COUNTY, TO AMEND THE TEXT OF TITLE X FOR LEVEL OF SERVICE STANDARDS USED IN IMPACT FEE CAL- CULATIONS, EXEMPTIONS INDIVIDUAL ASSESSMENTS CLEANS LP VARIOUS501 IS' ANO TO AMEND APPFNDI% A. IMPACT FEE 004004105, TO APPROVE NI PACT FEE SS FOR 04510 FOR HIGH -CUBE USES AND FOR HIGHCII50 AUTO AREx0000 410 P00 THE UNINC RATED INDIAN RNER COUNTY AN NICIPAURES; PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE TE FOR NEW IMPAR FEE SCHEDULE SND PROVMING 707 CODIFICATION EVERABILITY; 2,000010011900910. Sam eramw<e, %:=°01.°•,`,•V::!' •dopa°, , 4 ,at•Mi,h new .440 4 Fee 74Mdulea ler ., unincor- nt a .22 . and muninpdnin Iota Rud Warehouse which °,0,N,h,g,, reduced iinad warePad hotor using. Also,the or"dina celwillae°e- w_ he tea of the Till, X by updating LOS Standard, Mr impar, Mer pprPoaes, tai ePel7Ttleel ,ercrsmenl rennin arm olner tld n uD revision,. FP.covember' ni 4. Fs,d e0enivv demi Im- pact Ere747ee egl Prerpo.ed lIrsieiier" Fobr,ry 2 715. he puMn hearing me a.hµe nwv m.ng• lne Proposed .xeo rpt 47 Ue propoab or7, l' was M, ni b, InwMed by the poem al the Planning Divlsmn mb<. located n n. Caunry Admintevt3 Building, 41 IIth Strew Vero Beech, Florida. Aber ft ord. 1. 2014?, a ,taN reportantlNe draft old? ms "71 Iaeldman mewunNe web Anyone who mry iblem app" any deriders wM1idt "X iee ode attai. meeting coif neetl ,a ensure Mat . verbatim ,.cora of me pre<.emnes vsae, whmn m;9ee. tev.1"ie e d ereste apart which U° eared ie hued. interested and her mit appear .the pro- d be head with ?awes to me pro- posedordinance. 717 % doegR,717.2Ptann-ag .,Uaian 2 4))b IIF1260. Anyone w o needs P ,Pocial a<wmmoda- tin ting must rae tr et ce2Ammeteca: 007 h 3D2711223so . 772.770E2151 al but 3 boon in advance of the meeting. 01088 FINER CWMY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY-,- Parer 0.011ryan, Chairman Pub. September 29, 20M T002650863 ET CODE WILL B EVER BARRE0. NOTWITHSTANU THE TIME PERIL SET FORTH ABC ANY CLAIM FII TWO MI YEARS MORE 00107 1 000400NT'0 08 OF DEATH 1 rBARRED 481°°1 Rm pub M 144' N Florid>, as 613, Pepe 3]80, b1 .mm. n, PuMm 7.wm7 4r Person claiming Indian River County 0awr- Florida, and all us fromthemilt R amendment. thereto any, ether titan Lha if any. 5. 2.7 owns. u al ANYPERSON MIA, Ae dna of the ll. LNG AN INTEREST Pendens must Ale t2ol Awithin elm r ,da ye alter the HPRO is September 39, OWNEER AS 2014. TDATED this 6th day of DATE OF THE Santembw, 2014, PENDENS MUS BECKEI A 010 A MSA WRs, P4011K0FF, PA IN 60 DAYS AFTER Steel,Eir0LFloor 117E SALE. sIste F1.ida 04984 Dated Nis _ dry 47 Tela 4500 4 Tn21216294 `J 201 R. Joel. l Personal Repr.0entrtwn: Barbara 65 Cour 8655 NW ea 0, L Brymon Beach, FL 343, Mere bndew 3034 SIN W Wimbledon Paim 00V, IFla4da (71212863996 BY MICHAEL 34110 DERMODY,E L. 0,4,, y ler Florida 8039303 ReD.remative: mdem1245*0 lLea. Mark D. McWdname, pr E 90 RaoueaU ler A<com- FlondeB,rNumbaC m a,tonF by Pen )•4 Dh Diubili- K1e12lln�aw,rd 8 vs, `I(w rou ere aper- 4600NOcean BNd wrhadinyap Suite 306 whoneedsany so- Phone:561470101d dor to 0arion m o Fac 561.2#-4)93 47.1;°',7 in EAIMI: HHXFLD4c era a0jl E.iIYOM Pub: Septa., 39, provision °o1 certain a 204oaoe, Plea.* nCourtmi NOTICE OF SALE LEGAL AUCTION Sale1.3.14 I03I NISSAN IN4ALIID93CI36343 Sale: 10/111/2014 41 CHEVY 1GBHP021(9.334070 Fire House Garage SOO Louisiana Ave., Bebasllan FL 32951 772.226460 Pub: Sass., 2014 TM24TJ6 NOTICE OF F080010SU00 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF TIE 19th JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN CML DIVISION RIVER COUNTY, Cave*: .rov 0001 certain FLORIDA 2014-G.909. �e ce, Pleaes GSE N0.: a:natr.l Court Admin - 31.20130. -001236 The Reel Ocean Re tr, Ion 250 NI JUDGE: rt Ano;aion Inc Country Club Driv, C"NfHU L COX Plaintiff, Suite 31), Pon Gt CAMDEN HOUSE AT F. CI all and FL 4M3n ss OAK HARBOR CON. Thea Cid143)0 et leaThemaDOMINIUM ASSOCI- Delendantlal. •eye before You 7d=rvi' clue Suite 217, Pon ludt FL 3494,.,h.MNBI,gv.com BO) -43]0 at lean 7 By: Helen SMI., 69. •eye before your 8505* 446 scheduled court a Pursuant 42 atolyup or c men Pungnt ll the Fal. Ir upon receiving DebtCollection. Nu.a b:lave i7the P6a doie:dAlhtet lnie appear- a`/ lice y be n0.duled e is leve than 7 deemed o d*n col. dory n7 Y0,7 a Im. formatiolector n .2,0)7.4 br Seca6 g'ber 22, puryoaa"aed for Ma 30, m1C 'am 1C12618336 "?.hdan,onto wl,h, Db0lye0a0Ph0,lmli- - sons yn aW whoneeds ac- commodation 2.616011111(AI. Plaintiff'. sed cotes el its °Amery em 04 sd- eof emelt service .6f.TemeaServi- w®Iogn.00m SHAPIRO, FISHMAN Anornep GAr CH,LLP •620 Woodland Corporate Blvd. Ste 100 Tempe FL 33614 Y hone: IBC3377°886848 Fax IEma l Ste For Email Ste Onh 6FGTempr. Qs,. TC PP SCRIPPS TREASURE COAST' NEWSPAPERS B MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 29, 2014 64 SC NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE JURISDICTION TH0 BANK OF NY AS SUCCESSOR CHASE BAANK N.A. TRUSTEE 1407 TH STRHOLD DLI SET MEN 3031 CERT,NRO 2GH CERT, 6EIIE6 300& AR, %dngH, LACI0TG RO0RI. TICE OF FORENOCLOSURE SALE NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that the un- dersianed Clerk Lamin of MA BTN Bdeywlo7 20CT6 nER 201q 10 AM, EST n .matin r Itorctoeac0m, .X00 tote sale 1*1 19 hephlee,et and 3sei Mddn Lor tach, the following de,cribed p p rryryt,yFloele:te In CONDOMINIUM UNI 50. 104, IN BUILD- ING 3, OF FAIRWAY PALMS CONDOMIN. UM, A CONDOMINI- UM ACCORDING TO THE DECLARATION 150050F, RECORD. EO ON 0000300 HO 2006, UND50ER CIERK'6 FILE , 1600003, IN OFFI- CIAL RECORDS PAGE 101, JAN- UARY 2, LOOS ON 3*8- U070],moiIROf. FICIAL R0007 BOCK A 2000, A PA NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE Mani. County, Flori- da, will on the 16th day00:20 A 7741 wvew.m.t Oman A Mifere doNmm, tan accord - flwith Chapter 45 orid. statutes, ,I- ter for vale and sell public M aound rcr e nipb for bidder for cash, Me falaowlnp�;tuarib i t1Trinrto de: unrY. FIeiFn LOT 30, BLOCK 1, PIP ER'S LANDING PIAT N0. 1, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEROFF DN 07IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK 2 THE ACIR ND CLOT COURT IN AND FOR MARTIN COOK TY, FL0RI DA, RE - C 000,7IN 6.AT BOOK reon at PAGE en Alai41404 ee" Mn suiting from the lorenan t)19aale, mb r t praperry NOTICE DF FORECLOSURE dation In order to participate In .hie prN1u,coceddingwyOun re yeoepro'aon %fcertain e vane Corrin Johnson, 25 A20 0 CNW C,urnr, NW Country Club Drive, Luc.. c. r Port St, Ilu cls, 7.340 •1 10.071 0]-43)0 ,1 T 0021 baton rou..m.m1.o °Dun nDO,aranr, I1s- mmdr open 71Ivin6 Nin netllir- ,n II the time be- fore The ach,duled Lva.ance Ive7 IC.^n ara'rrrrv: h yp2 ata g or vane elrd WI 711. Sepemb ter 30, On4ba16.1050018 NOTICE DF FORECLOSURE Public Record. of Martin County, all thereto, If pursuant to the Neral 4menCe 5h 41145 Ne 1co nHn In a cam pen4ln4 77 said iace. nin.above-styled tau Any person claiming mue oa yother Nan prop- erty ownsaOlen- date I the Lia Pan- ,I..mwithiin'60'4*y. after the sale. Dated this 22nd d,, °'September 711 MICHAEL I. BELLE PA 204 Rubins goad Sarasota, god's Talaphm7 4F7oLn6e 14111550311 01,10 M.N2IJ. Bele Mlduel J. Belle, AtomeYL:r %:1:1111 flariea Bar Na: 40883 DESIGNATED PNMMYE SERVICE PURSUANT TO FIA 0.!W. AMIN 2L t6 Heti ^ache Pbe4.w m with 0lvebili1i.,: 1I 0.*40 ei..MPey cob: needs in ord Beer to aro a In t.lv ndd:4 Vne..vt ro you, a me rs'it7ion %.0n,se ,,, 00nADA ten Com0,, 0,h,, • 260 NW ryry Club mW,, n 27F779°4'4:11167.: ), Part Sr, II FL 370 et 7 dry filar. s,h,doIed 0027 '.dn.•ttarso, ponn .eIm + c15 u- 12 II 1E>Y5M1. Nm T1* e Ne ched0Ied ] s: II 17 September 29, RM he tone PIP. CIRC. COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIO/. :.l. 7 r:;ll.d, a" aFlorida not-lonluofr NOTICE OF SALE AS wonders, TO COUNT.)%:inti0, 150A1 F. CIAO ANO *4001 A. ISBY and THERESA CMU JAMES R. NOTICE IS 50045' 500008. GIVEN pursuantn 047,2030,. oder clo..2 salelol TICE a Final Judgment, en FORENOCLOSURE SALE res in Civil Cas. No. 2314CA-000043 NOTICE IS HEREBY Gh51.131, •0717177.:111. .74 SM tele 0171 Final d the Ce ui Foset: eU "1°a 'n`C:i. Ne %v,mi0 and Bam F. -3013-CA-001236 C;.li and 14....a of the Circuit Court Ciall a 00747' f the Nineteenth Ju- 4,711,1, the [lark el diciN Clrcull In and Court, Jellrey R. for Inebn Rlver 00,4.h, will sell to the unlClark of t)1e Circuli dt bid- er for chihest And e:`h by di ::^s w°N time bolero scheduled .ppear 5 less than mays if you are Ire hear, 0 0emend0,4.870date 23 4 TCN2493e1 ef15. Circuli Crurt Cf the 18tn J"oic147 ircuit in and tor Im NOTICE Of Flan Rrver County, FORECLOSURE Flold Ocean Resort Rsvl Oc,en Resort IN THE CIRCLET COURT NINETEENTH THE 08100 J*I10 FO [INCUR IN AND FOR MARTIN COUFLORIDA MY CIVIL ACTION MEN. 43IN: GENERAL DIVISION: GENERAL NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE OF MEETING NOTICE R PW LIC HEARING - PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 0104051 ,mfr el h.0dng , 401, rhe 7044°73, 07 a , 27017 7 wnrp tut Ind 164:21nea PO 32 •r,. 7,,,, 0n of ,n ordinance r re ,y • ty 1cB.l •tree 1.020 704-e IR..d 0.lal pP!,, Lig o n Y^^ TM a y1' 1°, OMXC, 271:° °Z1,:pde4 n d 4`rma 0cwmmnraorl lam =1/ s,0 0 Sfl1657toat p adpr n1 60 Vero, LLC a develop"a 1projM to he knownasThe°Reseve sly 4.00 acres of comms?;.l area. Overall reside/Idol ows*Y 7,4 4,4,7,0,. TMtaul she area ;Zit of .oworimatdv 5589 rse 100700 n the arum and a east of fust weal 47 !rse Century Town Cedar/Olive Garden and east 01 i:laly Oaks (see location m,Pl. A public hearing, at whirl. Ponim In interest and mums shall have opp0nuniry re ei nears, will ba brie Wby the Board 47 C04 Commissioner of lndiw River [ounry, Flprida In N, County Com mi Ion CFamban 47 the 00,2. 7243, .11 14. Bulding, br74, 1801 nth Siren, Ver° Beech, florid. per Tuevday, Ottober 11, 2014 n 9:00 ,.m. Plea,. a1re0 gaui g 041,2 wmion, l, me wrrm drv0OPme0 eet7;1ga enoele, in 5n31M in 017, Lo sty R:nnl 9aloemgiun,'lln tare°`n 1001 2175 5tna wirhin b"ilbng -A tel me CourumAdmim Complev. Document. mar be reyimee by hen 47 2c are induct dunn0 henna d nn.nz home. u mbar of , pab gc are invited to attend and pan,ciWte in Ne public hearing. Anyone who may wish to appeal any dedal4n, which may be mid upon whirr °. appeal is bawd ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WRH DISABILRIES ACT 11AOAI 000 01NAT07 AT 2261223 AT LEAST 46 HOURS IN ADVPN E OF THE MEETING. n Nb ening, will need a n Nn a 4,4,420 record of Cha preceedingv which ,1,,4270 077.4127 end evmen,. Pit 5 BOA. OF cairgCalisTaig 2014 TIM PTY A0 DRESS: 6534 S.0 FEDERAL HIGHWAY APT. 104, STUART FL 3488)7 Flna pmant ° d fFr e 0 Case closure50, 43-3008 7gU0 0 2 50 0 47 the CA, Msrc.,Mh; eat'7 hl4h le indicated A You`i t11nm�F ser 4111? from hr than ,he 1:72. ,im.ahti o ca windSp ea claim e Iv. 'y din RCO Lege. P.S. Attorneys on Behalf 1501 NuM::rt Exrrewe Aaama, Gol3li 393311 In3133a9tet tam: 4 Sneed 7103009 SAR NO,. 590)5 Fd@240h41.00m Lfow 0.O,,, w°m 329511 NOS •'O5 0tirbil,lle: Ie. In accordance with 7C7M1s Amili,, 4 w7, 1094, p.l..,. nead- P a:ai ceile`°"o so- Len Adminimuuon, 350 NW Count 21 7, 0rlve, FL3 006, 7)3 4370. err later than ,i1 your casae iee iipeeranut or retl •ely p cennn0 th,s nouf 1 re ,h ,MM1elullM than 7 d•Y.; I I11V e aring ata 1..' Plu38ti 2011he5537tam0ar 22. ,TC11264946 4 THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR MARTIN COUNTY, FLORIDA CASE N0: 2013.5.55 -CA JPMOR, NAT545 CHASE BANKIONAL 85500047105 %am0R RICHARD J. ZACHA AIWA RICHARD 2A CHAR DAWN K 2A. CHAT 070/A OAW IACHAR; UN KNOWN OWN TETENANANNT UNKN R THEST THE SM - TOR OF THE SMALL 01018053 ADMINIS TRAOON, AN AG CY OF THE BTATES LA; V.'E BANK. BANK, IATINATIONAL ASSOCON; 5 COUNTRY 5 NDIG COUNTRY CLUB, INC. RGEED WITH IINACTIV7. ME%P- ER'S LANDING, INC, INS %PENSLAN0. LNG PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOC N TION, INC,; MARTIN COUNTY -0.00177417 OARD OF COUNTY COMMIS - 4 1551, MARTIN 0,0 •N0 FLORIDA, hat r.,i 2.03.ee•r, el471hir o,,4,,, ^ persons or unthown rse ours „tale Deiee7n°. 1,f ,7,00,0,. NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE SALE NOTICE 1, herby 6, - °h Nat 1hn Clerk °1 C' C 1 Re00.d11771174, 54 n Pape 1B8o4, in the NOTICE OF SALE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL ORCUR WAND FOR 5T. LUCE COUNTY, FLORIDA CAS2013C4 004011,0 WELLN6A 0ANGO BANK, 01.7,44, '.080HE UNKNOWN HEIRS GRANTEES, 0EW5102, IENOR5, TRUSTEES ANO SEYN JRMES LACI - NA0 TATIVE OF THE ESTATE OF JOSEPH JAMES 0- SEPH J. LACIVITA; LINDA JOAN , LIS JEAN M, JOHN KNOWN5SPOUSE OF E 4' JOSEPH JAMES LA- CIVITA, JR.: UN - 150* SPWSE 1. 11NOA JOAN HOL- 115 0NKNOWN '-LSE OF 1; UNKNOWN TEN. D AMYANALLUM K50*5 PARTIES CLAIMING BY, THROUGH, UNDER R 3041567 THE OV IOWN Ti AO OR A 01005 SAI NONCE OF SALE September, tete, Douglas C. 2a5m, PA Designated Ern. Ad- dress: btlms: eefdin95b 13425 81.1. 00 Nona, Sui,e 200 Sc P7rervbur�,216 Telephone02-00 1 Attorney lar the Main. 30005810 FBN 4341 x+ye". .abg ryrivh: m �y er to po ceedte: rr, ae ,e1,eert .sistanve.ain Pla,se Coale drib ,,12,, A DA 0,92, 0) 252 NW Country Club Drive, 5900 21), 343 5, toile, FL 349e6, lea s,7 e)-43)0 a, your scheduled noun ir°r°n:pi:rel9e ,r di,Licarioe If 25e 1chhelots anee eduln009, 4.y. Is les, Then) •aVF: r7voic" M7pdiaLd <"�a itt Publish: September T752761116 3816 NOTICE OF 41 SALE: PEE Mlo..L N .0072, Reabn.eni nis. 01rl0 i"We. MOW3 o0, 0RT PIE* BIE410 ..rv. 0 the ?1820•n t ° oreiaZT,. 4 all a Airy Alsond °aura hrperson clairnin J7terem t.0l Inhe ratwleur tote,, her Na date owner f In as Pen :1:1:,••4".14"j1 ans, mon rale s 0P07014 sale. says Dated this 22nd day ,ISwlembar 20BEL14 MIQUEL J. LE, SFruity., l.,1 .42E ame., floder 7523] Telephone: 18411 Bfifi-9213 Farlmile: 891 4603 BYw ihafle8a Mi,A,el J. It. Me 04for ,17300 Fbrid7 Bar No_ DESIGNATED PRIMARY E-MAIL 6ERTITO PURSUANT N M 0. JUL,. ADMIN 2,01. NrUc •OPe eon^, withceDriabiliriee: I' .nee a eis:bil.Vry wh d y SPOUSES, ON ER CIAMAMS; Defenderry NOTICE OF SALE lice Is Mi. 8ur0 i970- n Summa Final Jury 30, 2011, M Niv Bo"In the. w`Lk"' rrimst;. County, Flerid okmalla Bt lu,' c "7:1;. goriee, e„mib.d u 1, BLOCK 7501, RT 51 190E SEO N TWENTY E, ACCORDING T NOTICE OF FORECLOSURE October 6 2014 FC002Wo016 Your ultimate source for jobs, homes, wheels & stuff. Treasure Coast Classifieds Find your way into cyberspace Locate your Computer System in the Treasure Coast Classifieds. tcpalm.com classified There's MUSIC In Classified Advertising, Find anything from pianos to percussion. neasure coast classified NOTICE OF MEETING REGULAR BOARD MEETING NOTICE 15 HEREBY GIVEN that a cland- 0,941.0 80.1204..° Fg of Ne S2,,yI.nd ,rm, comm2nnY Dre 8 )144 DInria coil, baaeld at loon hereafter a can be heard, October Ins Room Brnch Libra?v 270 SE Mocae:, Boulevard, brlida 05 Th ramary cuwon th LanE4e.. '4=1h Is len 7, 1e S2p,yI.,A 1°r the Community Farms Community 010vel3pment hs Repul a, Board Meeting is to on - dun wYinesto fore o cooard. Copes of Ne Agendum,rteetnyelter: so- tt Ne District Manager .Jua6iug 02itai- ,J]-133.4B23 .1 Na.1 me eeie o `merimrn in., From time la lime e ^°m ore S 4,010 rss In hi Regular Board Meeting by tele- JeeaoC0;i,n "7750 tarppere stNgl e: sent ethat a2 "e1rran"aan eiery lee= plan Mw'm Mono nor by n. Ths meerin*F b. <Omm2.e .. 2M pts>"fy'e0. os, tha record. H ono parr: decide. ° p099:151re .7- .,2,;e.11ve^amn 9. <N of the proceed- ino me a<h'Zee: that a verbatim re- cord - cord 01 the proceed - .ng la made .t me or raer pedIwn.. cad worth alndides the Imlme ^ b;20 ro:.noe.i i. In accordance with Rmer0ons wish DI Fr° 3111/., An, any per- regmongvpet moon. N °wrlhia'm.:i- . o47d canteen tM1e Di011771`3741121e! tric4oa3 t 1121er 168m ]]-e)3)stall Ire,r let 1- eant 1alelftri g23 feTeR meetings, CSu2n,ils4Nnyl,ndryDF•ry wel00m Lucie PUO 51. Lucie News, 59014 10044411121gFlgNa 1r4111.01a 070660 AN Publish: September N2014 295M79 Nona OF PUBL. SALE ame .and all othe at Odic amnion accordance with F.S. I Odor ale Ps be he Wynne Building Co Pubs: 0/22714 • 521614 1.0.48119 NOTICE OF MEETING COMMUNITY CEVELOPMENT DISTRICT NOTICE OF MEETING AND consult c "Print Form INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONn REQUEST TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION �� `� Any organization or individual wishing to address the Board of County Commission shall complete this Me -L t form and submit it to the Indian River County Administrator's Office. PUBLIC DISCUSSION INFORMATION Indian River County Code Section 102.04(10)(b): as a general rule, public discussion items should be limited to matters on which the commission may take action Indian River County Code Section 102.07(2): limit remarks to three minutes unless additional time is granted by the commission NAME OF INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION: r (C 1` ADDRESS:\f--+-caQ----- 6° PHONE: '- �� ( SUBJECT MATTER FOR DISCUSSION: G-'nleN m r)1\--0( �Yl _e l nS�`� � t 10 c 19 0) 0.5\ \- -\ v\Ose c) C' ' O\ IS A PRESENTATION PLANNED? ❑ Yes IS BACK-UP BEING PROVIDED? ❑ Yes IS THIS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION? E Yes No ❑ No ❑ No spec,-\-- +.") » D WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU REQUESTING OF THE COMMISSION? (Y\ 'f,._�J�, 1 n� p V ---k Q. 'at c€* O UJ iv\ ; r1n deS c X\\ O S t %r1, C e. CA O 4‘7 ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED? ❑ Yes 1 ❑ No v (1`-oL) WHAT FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUEST? Transmitted to Administrator Via: Interactive Web Form E -Mail Fax Mail Hand Delivered Phone COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: MEETING DATE: )1) )(1.7 P Joseph A. Baird )1-dlq 212 • • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION REQUEST TO BE SCHEDULED FOR PUBLIC DISCUSSION Any organization or individual wishing to address the Board of County Commission shall complete this form and submit it to the Indian River County Administrator's Office. PUBLIC DISCUSSION INFORMATION Indian River County Code Section 102.04(9)(b): as a general rule, public discussion items should be limited to matters on which the commission may take action Indian River County Code Section 102.07(2): limit remarks to three minutes unless additional time is granted by the commission NAME OF INDIVIDUAL OR ORGANIZATION: Fred Mensing ADDRESS: 7580 129th Street, Sebastian, FI SUBJECT MATTER FOR DISCUSSION: IS A PRESENTATION PLANNED? IS BACK-UP BEING PROVIDED IS THIS AN APPEAL OF A DECISION PHONE: 772-532-6035 Bring Forward Frauds of Indian River County YES YES YES WHAT RESOLUTION ARE YOU Settlement of Case REQUESTING OF THE COMMISSION? NO NO NO ARE PUBLIC FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES REQUIRED? WHAT FUNDS OR ACTIVITIES ARE REQUIRED TO MEET THIS REQUEST? YES NO Transmitted to Administrator Via: Interactive Web Form E -Mail X Fax Mail Hand Delivered Phone COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR: MEETING DATE: (0_,n0 ZCD Joseph A. Baird Yozdt_te6u a0/ F:\County Admin\ExecAsst\AGENDA\Public Discussion Items Form.doc Board Approved 11/7/06 213 k A4) \--t v..e t� 6 .\s (.C.'t i Aciiv(l ry sTI2 t Q /54,,4 cr Cn� c, A4 �lvt e, Gam. A Aj �A •k ev z 4 -Le_ L'Ic) m k..) 4 (i FficAtdicis or' 1. rz l4tr ►4 eel �ul7cC. 4 o(/Lt7 1141/4._. _LWd 1 L Ccv 11-\r Wvtil }t,, 5;17714r IV 4 Y11( 110 vc=1 (pi -ter Awct Ad, )ic's's c Ve k iY4 & So k4e._ Le.g4.40 FREDE SEB Amr„„ 1,(„ctvi 44,4. 4 K 0. MENSiNG, ill 111111 111 (c rt0 h) � j- er T e- -. T00M XVd 9g:OT 6TOZ/90/0T 214 PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS: 10/14/14 Office of '_ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dylan Reingold - County Attorney DATE: October 6, 2014 RE: Public Notice of Public Hearing Scheduled for October 21, 2014 to Consider Adoption of a Proposed Ordinance Amending the Indian River County Code With Respect to Medical Marijuana The Board of County Commissioners will hold a Public Hearing in the County Commission Chambers on Tuesday, October 21, 2014, at 9:05 a.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard, to consider adoption of a proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 315 OF THE CODE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENTITLED "INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PAIN MANAGEMENT CLINIC AND CONTROLLED SUBSTANCES ORDINANCE" TO INCLUDE REGULATIONS AND PROHIBITIONS OF CERTAIN ACTIVITIES RELATING TO MEDICAL MARIJUANA; AND PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, CODIFICATION, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. /nhm Approved for October 14, 2014 BCC Meeting Public Notice Items COUNTY ATTORNEY 215 Indian River Co. A proved Date Admin. /D /g ; it Co. Atty. 1 t1 Budget 1 o ii Department . - Risk Mgmt __ 215 County Attorney's Matters - B.C.C. 10.14.14 Office of INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ATTORNEY Dylan Reingold, County Attorney William K. DeBraal, Deputy County Attorney Kate Pingolt Cotner, Assistant County Attorney MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Dylan Reingold, County Attorney DATE: October 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Citizen Advisory Task Force BACKGROUND. ihr, The Florida Department of Economic Opportunity is going through the process of revising Chapter 73C- 23, Florida Administrative Code which relates to the Florida Small Cities Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. Under the new rule, an applicant for funding may claim up to ten points if it has an active Citizen Advisory Task Force (CATF) which has at least five residents and at least 51% of the members from low- to moderate -income households. Indian River County does have an active CATF. There are eleven positions on the CATF. Of those, four are vacant. One position is reserved for the Director of the Community Development Department. At this time, the CATF does not meet the threshold requirement of members from low- to moderate -income households. In order to meet this requirement, the County Attorney recommends that the Board restructure the CATF from eleven members to five members. By eliminating the four vacant positions, removing the Director of the Community Development Department, and eliminating one of the members who exceeds the income threshold, the CATF will be compliant with the new rule. The attached resolution restructures the CATF. Approved for October 14, 2014 BCC Meeting County Attorney's Matters COUNTY ATTORNEY F i!Forney L,,d GE,VB&IL',B C'Cutgendn Aknua(;17F.dar Indian River Co. Ap roved Date Admin. /0)J'f Co. Atty. 10) 7 v Budget ]7 l4 Department lo( /jy Risk Management --- --- 216 Board of County Commissioners October 7, 2014 Page 2 of 2 It is anticipated that the new rule will go into effect prior to the award of CDBG funds. Under the new rule the CATF will need to meet the new threshold before making recommendations on the community needs prior to the drafting of the application for funding. Such meeting will be scheduled for November. FUNDING. There is no funding associated with this agenda item. RECOMMENDATION. The County Attorney's Office recommends that the Chair allow for public comment on this matter and then have the Board vote to accept the proposed resolution restructuring and re-establishing the CDBG CATF and approve the list of the initial remaining 5 members of the CATF. ATTACHMENTS Proposed Resolution List of Remaining CATF Members 1:LittorrwlindatCENEHALVI C OvIgenda Alemos CATh:dac 217 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM TO: Dylan Reingold County Attorney i4) THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Community Development Director FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP c' Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Community Development Block Grant Citizen Advisory Task Force Generally, the County is eligible to apply for various Community Development Block Grants (CDBGs) from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). From time to time, the Board of County Commissioners approves submittal of an application to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant to benefit persons of low and moderate income within the County. There are several CDBG funding categories that the County may apply for including Housing, Neighborhood Revitalization, Commercial Revitalization, and Economic Development. Our applications must compete with all other applications submitted in each application cycle. All applications are scored each cycle for funding, with a maximum potential score of 1,000 points. Of the 1,000 potential points, up to 200 points are available for a Community Wide Need Score (CWNS) which is based on the county wide per capita income. Indian River County's current CWNS is 23. Because of this low CWNS, to be successful in obtaining CDBG funding, the County needs to maximize its CDBG application score by obtaining as high a score as possible in other scoring categories. According to the County's CDBG consultant, it is important for the county to obtain every 10 points of additional scoring to rank high enough in an application cycle to receive funding. Per a recently proposed new CDBG program rule, in the next application cycle the County will be able to claim 10 points on its application for funding if it has an active Citizen Advisory Task Force (CATF) that has at least 5 members and of which at least 51% of the members are from low to moderate income households. Currently, the County's CATF has 11 members with 4 positions vacant. Of the current seven active CATF members, only three are from low to moderate income households. To be eligible for the 10 additional points, the county may re -structure and re-establish the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) in a manner that satisfies current CDBG requirements and the 10 point F:\Community Development\CDBG\2014 CATF memo to Dylan.doc 218 incentive. Specifically, the county may re-establish the CATF as a 5 member committee and require that 51% of the members be from low to moderate income households. Based on a recent, confidential survey of the 7 existing CATF members, 3 are from low to moderate income households. Staff proposes that the Community Development Director and a second member that is not from a low to moderate income household be removed from the committee. Staff has coordinated with two members to be removed and they do not have any objection to being removed from the CATF in order for the county to receive the 10 points. Consequently, re -structuring the CATF to a 5 member committee with 3 members from low to moderate income households is feasible as described. The composition of the re -structured committee will qualify for the 10 point scoring "bonus". Attached please find the list of the remaining 5 initial members that include: • Joe Idlette, Jr. • Rev. William Mosley • Teddy Floyd • Leroy Smith • Joe Wiggins Should you have any questions, please contact me. Cc: Bill Schutt, Economic Development Planner Vincent Burke, Utilities Director Arjuna Weragoda, P.E. Capital Projects Manager F:\Community Development\CDBG\2014 CATF memo to Dylan.doc 219 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCE Ordinance 2003-010 approved March 11, 2003 provides that Commissioners serve as a non-voting iaison. Meets as needed at the Indian River County Administration Complex, 1800 or 1801 27th Street Vero Beach, FI.— conference room location, time and date to be determined. Minutes of meetings are taken by the Board of County Commissioners Office. Terms of the members are at the Board's discretion. (772) -226 -1490 Voting Members: 1 1 is Non-Votinq Liaison: Tim Zorc Board of County Commissioners 1801 27th Street Bldg "A" Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388 Page 1 of 2 226-1492 (0) tzorc(c�ircgov.com Rev. 10-01-14 220 Joe Idlette, Jr. 4730 58th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32967-4459 Citizen of Indian River County 562-6656 (H) 538-4521 (C) Joeidlette(a�beilsouth.net Rev. William Mosley, Chairman Gifford Economic Development Council 4450 27th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32967-1318 Citizen of Indian River County 713-8698 (c) 567-0879 (o) Mosleyqroupori cni gmail.com Teddy Floyd 4735 43rd Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32967 Citizen of Indian River County 978-6041 (w) 473-0217 (c) tfloyd(a iresheriff.orq Leroy E. Smith 4686 49th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32967 Citizen of Indian River County 567-9199 (h) 978-6197 (w) 453-1287 (c) Wabasso8comcast. net Lsmith(a�iresheriff.orq Joe Wiggins, Vice -Chairman 895 SW 11th Street Vero Beach, FL 32962-5554 Citizen of Indian River County 501-3761 (c) Oslowiggins(c�yahoo.com 1 1 is Non-Votinq Liaison: Tim Zorc Board of County Commissioners 1801 27th Street Bldg "A" Vero Beach, FL 32960-3388 Page 1 of 2 226-1492 (0) tzorc(c�ircgov.com Rev. 10-01-14 220 1 • 2014 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCE Notices and Agendas: F:\Community Development\CDBG\2014 CDBG CATF Members.doc Page 2 of 2 Rev. 10-01-14 221 Joseph A. Baird County Administrator 226-1408 (0) Michael Zito Assistant County Administrator 226-1410 (0) mzito(c�ircgov.com jbaird(a�ircgov.com Bill Schutt Community Development Dept. 226-1243 (0) 978-1806 (F) Sasan Rohani Chief, Long -Range Planning 226-1250 (0) 978-1806 (F) srohani(c�ircgov.com bschutt(a�ircgov.com Scott Johnson Webmaster 226-1391 (0) sjohnson(circgov.com Press Box Freddie L. Woolfork 4875 43rd Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32967-6327 Bea Nelon 1245 26 Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960-3968 633-1067 (C) BearealAbellsouth.net fwoolforkAgyac.net Julianne Price Indian Rtier County Health Department 1900 27t Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 794-7400 Julianne.price(p�flhealth.gov Effie Lyles 4215 28th Court Vero Beach, FL 32967-1415 978-0360 (H) 532-9856 (C) elyles@earthlink.net F:\Community Development\CDBG\2014 CDBG CATF Members.doc Page 2 of 2 Rev. 10-01-14 221 RESOLUTION NO. 2014- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO FORMALLY RE -STRUCTURE AND RE-ESTABLISH THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) CITIZEN ADVISORY TASK FORCE (CATF). WHEREAS, the County is eligible for a Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) from the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO); and WHEREAS, it is the desire of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners to submit applications to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity for a Small Cities Community Development Block Grant to benefit persons of low and moderate income within the County; WHEREAS, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) applications must be consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, there are several CDBG funding categories that the County may apply for including Housing, Neighborhood Revitalization, Commercial Revitalization, and Economic Development; and WHEREAS, to be successful in obtaining CDBG funding the County needs to maximize its CDBG application score; and WHEREAS, per a new CDBG program rule, the County can claim 10 additional points on its application for funding if it has an active CATF, made up of at least 5 members of which at least 51 % of the members are from low to moderate income households; and WHEREAS, under CDBG definitions, low to moderate income households is defined as having a household income of less than 50% of the County's median household income; and 1 222 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - WHEREAS, the County's current CATF is made up of 11 members with 4 positions currently vacant; and WHEREAS, an income survey of the current seven active members of the CATF indicates that only three members are from low to moderate income households); and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners desires to re -structure and re-establish the Citizens Advisory Task Force (CATF) in a manner that satisfies current CDBG requirements and point -maximizing incentives. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; that SECTION 1. Establishment The Board of County Commissioners hereby re-establishes and restructures the County's CATF by establishing a new 5 member CATF that satisfies current CDBG rules, and the 51% low to moderate income member composition incentive. SECTION 2. Membership At least 3 of the new 5 member CDBG CATF shall be from low to moderate income households. Members shall be appointed by a majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners and serve at the pleasure of the Board with a maximum term of 4 years. Each member may be re -appointed to the CDBG CATF by the Board of County Commissioners. SECTION 3. Community Development Plan For the purposes of CDBG applications, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is hereby designated as the County's Community Development Plan. 2 223 • • RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - SECTION 4. Powers and Duties The CDBG Citizen Advisory Task Force shall: (a) Appoint a chairperson and a vice chairperson at the first meeting of each year. (b) Meet as needed and hold and keep minutes of all meetings that are open to the public, and provide information to interested parties, as necessary, during these meetings. (c) Review the CDBG Program and analyze various aspects pertinent to neighborhood improvements in Indian River County. (d) Provide recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners regarding CDBG application categories appropriate for the County and regarding applications to be submitted for funding. (e) Provide input, recommendations and assistance to the Indian River County staff in all aspects of the CDBG Program, including program planning, implementation and assessment. (1) Provide public awareness and outreach programs regarding the CDBG program in Indian River County. SECTION 5. Advisory Status The CDBG CATF shall be advisory only and the members shall serve without compensation. SECTION 6. General Provisions The provision of Title 1, Chapter 103, relating to the advisory boards and commissions shall apply to this Committee. The Committee shall elect from among its voting members a chairman and vice chairman annually at its first meeting in January or at its next meeting if no meeting is held in January. A County Commissioner shall serve as a non-voting liaison to the Committee. Each chair and vice chair shall serve for a one-year term and may be reelected but shall be limited 3 224 • RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - to two successive annual terms, at which point they would be ineligible to chair the committee for at Least one year. SECTION 7. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions AH previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, which conflict with the provisions of this resolution are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 8. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that, if any provision of this resolution is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTION 9. Effective Date This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner , and being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman, Peter D. O'Bryan Vice Chairman, Wesley S. Davis Commissioner, Joseph E. Flescher Commissioner, Bob Solari Commissioner, Tim Zorc The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 141h day of October, 2014. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County By: Attest by: Peter D. O'Bryan, Chairman 4 225 • RESOLUTION NO. 2014 - Jeffrey R. Smith, Clerk of Court and Comptroller APPRO /TO F AN ; S FFICIENCY Dylan Reingold County Attorney F:\Community Development\CDBG\RESOLUTION TO ESTABLISH NEW CATF- 2014.doc 5 226 • • ITEM 14.D.1 October 14, 2014 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INTER -OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 7, 2014 SUBJECT: Reauthorization of the Florida Enterprise Zone Program FROM: Bob Solari, Commissioner District 5 I would like to request discussion by the Board in consideration of a resolution supporting the reauthorization of the Florida Enterprise Zone Program. Attachment: A draft Resolution. 227 4101 RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION SUPPORTING REAUTHORIZATION OF THE FLORIDA ENTERPRISE ZONE PROGRAM, CURRENTLY SET TO SUNSET ON DECEMBER 31, 2015 WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature created the Florida Enterprise Zone Program in 1982 to encourage private investment in economically distressed areas within Florida; and WHEREAS, the Florida Enterprise Zone Program has the goals of revitalizing and rehabilitating distressed areas, encouraging businesses to locate and expand in these areas, stimulating employment for area residents, and enhancing the general social and economic well- being; and WHEREAS, to achieve these goals, state and local governments provide certain tax incentives to entice businesses to invest and locate in designated enterprise zones; and WHEREAS, these incentives include job and property tax credits as well as sales tax refunds; and WHEREAS, in 2005, the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 2005-289, Laws of Florida (HB 1725), which re -designated existing enterprise zones and extended the Enterprise Zone Program until December 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, during the 2010 session, the Florida Legislature enacted Chapter 2010-147, C Laws of Florida (SB 1752), which directed the Florida Legislature's Office of Program Policy Analysis & Government Accountability (OPPAGA) to review and evaluate the Florida Enterprise Zone Program; and WHEREAS. in January, 2014, OPPAGA released Report Number 14-01, which found that in Fiscal Years 2009-10 through 2011-12, the Florida Department of Revenue had disbursed nearly $111 million in tax credits and sales tax refunds through the Florida Enterprise Zone Program; and WHEREAS, the Indian River County/City of Vero Beach Enterprise Zone comprises a 4.7 square mile area to include the Vero Beach Municipal Airport and the adjacent Gifford community; and WHEREAS, since the Indian River County/City of Vero Beach Enterprise Zone was designated in 2005, 390 new jobs have been created in the enterprise zone and over $7.5 million has been invested in the enterprise zone by private businesses; and WHEREAS, Section 290.016, Florida Statutes, provides that the Florida Enterprise Zone program will be repealed effective December 31, 2015; and WHEREAS, the Florida Legislature has the opportunity to extend the Florida Enterprise Zone Program to 2025 during the 2015 Legislative Session; and WHEREAS. given the positive impact the Florida Enterprise Zone Program has had on economic diversification, this Board urges the Florida Legislature to continue the program. 228 • • 0 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: Section 1. The above "WHEREAS" clauses are true and correct, and are hereby adopted as findings of the Board. Section 2. The Board supports the reauthorization of the Florida Enterprise Zone Program currently set to sunset on December 31, 2015. Section 3. The Board directs the Clerk of the Board to transmit certified copies of this resolution to the Governor, Senate President, House Speaker, and the Chair and Members of the Indian River County Legislative Delegation. The foregoing resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner , and seconded by Commissioner , and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Commissioner Peter O'Bryan Commissioner Wesley Davis Commissioner Joseph Flescher Commissioner Bob Solari Commissioner Tim Zorc The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this day of October, 2014. ATTEST: 229 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICE Indian River County Environmental Control Bearing Board Richard D. Cahoy Dr. Richard H. Baker Dr. Philip R. Glade Patrick Walther, P.E. Jennifer Peshke, Board Attorney Environmental Control Officer Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. Kate Cotner, Assistant County Attorney 15C Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Sitting as the Environmental Control Board Peter D O'Bryan, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman Bob Solari Tim Zorc Joseph E. Flescher INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2014 MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners sitting as Environmental Control Board, Indian River County FROM: Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. CA-t-ii -,� � f Environmental Control Officer SUBJECT: Report of Activities for First Quarter FY13/14 (October 1 -December 31, 2013) The following is a summary of enforcement activities conducted by the Environmental Control Office during the above quarter: 1. The Respondent Alberto Rendon was initially noticed to appear before the April 2013, Hearing Board when he did not respond to a Settlement Stipulation sent to his attention in February of 2013 by the Environmental Control Office. Respondent did not respond to the Hearing Board paperwork and did not appear at the April 2013 hearing and was fined a civil penalty of $1,500.00 with an additional $5,000.00 suspended penalty due if Respondent did not come into compliance and maintain compliance within forty five (45) days from the date of the Order. Staff met with Mr. Rendon and his family following the hearing and made translators available to confirm that Mr. Rendon understood the corrections to be made. To date, staff was able to assist the Rendon family in qualifying for the SHIP program to have emergency repairs made to their septic system. The repairs were made to the satisfaction of the Department and an Amended Order was approved and entered at the October 3, 2013, Environmental Control Hearing Board (ECHB) removing the suspended fine and reducing the initial civil penalty due to the language barrier challenges that were a factor in this case. Partial payment, $75.00 of $500.00 fine collected. Case No. 505-13 2. The Respondent, Terrance Taylor, a licensed Tattoo Artists operated the tattoo establishment, I am Art Tattooz located at 2023 SE Old Dixie Hwy, Suite 3, Vero Beach, Florida, 32962. The Respondent knowingly tattooed the bodies of minor children without parental consent on at least four (4) different occasions between November, 2012 and January, 2013. The Respondent initially appeared 1900 - 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 794-7440 FAX: (772) 794-7447 1 230 t telephonically at the June 6, 2013, ECHB where no civil penalty was recommended since there was ongoing enforcement with the State Attorney and the Florida Department of Health. Following the June 6, 2013, ECHB, staff continued to work with the parents of the minors who were tattooed to educate them on current state laws governing tattoo artists, and continued to follow the State's case against Terrance Taylor. Mr. Taylor was released from jail, did agree to meet with staff and entered into a Stipulation whereby he agreed to heightened regulation in exchange for no civil penalty to be entered against him. Staff also met with regional legal counsel to review the case on several occasions with regard to the feasibility of filing a 120 Administrative Complaint for removal of the Respondent's Artist License. It was decided that regional legal counsel would draft an Administrative Complaint for removal of Respondent's Artist License and file the Complaint only if the Respondent would not enter into the proposed Stipulation with the ECHB agreeing to heightened regulation. Staff also spoke with individuals in Tallahassee concerning this case. The Stipulation was presented at the October 3, 2013, ECHB and the Board adopted and approved the Stipulation. A copy of the Order was hand -delivered to the Respondent. Case No. 508-13 3. Respondents Dale and Gail Savage, have owned real property located at 5205 94th Lane, Sebastian, Florida, 32958. At the time this action occurred, the Respondents, Dale and Gail Savage had recently purchased and closed on the subject property. The Savages subsequently contracted with Ricky Jackson for repairs to be made to the property's onsite sewage disposal system. The repairs were unpermitted repairs, and they were also not inspected before the system was covered. The drainfield was placed too close to an adjacent body of water, the Indian River Lagoon. Ricky Jackson, the co -Respondent, is an unlicensed septic tank contractor, offering services he is not qualified to perform. The co - Respondent acted under a name not registered or authorized by the department. Staff spoke with the Respondents Mr. and Mrs. Savage on several occasions and obtained written discovery responses from the Savages in support of the case against Co -Respondent, Ricky Jackson. The case was brought before the October 3, 2013, ECHB. The Board entered an Order against the Respondent Jackson including a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500.00. The Respondent Mr. and Mrs. Savage made all requested repairs to the subject property at the time of the hearing and were not fined, nor was an Order entered against them. Partial payment, $750.00 of $2,500 fine collected. Case No. 512-13 4. Respondent Santosh International, Inc., has owned, operated or controlled the property at issue in this case located in Fellsmere, Florida. This case began in 2008, and was first brought before the ECHB in 2010 concerning the time period within which the Respondent would be required to connect to city water and the available sanitary sewer system. Following an extended time period that was agreed to after much discussion between the Petitioner, the Respondent, and the City of Fellsmere, the Petitioner and the Respondent entered into an additional Stipulation giving the Respondent an additional year to connect to city water and sanitary sewer systems. Respondent failed to comply with the terms of the Stipulation which required connection to city water and sanitary sewer systems on or before July 2, 2013. Respondent were brought back before the ECHB at the October 3, 2013, meeting for violation of the Stipulation. At the October 3, 2013, ECHB, the Board entered an Order for 2 231 Violation of the Stipulation and the Respondents received a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500.00. Since the October 3, 2013 ECHB, Respondents have made efforts to connect to sewer by hiring an engineer to design and permit the lift station and sewer connection through DEP. Partial payment, $714 of $2,500.00 fine collected. Case No. 479-10 5. Respondent Gladys Lamb has held an ownership interest in the real property that is the subject of this action located at 4363 34th Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida 32967. On or about February 14, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the subject property and found a broken septic tank lid that was collapsed thus exposing septic effluent and causing a sanitary nuisance. The septic tank was covered with plywood. A gravity sewer connection was found to be available for this address. Upon inspection of the subject property, Petitioner noted that several violations existed. The Respondents were directed to connect to the available sanitary sewerage system within ninety (90) days of the Notice of Violation receipt. The septic tank was directed to be abandoned within 90 days of connection to sewer and a permit was to be applied for from the Petitioner's office to abandon the septic tank. The Respondents were directed to keep the existing septic tank covered and blocked off so as to prevent an additional sanitary nuisance and safety hazard until the tank is properly abandoned. pon receipt of the Notice of Violation, a representative of the Respondent, Gladys Lamb, contacted the Petitioner and requested an extension of 90 days to abandon the septic system properly and connect to sewer. The deadline for compliance with the extension granted to the Respondent was August 31, 2013. Despite the extensions granted by the Department, the Respondent did not come into compliance on or before August 31, 2013, and the Respondent was brought before the October 3, 2013, ECHB. The Board entered an Order against the Respondent, Gladys Lamb however no Civil Penalty was ordered to be paid due to compliance efforts the Respondent took immediately after the hearing. Case No. 514-13 6. Respondent Nationstar Mortgage, LLC has owned real property located at 460 13th Lane SW, Vero Beach, Florida 32962. The Respondent acquired title to the real property at issue via a foreclosure proceeding. On or about July 11, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the subject property following a nuisance complaint that was called in to the Petitioner stating that there were unsanitary conditions on and around the premises. Upon inspection of the premises, Petitioner noted that several violations existed including the introduction and perpetuation of human disease organisms and vectors into the community. Additionally, Petitioner found the building to be structurally unsound and it is believed that this structural issue is leading to the breeding of rodents and other disease carrying vermin. This case was brought before the October 3, 2013, ECHB and an Order was entered against the Respondent, Nationstar, including a Civil Penalty in the amount of $1,500.00 and a suspended penalty. Case No. 513-13. 7. Respondent Gaddis Capital Corp has owned real property located at 4410 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida for the duration of this proceeding. On or about September 9, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the subject property and found a sanitary nuisance present in that the property contained multiple piles of auto and truck tires as well as other debris which were observed to be 232 breeding disease carrying mosquitoes. The Respondents were directed to take all measures necessary to remove and abate all mosquito breeding areas upon the subject property including the proper documentation of disposal for potentially regulated debris, such as tires as well as any and all regulated debris discovered. Upon inspection of the premises, Petitioner noted that several conditions existed in violation of Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in that a sanitary nuisance was present due to the harborage of breeding of flies, mosquitoes, or other arthropods capable of transmitting diseases, directly or indirectly to humans. This case was brought before the December 5, 2013, ECHB and an Order was entered against the Respondent requiring the property to be cleaned up, and ordering payment of a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500.00. A suspended Civil Penalty in the amount of $20,000.00 was also entered if the debris removal ordered was not completed within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of the Order. Case No. 515-13. 8. Respondent DSTS, LLC operates a retirement community doing business as Regency Park. This case was brought before the December 5, 2013, ECHB after the Respondent was found to be out of compliance with a prior Settlement Stipulation between the parties with regard to maintenance of proper chemical levels within the spa at the Respondent's facility. Prior to entry into the Second Settlement Stipulation, staff from the Department met with staff and management of the Respondent to discuss the matter and ensure all parties understood what was required of the Respondent to maintain compliance with the spa on the Respondent's facility. At the December 5, 2013, ECHB, the Board reviewed and adopted a Second Stipulation between the Parties requiring the Respondent to pay a Civil Penalty in the amount of $500.00, and requiring the Respondent to have an employee maintaining the spa become certified and attend an educational course for this certification. Respondent was also required to submit daily maintenance log copies to the Petitioner for a period of two years following entry into the Second Settlement Stipulation. An Order was entered against the Respondent, DSTS, LLC adopting the Second Settlement Stipulation entered into between the parties at the December 5, 2013, ECHB. Total fine of $500.00 collected. Case No. 435-08. 9. The Environmental Health Staff have continued to work with the County Attorney's office regarding revisions to the Grease Interceptor Ordinance. Several meetings have taken place during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012- 2013 between the Environmental Health Staff, the County Attorney and the Building Department in an effort to finalize a draft of the Ordinance for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 10. Other enforcement matters have been commenced which have not yet been brought before the Hearing Board. cc: Miranda Hawker, MPH, Administrator, DOH- Indian River County Jason Brown, Management and Budget Director, Indian River County Mayur Rao, Business Manager, DOH — Indian River County 4 233 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICE Indian River County Environmental Control Hearing Board Cynthia VanDeVoorde Hall Richard D. Cahoy Dr. Richard H. Baker Dr. Philip R. Glade Patrick Walther, P.E. Environmental Control Officer Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. Jennifer Peshke, Attorney DATE: October 3, 2014 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Sitting as the Environmental Control Board Joseph E. Flescher, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman Peter D O'Bryan Bob Solari Tim Zorc INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners sitting as Environmental Control Board, Indian River County FROM: Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. (d,_, / N ill s Environmental Control Officer SUBJECT: Report of Activities for Second Quarter 2014 (January 1 -March 31, 2014) • The following is a summary of enforcement activities conducted by the Environmental Control Office during the above quarter: 1. Respondents, Alirite Septic Inc., and its officers, Ricky Jackson, Ricky Jackson, Jr., and Richard Jaramillo operate a septic business. Respondents entered into a Settlement Stipulation with the Petitioner when Respondents were found to be in violation of both the Florida Statutes and the Florida Administrative Code for operating without a qualifier, and without a license to perform septic work and repairs. Upon receipt of notice from the Petitioner, detailing the violations at issue and the methods required to correct these violations, Respondents did apply for an approved qualifier through the DBPR, and Respondents did obtain a license to perform septic work and repairs. Respondents have agreed and entered into a Settlement Stipulation with the Petitioner which contains a Civil Penalty in the amount of $250.00. This case was brought before the February 6, 2014, ECHB at which time the Department approved an Order Adopting and Approving the Settlement Stipulation. Total fine of $250 collected. Case No. 507-13. 2. Respondent Gaddis Capital Corp has owned real property located at 4410 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida for the duration of this proceeding. On or about September 9, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the premises and found a sanitary nuisance present on the Respondent's property in that the property was contained various piles of auto and truck tires as well as other debris which were observed to be breeding disease carrying mosquitoes. The Respondents were directed to take all measures necessary to remove and abate all mosquito breeding areas upon the subject property including the proper documentation of disposal for potentially regulated debris, such as tires as well as any and all regulated debris discovered. Upon inspection of the premises, Petitioner noted that several violations existed in violation of Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida 1900 - 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 794-7440 FAX: (772) 794-7447 1 234 Statutes, in that a sanitary nuisance was present due to the conditions on the property harboring the breeding of flies, mosquitoes, or other arthropods capable of transmitting diseases, directly or indirectly to humans. This case was brought before the December 5, 2013, ECHB and an Order was entered against the Respondent requiring the property to be cleaned up, and ordering payment of a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500.00. A suspended Civil Penalty in the amount of $20,000.00 was also entered if the debris removal ordered was not completed within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of the Order. Since the December 5, 2013, ECHB, Gaddis Capital Corp. has appointed a local representative, Mr. Joe Paladin, to assist with the clean-up of the property. The Department has met with Mr. Paladin to formulate a game plan. The Department has also met with the Code Enforcement Board and Community Development officials to determine how both Enforcement Boards may be able to follow-up with the owner of this property to ensure compliance. Work is ongoing to clean up the property pursuant to the Environmental Control Hearing Board's Order entered in December 30, 2013. Case No. 515-13. 3. Environmental Health staff continues to work with Santosh International, Inc., Respondents. Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) issued the permit for the sewer connection design on February 24, 2014. Partial payments of $1,785.00 of $2,500.00 fine collected. Case No. 479-10 4. Respondents, Dale and Gail Savage, have owned real property located at 5205 94th Lane, Sebastian, Florida, 32958. The co -Respondent is Ricky Jackson who is responsible for the fine. Partial payment, $1,500.00 of $2,500 fine collected. Case No. 512-13 5. The Environmental Health Staff have continued to work with the County Attorney's office regarding revisions to the Grease Interceptor Ordinance. Several meetings have taken place during the second quarter of fiscal year 2012-2013 between the Environmental Health Staff, the County Attorney and the Building Department in an effort to finalize a draft of the Ordinance for approval by the Board of County Commissioners. 6. Initiated actions to fill the Attorney Representative position on the ECHB. 7. Other enforcement matters have been commenced which have not yet been brought before the Hearing Board. cc: Miranda Hawker, MPH, Administrator, DOH — Indian River County Jason Brown, Management and Budget Director, Indian River County Mayur Rao, Business Manager, DOH - Indian River County 2 235 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICE Indian River County Environmental Control Hearing Board Richard D. Cahoy Dr. Richard H. Baker Dr. Philip R. Glade Patrick Walther, P.E. Jennifer Peshke, Board Attorney Environmental Control Officer Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. Kate Cotner, Assistant County Attomey Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Sitting as the Environmental Control Board Peter D O'Bryan, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman Bob Solari Tim Zorc Joseph E. Flescher INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2014 MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners sitting as Environmental Control Board, Indian River County FROM: Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. Environmental Control Officer SUBJECT: Report of Activities for Third Quarter 2014 (April 1 -June 30, 2014) The following is a summary of enforcement activities conducted by the Environmental Control Office during the above quarter: 1. Respondent Gaddis Capital Corporation has owned real property located at 4410 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida for the duration of this proceeding. On or about September 9, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the subject property finding a sanitary nuisance present in that there were multiple piles of auto and truck tires as well as other debris that were observed to be breeding disease carrying mosquitoes. The Respondents were directed to take all measures necessary to remove and abate all mosquito breeding areas upon the subject property including the proper documentation of disposal for potentially regulated debris, such as tires as well as any and all regulated debris discovered. Upon inspection of the premises, Petitioner noted that several conditions existed in violation of Chapter 386.041(1)(e), Florida Statutes, in that a sanitary nuisance was present due to the subject property having existing harborage for breeding of flies, mosquitoes, or other arthropods capable of transmitting diseases, directly or indirectly to humans. The violations described above warrant civil penalties of up to $500.00 per day per violation. The property has been re -inspected by the Petitioner, and the violations do all continue to exist on the Respondent's property. From the time of the December 5, 2013 hearing to the present time, minimal clean-up of tires has occurred on the property with the additional pressure from the Code Enforcement Board, as well as with the assistance of Mr. Joseph Paladin, an independent consultant retained by the property owners, or an agent of the property owners. This case was brought before the December 5, 2013, ECHB and an Order was entered against the Respondent requiring the property to be cleaned up, and ordering payment of a Civil Penalty in the amount of $2,500.00. A suspended Civil Penalty in the amount of $20,000.00 was also entered if the debris removal ordered was not 1900 - 27th Street 1 Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 794-7440 FAX: (772) 794-7447 236 completed within sixty (60) days from the date of entry of the Order. Based on continued inactivity on the subject property a Lien in the amount of $42,500 was recorded on May 29, 2014 by the ECHB on the subject property. This matter came up for re -hearing before the Indian River County Environmental Control Board on June 5, 2014, as many months have passed and full compliance has not been achieved by the Respondent. A Second Order was entered into at the June 5, 2014 ECHB in which the Respondent is directed to immediately remove and abate all mosquito breeding areas upon the subject property including the removal of all trash and debris from the premises contributing to the harborage of mosquitoes, flies, and arthropods. The Respondent was directed to provide the Petitioner with a written commitment for payment for clean-up of the property to bring it into compliance by the property owner, Gaddis Capital Corporation within one week of the date of this Order. A written report within one week of the date of this Order detailing a proposed clean-up plan and the costs associated with clean- up would be provided by the Respondent along with weekly submittals of photos and a weekly written report via email to the Petitioner to update the ECHB as to the status of the clean-up efforts on the property. A representative of the Respondent shall appear at the August 7, 2014, ECHB to update the Board as to the status of progress of clean-up efforts on the property if compliance has not been achieved. If the terms of this Second Order, as detailed above are not complied with, the ECHB will immediately take action to appeal to the County Commissioners and will also involve other organizations to take criminal action against the Respondent as permitted by law. The ECHB will take any and all actions to achieve compliance within the confines of its Ordinance and Special Act and will take action pursuant to the Board's legal authority to lien any and all other properties owned by the Respondent for the value of the lien recorded against the subject property, to wit: $42,500.00. The ECHB hereby imposes an additional suspended Civil Penalty at the rate of $500.00 a day totaling $22,500.00 to become effective within 45 days of the date of this Order if the Respondent does not come into compliance and has not cleaned up the property within 45 days of the date of this Order. The ECHB will hear testimony at the August 7, 2014, ECHB and will entertain a reduction of the fine on record in the amount of $42,500.00 and will take action to satisfy the current lien recorded against the subject property if the property is brought into compliance within 45 days of the date of this Second Order. The Department continued to work with Joe Paladin, the POA for Gaddis Capital Corporation toward compliance. Case No. 515-13. 2. At all times pertinent to this action, Respondent Kathleen Dixon owns real property located at 442 Fordham Street, Sebastian, Florida 32958. On or about February 21, 2014, February 27, 2014, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the subject property and found an inoperable septic tank that had been improperly modified to include an illegal drainpipe that was found to be directly discharging sewage into a wet swale designed to convey storm water. The unapproved waste water discharge resulted in the ponding of improperly treated waste and the creation of a sanitary nuisance on the subject property and adjacent to the premises in violation of Chapter 386.041(1)(a)(b)(e), Florida Statutes. This infraction also led to the pollution of local waterways through the storm water system. The Respondent was directed to disconnect the illegal drainpipe from the onsite sewage treatment and disposal system and remove the materials from the site permanently and immediately. The Respondent was also directed to seal the former connection to the septic system using concrete or other appropriate means. All ponded sewage as well as the area of impact was directed to be disinfected using lime, and all spoils were directed to 237 be properly disposed of. A licensed septic tank contractor or state licensed plumber was to be contacted to inspect the tank and drainfield after the afore -referenced corrective actions were taken and the Respondent was required to repair or replace the system as necessary to meet the requirements of Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. The Respondent was also directed to obtain the proper permit and inspection(s) from the Petitioner. This case was brought before the April 3, 2014, ECHB at which time an Order was entered directing the Respondent to come into full compliance, including having a registered septic tank contractor or state licensed plumber come to the property to inspect the existing septic tank and drainfield to ensure that it is operating pursuant to current code and meeting all necessary requirements of Chapter 64E-6, Florida Administrative Code. A civil penalty and fine of $1,500.00 was entered at the April 3, 2014, ECHB, with an additional $1,000.00 suspended penalty if the Respondent did not come into compliance within seven days. Petitioner continues to pursue the Respondent for payment of this fine and follow up with regard to compliance. Since payment was not received and the system was not pumped and inspected as required a Lien in the amount of $2,500 was recorded against the property on May 20, 2014. Case No. 516-14. 3. The Respondent Serenoa Home Owners Association, Inc. owns the common elements of the real property located at 200 11th Square Southwest, Vero Beach, Florida. On or about August 21, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the premises, specifically including an inspection of the Association's community swimming pool and observed the lines to the disinfection feeder and the pH adjustment feeder to have been cut. The pool was inspected and found to be operating without an automatic disinfection feeder or pH adjustment feeder. The pool was also found to be operating without a valid permit. The pool was originally approved with a disinfection feeder, Stenner 45M5 and a pH adjustment feeder, Stenner 45M2, using muriatic acid. Petitioner also observed a floating chlorinator that had been placed in the collector tank. This device is not approved by the Petitioner, and does not comply with the applicable code. This case was brought before the April 3, 2014, ECHB at which time an Order was entered against the Respondent requiring full compliance. A civil penalty and fine of $1,000.00 was also entered by the Board. To date, the Petitioner continues to follow up on this file and pursue the Respondent for full compliance. If payment is not received a lien will be recorded against the property. Total fine of $1,000 collected. Case No. 517-14. 4. Respondents High Ridge Mobile Home Park and Daniel W. Hardee own real property located at High Ridge Mobile Home Park, specifically: Lot #103, 50th Place; Lot #5030, 33rd Avenue; and Lot #5, 32nd Court; Lots #13 and #102, 50th Place, Vero Beach, Florida. On or about February 6, 2014, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the subject property and found six (6) violations including: (A) Lot #103: an accumulation of garbage littered throughout the property; (B) Lot # 5030: a large pile of rotted wood and debris; and (C) Lot # 5, 5030, 13, and 102: all mobile homes on these four lots were found to be vacant with broken windows allowing vermin to enter the mobile homes. The foregoing violations were found to be violations of Chapter 64E-15, Florida Administrative Code. This case was brought before the April 3, 2014, ECHB and an Order was entered against the Respondents in the amount of $2,000. The Petitioner continues to follow up with the Respondents to ensure compliance is being maintained on the property. Since payment was not J 238 received a Lien in the amount of $2,000 was recorded against the property on May 20, 2014. Case No. 518-14. 5. This case involves failure of the Respondents Jim Wright Construction, Inc. and James A. Wright, Jr. to obtain proper annual operating permit for onsite treatment and disposal systems located in areas zoned or used for industrial or manufacturing purposes or its equivalent or where a business will generate commercial sewage waste. Upon receipt of correspondence from the Petitioner, the Respondent was receptive and responsive to Petitioner's request for compliance and did agree to enter into a Settlement Stipulation to obtain the required operating permit for this calendar year, as well as to repay outstanding fines and penalties from prior years. The case was brought before the April 3, 2014, ECHB at which time the Board entered into an Order adopting and approving the proposed Settlement Stipulation. To date, the Respondent is making timely payments pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Stipulation. Case No. 519-14. 6. Environmental Health staff continues to work with Santosh International, Inc., Respondents. Staff have met and worked with Todd Smith the Respondent's engineer and City of Fellsmere Utilities Department representative to coordinate the conversion to public sewer and the potential use of existing tanks for other uses. Total fine of $2,500.00 collected. Case No. 479-10 7. Respondents Dale and Gail Savage, have owned real property located at 5205 94th Lane, Sebastian, Florida, 32958. Partial payment, $2,250 of $2,500 fine collected. Case No. 512-13 8. At all times pertinent to this action, Respondent Alberto Rendon has owned real property located in Indian River County with an address of 191 South Bay Street, Fellsmere, FL 32948 which is a single family home owned by Respondent. An Amended Order was approved and entered at the October 3, 2013, Environmental Control Hearing Board removing the suspended fine and reducing the initial civil penalty due to the language barrier challenges that were a factor in this case. Partial payment, $75.00 of $500.00 fine collected. A Lien in the amount of $425 was recorded against the subject property on May 20, 2014 for non-payment and adherence to payment schedule. Case No. 505-13 9. Respondents, Paul and Lisa Shaffer have owned real property located at 1591 Eastlake Lane, Sebastian, Florida 32958. A Notice of Violation was sent to the Respondents on February 19, 2014, stating that the property owned by the Respondents was in violation with regard to a laundry waste water plumbing pipe being present that was capped but had not been removed from the premises Upon receipt of the February 19, 2014 correspondence and following several other points of contact including visits to the property and calls with the Department, Respondent got in touch with the Petitioner to resolve the outstanding violation on the property. Petitioner and Respondents entered into a legally binding Settlement Stipulation dated June 10, 2014 approved by the June 12, 2014, ECHB. Total $50 fine collected. Case No. 520-14. 410 10. The Environmental Control Officer has made numerous attempts to fill the Attorney Representative Position that has been vacant since February, 2014. 4 239 p 11. The Department of Health — Indian River County is work with the County Attorney's Office to transition staff support for legal matters to the County Attorney's Office. 12. Other enforcement matters have been commenced which have not yet been brought before the Hearing Board. cc: Miranda Hawker, MPH, Administrator, DOH — Indian River County Jason Brown, Management and Budget Director, Indian River County Mayur Rao, Business Manager, DOH — Indian River County 5 240 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL OFFICE Indian River County Environmental Control Hearing Board Richard D. Cahoy Dr. Richard H. Baker Dr. Philip R. Glade Patrick Walther, P.E. Jennifer Peshke, Board Attorney Environmental Control Officer Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. Kate Cotner, Assistant County Attorney Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Sitting as the Environmental Control Board Peter D O'Bryan, Chairman Wesley S. Davis, Vice Chairman Bob Solari Tim Zorc Joseph E. Flescher INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM DATE: October 3, 2014 MEMO TO: Board of County Commissioners sitting as Environmental Control Board, Indian River County FROM: Cheryl L. Dunn, R. S. l,(4,zS Environmental Control Offic r SUBJECT: Report of Activities for Fourth Quarter 2014 (July 1- September 30, 2014) The following is a summary of enforcement activities conducted by the Environmental Control Office during the above quarter: 1. At all times pertinent to this action, Respondents, Gaddis Capital Corporation, have owned real property located at 4410 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida (Subject Property). On or about September 9, 2013, Petitioner conducted an inspection of the Subject Property and found a sanitary nuisance presence in that the property contained an abundance of auto and truck tires as well as other debris that were facilitating the breeding of disease carrying mosquitoes. The Respondents were directed to take all measures necessary to remove and abate all mosquito breeding areas upon the Subject Property including to provide proper documentation for the disposal of potentially regulated debris, such as tires, as well as any and all regulated debris discovered. Immediately prior to the Environmental Control Hearing Board (ECHB) meeting dated December 5, 2013, the petitioner re -inspected the Subject Property and determined that the referenced violations had not been corrected. The Board directed the Respondents to clean-up and imposed a fine which amounted to $42,500 if the Subject Property was not cleaned -up within 60 days. At the April 3, 2014, the Board requested an update on the Subject Property. However, the Subject Property Representatives had not been noticed nor was the matter on the agenda. Therefore, at the Board's request the matter was placed on the agenda as a re -hearing on June 5, 2014. From the time of the December 5, 2013, hearing to the time of the re -hearing June 5, 2014, despite additional pressure from Code Enforcement Board, as well as the assistance of Mr. Joseph Paladin, an independent consultant retained owner of the Subject Property, minimal clean-up of the tires had occurred. At the Board's request, the matter has been brought up for 1900 - 27th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Phone: (772) 794-7440 FAX: (772) 794-7447 1 241 second re -hearing on August 28, 2014, to give an update on the Subject Property's condition. The matter has been brought before the Board to clarify and document that the $42,500 lien filed on May 22, 2014, against the Respondent's real property at 4410 45th Street, Vero Beach, Florida included amounts relating to the initial civil penalty of $2,500, the suspended civil penalty of $20,000 if not complete in 30 days and the additional suspended civil penalty of $20,000 if not complete in 60 days from the day of the first Order. As required by the Second Order the Respondent took the following actions. Respondent began removing mosquito harborage on July 20, 2014. Within two days the most proximal harborage to the Community Center had been either removed or relocated for sorting at a distance greater than 300 feet. This distance would be the expected flight range of the mosquitos of concern. The Northern section of the Subject Property had been cleared by July 28, 2014, meeting the 45 day requirement for a portion of the property. Delays on implementation were associated with actions from previous property owner not providing site access, not providing for the electric power cancelation to a live meter, not removing equipment as requested by current property owner; weather with significant rain events; the encountering of comingled debris requiring hand sorting; the discovery of large concrete sections; the discover of hazardous materials; the proper location and evaluation of Gopher Tortoise burrows, and the contractor going through back surgery June 26, 2014. The requirement for the respondent to provide the Petitioner a written commitment for payment within one week of the order was provided by John M. Camillo Vice President of Gaddis Capital Corporation, on June 15, 2014, by e-mail letter. On July 18, 2014, Dr. David Cox reported that he had received a signed proposal for work to begin. Written e-mail reports and daily photographs as well as e-mails involving negotiations with contractors, Gaddis Capital Corporation and other parties began the next day after the hearing. Constant updates have come with details and result on a daily basis and continue today. The August 7, 2014 ECHB was rescheduled to August 28, 2014 and Joe Paladin, the Respondent's representative committed to provide a status report on the subject property. Additional enforcement action requests were not made because of efforts toward compliance made by the Respondent. The department requested that the Respondent begin by removing items with the potential of breeding mosquitos at the rear of the property moving toward the front of the property to better reduce the risk to the children using the athletic fields. Due to substantial progress made clearing surface debris including tires from the north end of the Subject Property adjacent to athletic fields department funds were not spent to lien all other properties owned by the Respondent for the value of the lien recorded against the Subject Property. The respondent acted diligently in correcting the violations upon the Subject Property. In addition to the violations described and enforced by the Hearing Board, other new violations of law previously not cited, were promptly corrected upon discovery. The following events and circumstances should be noted: The complexity of the solid waste and the sorting needed to properly characterize these wastes for proper disposal and worker safety was significant with each section of piled debris requiring close scrutiny for hazards and hands on labor. The proper recovery and disposal of drummed oil waste stored within the building was properly conducted. The proper abandonment of illegal septic systems was conducted with a licensed contractor and proper permits. The proper abandonment of the potable well by a 242 licensed contractor with completion reports was conducted. The removal of rodent harborage and unsafe structures which existed upon the parcels with the debris being properly disposed of at the landfill was completed. Over 250,000 lbs of commingled solid waste from the surface piles was sorted, removed and transported to the Landfill for disposal. Over 7,000 tires had been recovered, transported and properly disposed from the surface piles on the parcels. The contractor had to work around several vehicles and heavy equipment left on the Subject Property by the previous property owner despite numerous requests by the current property owner and the contractor to remove or relocate the machinery. Additional corrective actions shall be required to evaluate sub surface debris and potential soil or groundwater contamination. This matter came up for a second re -hearing before the Indian River County Environmental Control Board on August 28, 2014 and in a Third Order dated September 5, 2014, ECHB shall not assess a civil penalty against the Respondent for taking an additional 22 days to remove and abate all mosquito breeding areas upon the Subject Property. Additionally, the current lien of $42,500 on the Subject Property shall be reduced by $33,500 to a total of $15,000. In consideration of this reduction, the $15,000 lien must be paid in full within 30 days of Third Order. Total fine of $15,000 collected and Satisfaction of Lien executed. Case No. 515-13. 2. Environmental Health staff continues to work with Santosh International, Inc., Respondents. Connection to public sanitary sewer is complete. Total fine of $2,500.00 collected. Case No. 479-10 3. Respondents Dale and Gail Savage, have owned real property located at 5205 94th Lane, Sebastian, Florida, 32958. Total fine of $2,500 collected. Case No. 512-13 Petitioner and Respondents, Sebastian Hospital LLC, DBA Sebastian River Medical Center entered into a legally binding Settlement Stipulation dated August 15, 2014. A Notice of Violation was sent to the Respondents on May 22, 2014, stating that the Respondent was in violation with regard to various practices concerning disease control measures. Upon receipt of the May 22, 2014, Notice of Violation, and following several other points of contact including visits to the property and calls with the Department, the Respondent contacted the Petitioner to resolve the outstanding violation on the subject property. The Settlement Stipulation was adopted and approved August 28, 2014, ECHB with a suspended $2,500 civil penalty. 5. The Environmental Control Officer has made numerous attempts to fill the Attorney Representative Position that has been vacant since February, 2014. 6. Legal matters for staff of the Environmental Control Board Office are now supported by the County Attorney's Office. 7. Other enforcement matters have been commenced which have not yet been brought before the Hearing Board. cc: Miranda Hawker, MPH, Administrator, DOH — Indian River County Jason Brown, Management and Budget Director, Indian River County Mayur Rao, Business Manager, DOH — Indian River County 3 243