HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/18/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
• AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 18, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman
Carolyn K. Eggert
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 A.M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2.. INVOCATION - Rev. John Harrington
Christ United Methodist By The Sea
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler, Co. Adm.
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a.Chairman Bird req.the addn.of an item on retirement of Co.Employee Betty
Oiler. He also req.that (2) items be added to the Consent Agenda:
b.Item L, License Agreement w/Abyss Maritme, Inc., &
c.Item M, Repr.on Co.Land Acquis. Advisory Committee.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular meeting of 5/21/91
B. Regular meeting of 5/28/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the office of Clerk
to the Board:
(1) Report of convictions - month of May, 1991
(2) Minutes of quarterly meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of Seb. Riv. Water Control Dist.
held on May 29, 1991
B. Occupational license taxes collected during month of
May, 1991
(memorandum dated June 5, 1991)
C. Release of Utility Liens
(memorandum dated June 11, 1991)
BOOK jJ '
'AIN 1 8 1991
16,
JUN 18 1991 BOOK M,L
83
7. CONSENT AGENDA (continued) :
D. Approval for out -of -country travel for Comm. Scurlock
to attend WPCF Conference, Toronto, Canada, Oct. 7-10,
1991
E. Request Authorization for County Attorney to attend
upcoming Florida Assoc. of Counties Meeting,
June 19 thru 21, 1991
(memorandum dated June 12, 1991)
F. Florida Contraband Forfeiture Quarterly Report
(memorandum dated June 3, 1991)
G. Request for permission to utilize Indian River County
Riparian Land for a single family dock off Calcutta
Drive, in Country Club Pointe Subdivision
(memorandum dated May 30, 1991)
H. Request for approval of the Overall Economic Develop-
ment Plan (OEDP) 1990/1991 Annual Report
(memorandum dated June 7, 1991)
I. Bid Award: IRC 91-97 / Truck Mounted Crane and
Service Body
(memorandum dated June 11, 1991)
J. IRC Bid #91-58 / Misc. Utility Projects -
Labor Contract
(memorandum dated June 11, 1991)
K. Automatic Doors, Main Library
(memorandum dated June 11, 1991)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. 12th Street Water Service Project Resolution III
(memorandum dated June 6, 1991)
2. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(memorandum dated June 10, 1991)
a. Request to amend the comprehensive plan to
adopt the remedial actions required by the
Indian River County/DCA Compliance Agreement
(memorandum dated May 28, 1991)
b. Alternative 1 to the compliance agreement;
adjustment of the urban service area and
density in the south portion of the county
along 43rd Ave.
(memorandum dated June 10, 1991)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (continued):
B. PUBLIC HEARING (continued):
2. 1990 Comprehensive Plan Amendments (continued) :
c. Bruce Barkett request to create a mixed
use floating land use designation for pro-
perties having an agricultural designation
(memorandum dated June 10, 1991)
d. CPA #116: Coraci/St. Sebastian River C-3
Land Use Designation; Comp. Plan Amendment
(memorandum dated May 29, 1991)
e. Windsor Polo request to amend the comprehen-
sive plan and rezone 14+/- acres
(memorandum dated May 29, 1991)
F. Graham W. Stikelether, Jr. request to amend
comprehensive plan & rezone +/- 0.32 acres
(memorandum dated May 29, 1991)
Betty F. McRae, et. al., request to amend
the comprehensive plan +/- 6.8 acres/rezone
+/- 4.3 acres
(memorandum dated June 11, 1991)
g.
h. Dean Vegosen Trustee for Oslo Plaza Assoc.
request to amend the comprehensive plan and
rezone 4.83 acres
(memorandum dated May 29, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
A. Possible Expansion of Fairgrounds
(memorandum. dated June 10, 1991)
B. Oslo Road Property Purchase
(memorandum dated June 11, 1991)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Request to authorize staff to draw upon a recently
renewed Letter of Credit for Copelands Landing, Inc.
Phase I Subdivision
(memorandum dated June 12, 1991)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Reimbursement of ad valorem taxes collected from
Indian River Shores to fund Advanced Life Support
(memorandum dated June 12, 1991)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
'
BOOK "meq `r: ,
M181 1
BOOK
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (continued) :
F. PERSONNEL
None
83 F'AuL LdSc1�'
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver
for Residence at Lot 52, Orchid Isle Estates Sub.
(memorandum dated June 4, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. Indian River County Developer's Agreement with
Riverside Church Assembly of God
(memorandum dated June 7, 1991)
2. West/Central Region Reuse Water Transmission Main
(memorandum dated May 23, 1991)
3. Indian River County Developer's Agreement with
General Properties
(memorandum dated June 7, 1991)
4. Developer's Agreement with Richard T. Tallman
(Squire Village Mobile Home Park)
(memorandum dated June 7, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Bond Resolution - Sandridge Second Golf Course
(memorandum dated June 12, 1991)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN GARY C. WHEELER
C. COMMISSIONER MARGARET C. BOWMAN
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. IRC Bid #91/Roll-Off Containers (Quantity 5)
(memorandum dated June 7, 1991)
2. IRC Bid #91-76 Recycling/Hoist Truck
(memorandum dated Jund 7, 1991)
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
JUN 18199
BOOK F .{JE 5
Tuesday, June 18, 1991
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, June 18, 1991,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; Carolyn K.
Eggert, Margaret C. Bowman and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Absent was
Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman, who was on vacation. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
County Attorney; and Virginia Hargreaves and Patricia Held, Deputy
Clerks.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rev. John Harrington, Christ United Methodist By The Sea, gave
the invocation and James E. Chandler, County Administrator, led the
Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Bird requested the addition of an item on the
retirement of County Employee Betty Oiler. He also requested that
two items be added to the Consent Agenda; Item L, License Agreement
with Abyss Maritime Inc., and Item M, Representation on County Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved the
above-described additions to the agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS
Chairman Bird read aloud and presented the following
Retirement Award to Betty J. Oiler:
JUN 181991
BOCK - B' t;., '�aa
r, JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 F: ,E592
PROCLAMATION HONORING
RETIREMENT
OF
BETTY J. OILER
WHEREAS, BETTY J.'OILER announces her retirement from Indian
River County effective June 28, 1991; and
WIIEREAS, BETTY J. OILER, originally from Pennsylvania, has
been a resident of Indian River County since 1979, moving from
Brevard County where she was employed with the Melbourne Police
Department as a Purchasing Agent; and
WIIEREAS, BETTY J. OILER has been employed with the Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners since June 3, 1980.
She began as a temporary employee with the Purchasing Division as
an Accounting Clerk and on June 20, 1980 she became a permanent
full-time employee; and
WHEREAS, BETTY J. OILER is a very devoted and extreme]y hard
worker and has demonstrated her professionalism in dealing with
the public and co-workers. Her performance reviews have been
above average. MS. OILER has been an asset to the Purchasing
Division and will be missed very much:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board
wishes to express its appreciation for the outstanding
performance BETTY J. OILER has contributed on behalf of Indian
River County, and the Board further extends best wishes to BETTY
for a happy retirement.
Adopted this 18th day of June, 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4Z- ../.-Z•
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
.3 tµ 1, %i.1 • ;g 7i= 1 47:: ••!"..:-V .4,:t rir �' ;=-,: • s.-'. t..—gs ..'•' 7;k, '..w.••c- '.-e:52- -.. r.* Y�"fr'-'�.�+i-* + 1-`47-1. ;•a - 0
+c -•.I:.a• ice.
' i SR .� a �,..-..c..,,.‘,„ � s: - tai' "�"' •: ;�,..��r��. ,�:. �a£•••• .r-.s�f�-!3 Ja a ..vim Y
� �' a ra' a .c ,e '� R r2` , y
_ffpgc
'1 iY.
:41. V::f.
LNt6✓Vi=i. L
V
'=S O Gl ..', o
yam'
or
"" ti px
/3 v - 0 A• s 4 No%
�+.[ • ;7,
Le • \\\ V ` +
Ls
sr
V V v W [14‘:.-::::.;.-4.:-"4::: 1141=4 sr
�� a. yr = ��`+ 7
tom- l 4.4 ^, 4 a -;
Z• 6 it ▪ r :^ V M �.: .
4 4.16 t.t 4v ;4 4 :rte.
•
�►f L,% r5.. /.
ll w" ti
V.
Z
1H�r1a��,1-„`:;'-i-:.r �..'.'1. �-; .' ', �;:�!”.
14.1
Le
IL*
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 21, 1991.
Commissioner Bowman wished to make a correction on page 33, it
should read "...put into a conservation area that stretch..."
-ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED- by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved the
Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 21, 1991, as
corrected.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 28, 1991. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved. the
Minutes of May 28, 1991 as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports
The following were received and placed on file in the office
of Clerk to the Board:
1. Report of convictions for the month of May, 1991
2. Minutes of quarterly meeting of the Board of Supervisors
of Sebastian River Water Control District held on May 29,
1991.
B. Occupational License Taxes - Month of May. 1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) accepted the
following report from Tax Collector Morris on the
Occupational License Taxes collected during May of
1991.
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: " . Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
DATE: June 5, 1991
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86-59, please be informed
that $2,195.71 was collected in occupational license taxes during the
month of May 1991, representing the issuance of 189 licenses.
3
JUN 1 8 1991
BOOK
JUN 1.8 1991
fOOVy 83 594 94
C. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Lea Keller, CLA, dated June
11,1991:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
DATE: June 11, 1991
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - B.C.C. MEETING 6/18/91
RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office
I have prepared the following lien related documents and request that
the Board authorize the Chairman to sign them:
�j 1. Releases of Special Assessment Lien from
- CITRUS GARDENS PROJECT in the name of:
SURIANO
2. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
ROCKRIDGE SEWER PROJECT in the name of:
DONNIEZ
3. Releases of Special Assessment Liens from
NORTH COUNTY SEWER PROJECT in the names of:
RHODES - -
BLAIR _
COSSICK
ZOUMPOULIAS
GLASS
4. Release of Special Assessment Lien from
STATE ROAD 60 WATER PROJECT in the name of:
KINGWOOD WEST (Lot 29)
5. Satisfactions for Payment of Impact Fee Lien
Extensions in the names of:
COLES
PICKERILL
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) authorized the
Chairman to execute the above -listed Releases of
Special Assessment Liens and Satisfactions for
Payment of Impact Fee Lien Extensions.
COPIES OF SAID INSTRUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
4
D. Approval for Out of Country Travel for Commissioner Scurlock to
Attend WPCF Conference, Toronto, Canada, October 7-10. 1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved Out -of -
Country Travel for Commissioner Scurlock to attend
WPCF Conference in Toronto, Canada from October 7
through 10, 1991.
E. Request Authorization for County Attorney to Attend Florida
Association of Counties Meeting, June 19-21,1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) authorized the
County Attorney to attend the Florida Association of
Counties Seminar in Orlando June 19 through 21,
1991.
F. Florida Contraband Forfeiture Quarterly Report
The Board reviewed memo from Comptroller Richard Dees dated
June 3, 1991:
P.O. 80X 608
PHONE 569.6700
• June 3, 1991
R.T. "TIM" DOBECK • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
MEMBER FLORIDA SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
MEMBER OF NATIONAL SHERIFFS ASSOCIATION
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961.0608
Mr. Joe Baird, Budget Director
.Indian River County
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: FLORIDA CONTRABAND FORFEITURE QUARTERLY REPORT
Dear Mr. Baird:
Attached are the reports for the
1990 and"March 31, 1991.
If you have any questions or
required, please let me know.
Sincerely,
R. T. "TIM" DOBECK, SHERIFF
Richard Dees, Comptroller
Comptroller Services Section
JUN 181991
5
periods ending, December 31,
any further information is
ROCKt..) F [ � JJ
'JUN 1.8 1991
BOOK
8J E: ,,t JOU
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) accepted the
following Florida Contraband Forfeiture Quarterly
Report as submitted by the Sheriff:
FL�r;lDta GGI a ki6AND FOF FEITURE QUARTERLY REPORT._,
(as required by Section 932.704(5). Florida Statutes; as amended 1985)
Indian River County Sheriff's Office '' ••
Ouener Ending 03-31-91 • r
AGENCY
DustierBeglnnmg 01-01-91
.y
•
,Beginning Balance Available for
Ti Law Enforcement Trust Fund
rnecuons: •
Sale Proceeds
Forfeited Cash
Interest Earned
i Total Collections
Disbursements:
Lien Satisfactions
Storage. Maintenance
and Security
Agency Forfeiture
Costs
Court Costs
Remittance to Law
Enforcement Trust
Fund
Jr, Disbursements
'EEnding Balance Available for
Law Enforcement Trust Fund
•
lin inn nn
71.18
3.289.14
$
127.282.24
123.660.32
250.942.56
" Appropriations Received from
Governing Body (1iscal,year-10-Cate)
Expenditures: (fiscal year-to-date)
Protracted/Complex
Investigations
Technical Equipment
Technical Expertise
Matching Funds for
Federal Grants
Automated Fingerprint
Identification
Equipment
Automated Uniform
Offense and Arrest
Report System
Other Law
Enforcement
Purposes
• Total Expenditures
Appropriation Balance
(fiscal year-to-date)
S
a
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
r-urtFEITED PROPERTY
ESTIMATED VALUE COURT CASE NUMBER
c,
1973 Piper 910 Navajo
1970 Cessna Eagle 421—B
$100,000
20,300
• DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY* •. •
85-28675 • : Awarded to Department
89-5205-00019 -.' Awarded to Department•
• t:
G. Request For Permission to Utilize Indian River County Riparian
Land for a Single -Family Dock
The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Planner Christine
Panico dated May 30, 1991:
6
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ng,`: CP
Community Dev lope-nt Director
-95
Roland DeBloisi�ICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
Christine ' Panico C.T•
Environmental Planner
THRU:
FROM:
DATE: May 30, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for Permission to Utilize
Indian River County Riparian Land
for a single family dock off
Calcutta Drive, In Country
Club Pointe Subdivision .
It is requested that the following data be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 13, 1991, Mr. James Thomas of L.A.T. Marine, an agent for
Mr. Donald Redfield and Mr. Scott Redfield requested permission
from the County to construct single family docks along the east
right-of-way of Calcutta Drive in Country Club Pointe Subdivision,.
Unit #1. The Calcutta Drive right-of-way abuts a manmade canal
within the subdivision.
Mr. Donald L. Redfield owns a home on Lot 22, Block 1 of Country
Club Pointe, Unit #2, Platbook 4, Page 60, Public Records of Indian
River County. Mr. & Mrs. Scott T. Redfield own a home on Lot 6,
Block 2 of the Replat of Country Club Pointe Unit #1, Platbook 4,
Page 11, Public Records of Indian River County.
Past county policy has been to allow single-family dock
construction within the canal along the right-of-way, provided the
dock is owned by a- resident of the subdivision, and provided the,
owner signs a waiver holding the county harmless regarding;
liability. More recently, the county has implemented the policy of
executing a license agreement approved by the Board of County
Commissioners which grants the applicant permission to utilize the.
riparian land of Indian River County.
On May 10, 1991 county staff performed a field survey of existing
docks abutting the Calcutta Drive right-of-way, to record the
location of existing and proposed docks. The field survey
identified eleven existing docks, and records show two approved
docks which have not been built. Docks located at the northern end
of the canal were built with a density of up to three docks across
from a platted lot, with as little as five feet between docks.
ALTERNATIVE AND ANALYSIS:
On May 6, 1985, then county attorney Gary Brandenburg advised
planning staff of the county's policy to allow private single-
-family docks along the Calcutta Drive right-of-way, on a first-come
- first -service basis, exclusive to residents of Country Club
Pointe,. provided the county was held harmless through a standard
waiver. On January 30, 1991 the Board approved the use of a
"license agreement" to replace the previously used liability
waiver.
7
JUN 181991
BOOK r�vu;. cJ �f
iJUN 181991
flog 83 f'..u[ 5.9 '
As part of the license agreement, an annual licensing fee of
$100.00 will be assessed to cover administrative cost. County
staff will conduct annual inspections upon license agreement
renewal to ensure that the dock is maintained in a safe condition.
Based on the recent dock inventory, staff estimates that the
Calcutta Drive canal frontage R.O.W. can accommodate approximately
five more single family docks, assuming a ten foot separation
between structures and an average dock size of twenty-one feet.
Past policy did not require separation between docks along this
right-of-way. Requiring a ten foot separation between docks would
deter adults and children from jumping from dock to dock and would
provide a margin of maneuverability for boat dock use. This ten
foot separation would act as a safety buffer for dock utilization..
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
license agreements (attach hereto) between Mr. Donald L. Redfield
and the County, and Mr. & Mrs. Scott T. Redfield and the County, to
allow construction of the respective single-family docks along the
Calcutta Drive right-of-way, whereby the County is indemnified
against liability by an insurance policy naming the County as
additionally insured, in the amount of $300,000 liability insurance
with an insurance company rated no less than A+ VII by Bests Key
Rating Guide.
It is recommended for these proposed docks and all future docks
that a ten foot separation between dock structures be implemented
for safe utilization of docks and watercrafts. The approval of
these two docks would leave right-of-way available for
approximately three additional docks.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved the
license agreements between Mr. Donald L. Redfield
and the County, and Mr. and Mrs. Scott T. Redfield
and the County, to use the County's Riparian Land
for a single-family dock and to indemnify the County
against liability, as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO
THE BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
H. Request For Approval of the Overall Economic Development Plan
(OEDP) 1990_11991 Annual Report
The Board reviewed memo from Senior Long -Range Planner Cheri
Fitzgerald dated June 7, 1991:
8
Ari
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THRU:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
ober M. Keati
Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheri B. Fitzgeralds
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 7, 1991
RE:
REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
PLAN (OEDP) 1990/1991 ANNUAL REPORT
It is requested that the information herein presented be given"
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
.regular meeting to be held on June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Consistent with Economic Development Administration (EDA)
regulations, the staff has prepared the 1990/1991 OEDP report.
This report is essentially a status and evaluation report of the
OEDP. A copy is attached to this agenda item.
This Annual Report is required in order for Indian River County to
maintain its "redevelopment area" status and its eligibility to
apply for federal technical assistance funds.
The Annual OEDP Report includes the following items and is
basically a summary of the revised adopted Economic Development
Element of the county's Comprehensive Plan.
1. A review of past year's accomplishments;
2. Report on any significant changes in the economy and its
development potentials; and
3. An' update of the county's development policies and
courses.. of action planned for the coming two years. This
includes any projects that may require EDA financial
assistance.
The Economic Development Council and the Overall Economic
Development Plan Committee endorsed the Annual Report with minor
revisions on May 28th, 1991.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the 1990/1991 Annual OEDP Report and direct staff to transmit the
report to EDA.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved the
1990-1991 Annual OEDP Report and directed staff to
transmit the report to Economic Development
Administration, as recommended by staff.
COPY -OF REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE QFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
9
'JUN 181991
BOOK 83
JUN 18 1991
ROOK 83 F:,,. 600
I. Bid Award IRC 91-97 - TRUCK MOUNTED CRANE AND SERVICE BODY
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated June 11, 1991:
DATE: June 11, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Bid Award: IRC 91-97
Truck Mounted Crane and Service Body
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
May 29, 1991
Thirteen (13) Vendors
Three (3)
BID TABULATION . TRUCK MOUNTED SERVICE BODY TOTAL PRICE
CRANE
Johnny Stamm Equipment $11,607.19 $5,430.00 $17,037.19
Ft Pierce, F1
S.I.A. Fabricating • $11,944.00 $6,502.00 $18,446.00
Largo, Fl
Bennett Truck Equipment $11,550.00 $8,736.00 $20,286.00
Orlando, Fl
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $17,037.19
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
Truck Mounted Crane - Sewer Utilities Other Machinery and Equipment
.Service Body - Sewer Utilities Heavy equipment -Wheel -Track
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Johnny Stamm Equipment as the lowest,
most responsive and. responsible bidder meeting specifications. (See Memo)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the'Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) awarded Bid IRC
91-97 in the total amount of $17,037.19 to Johnny
Stamm Equipment as the lowest, most responsive and
responsible bidder, as recommended by staff.
r
10
IPS
J. IRC Bid 91-58 - Miscellaneous Utility Projects
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
dated June 10, 1991:
DATE: June 11, 1991
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servic
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: IRC Bid #91-58/Labor Contract
Utilities
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
May 24, 1991
Twenty -One (21) Vendors
Six (6)
BID TAB TOTAL LUMP SUM PRICE
AMDA $192,001.00
Longwood, F1
1 I�
Driveways
Titusville, F1
Treasure Coast Utilities
Orlando, Florida
Owl & Associates
Vero Beach, Florida
WNW
A.O.B. Underground
West Palm Beach, Florida
Underground Industries
West Palm Beach, F1
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID:
$192,550.00
$221,610.00
$252,375.00
$280,170.00
$382,410.00
$192,001.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends..the rejection of all bids received due to the
inconsistencies in the information submitted. The specifications
will be revised to further clarify the County's requirements and
re -bid as soon as possible.
'JUN 1 8 1991
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) rejected all
bids and authorized staff to revise specifications
and let the contract out for bids as recommended by
state. _
11
BOOK 83 FAL 69
jai 181991
Boor 83 r tea 61i2
K. Automatic Doors; Main Library
The Board reviewed memo from Superintendent of Buildings &
Grounds Lynn Williams dated June 11, 1991:
TO: JAMES CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
FROM: LYNN WILLIAMS, SUPT.
SUPERINTENDENT OF BUILOUNDS
DATE: JUNE 11, 1991
SUBJECT: AUTOMATIC DOORS, MAIN LIBRARY
CONSENT AGENDA
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Main Library is designed with two (2) entrances, both
equipped with double glass doors and meeting all access
requirements including handicap and fire egress. The doors are
installed and operate as designed and specified.
Staff has received several complaints regarding the effort
required to open the entrance doors and the type hardware
,installed. A review of situation was completed by the Contractor
and hardware supplier to insure compliance with specification.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The building program submitted by HBW Associates originally
recommended automatic entrance doors for the Library. Due to
budget concerns early in the project, this was deleted from the
design.
It appears that the handicap accessibility although met by
code, is hindered by the weight and hardware configuration of the
present doors. Not withstanding handicap considerations, many
elderly people carrying books to return, are finding it difficult
to open the doors.
For these reasons,- staff requested that Dow -Howell -Gilmore -
provide'a proposal for services and an estimated cost to replace
the existing doors with automatic doors at each of the public
entrances to the building.
A project estimate of $27,000 ($25,000 doors —$2,000 design)
is proposed.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends that a contract (not to exceed $1,920 plus
reimbursables) be prepared between Dow -Howell -Gilmore and the
County to allow for the preparation of specifications and drawings
for retrofitting the automatic doors at the Main Library. It is I
also recommended that budget of $25,000 be established for the
.purchase and installation of the doors. Sufficient funding is
available in Account #322-109-571-066.51.
12
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the preparation of a contract (not to
exceed $1,920 plus reimbursables) between Dow -
Howell -Gilmore and the County for retrofitting the
automatic doors at the Main Library as recommended
by staff.
(CONTRACT NOW IN FILE IN OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
L. License Agreement - Abyss Maritime. Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) authorized the
Chairman to execute the License Agreement between
Abyss Maritime, Inc. and the County to occupy and
use the Countypark premises located at Wabasso
Causeway for the purpose of renting sailing, fishing
and power vessels in accordance with the agreement.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
M. Representation on County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed the following letter from Toni Robinson,
Chairman of the Board of Directors of Indian River Land Trust dated
June 17, 1991:
13
JUN 181991
Qnnr j
JUNi8191
it.. .
.,., =a a l .<.,t
• r
tw
• _a .\• ~ ?rg.?Y
BOARD OF TRUS'I'EL?S . ' -' 1i,5'1 f� •
Toni Robinson,• t ,yri 7,- . i :..' •
Chairman • "
• Lala Maresi, Mr. Richard Bird. -
Vice Chairman • •
Milton Fleming, " •
Treasurer
Jean llendcrson,
Secretary
Lucy Auxier
Patricia Browh .
James llaeger • •
Diana Iatta
Dan Mortensen
' Dorothy Mortensen.
Georgia Pierpont
ADVISORY BOARD:
. Margaret C _Bowman
Claude Kleckner ,,
Dr. Richard Baker •
Dr. John Orcutt .
Dr. Dennis Scarpinato
Warren Dill
Thea Walker
Roland DcBlois •
RuthStandbridge
Post Druce Box
Vero Beach, Florida 32961
BonK 8.3 M,E 604
incian River tandiEit
June ' 1.7, 1991'
t
Chairman, Board of County Commissioners •
Indian River County Administration Bldg.
1840 25th Street
• Vero Beach,* Florida, 32960
Re: Representation on County Land Acquisition •
Advisory Committee
Dear Mr. Bird:
The Indian River Land Trust regards the work
of your County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
to be of great importance for the county's future.
We wish to commend you on the fine. work -
accomplished to date. r
At the inception of the above committee,. Mr
Steve Hawkins was appointed.to serve as the
representative of the Indian River Land Trust. ,
Mr. Hawkins -is no longer a member of the Board -
of Directors, and has no regular contact with
.the organization.'
• Accordingly, we.would•request that another
• director of the Land Trust be appointed to replace'
Mr. Hawkins. Our suggestion for that post is
• Patricia M. Brown, presently a, director of the'
".Land Trust, and Chairman of its Land Committee.
i
I..can'be reached at 1491 Treasure Cove Lane,
Vero Beach, 231-4670.
••(I will be out of town until June 21st, but I
will be in•contact with my answering machine)..'
Thank you for your kind consideration of this •
matter. •
Sincerely,
Toni Robinson ••.
. Chairman, Board of Directors
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) approved the
appointment of Patricia M. Brown to replace Mr.
Steve Hawkins to the Indian River County Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee as representative of
the Indian River Land Trust.
14
i01
PUBLIC HEARINGS
12TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROJECT
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County. Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
In the matter of pili d
In the / Court,�was pub-
lishLinap ed In said newspaper In the Issues of 'Q l� �j UV/ [ ` C+L l
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period o1 one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount„rebate, Commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before me this day ofs Q A D 19 / n
(SEAL)
to (Business Manager)
(Ckik u tlia C1n.utt-Cvart, trrdlafrRivel7 t,oun[y, hiori09)---
ti
Re lrhrrtIvo-vn
Aa
TIrt)eUO HEARING `-^ l9F�EL`IAI. gE
!'`#:•,''t,` WATERLINE EXTENSION 44;•,..,,, . C,
I• 12th County
ATE ; ton r A,. p .
'fhe Board 2f 6loCE:4Indlvl'
River County, ppr��1sereby p�s
PUBLIC. HEARING' Scheduled' for' 9,05' A.M.'
TUESDAY, UtJNE.18 -19911. to i sad I
It
?elating to d • SPECIAL. ASSESS
PROJEc .Inp� an
Bof s WATERWVE IN7}TI�j. pORDDEERED�O�Ni�
Y 8TH STREET,. ON THE WEST�BYy;413RD AVEF4 ,
UE. AND Or cf EsseEAST B M ba h i AR
UE. AN for 9' ef.b
? record on the prig dadl
ayhya�wfp may wish to appeal any. 1c
that a verbatim record of lire I
Ings i
which Intrudes testimonyti made, •
Intrudes appeal Is basedand evidence upon
IMay 24.31,1991 • • i 1«;• �: j.; •
County Attorney Vitunac indicated he had prepared a handout
listing some of the possible reasons an assessment could be
considered improper, and there were copies available. He advised
that the Board, sitting as the Board of Equalization, has the power
to adjust the assessments. He suggested that by following the
three areas of possible assessment impropriety in their arguments,
the property owners would have the best opportunity to carry their
burden of proof.
15
JUN 1 8 1991
BOOK 83 fAE 6{15
Pr -
JIM IS 1991
SPECIAL ASSESSMENT PROTESTS
QOOK F',AkGE bJu
A special assessment is a charge imposed by the government to
pay for improvements to private property which provide a special benefit to
the private property. The amount of the special assessment and the method
of its calculation are set by the legislative body of the county, that is, the
Board of County Commissioners.
Florida law holds that the decision of the Board of County
Commissioners is presumed to be correct. This means that the burden of
proof is on the one protesting to show that the assessment is somehow
improper.
Anyone wishing to protest this special assessment may find it
helpful to concentrate on the following areas:
1. An assessment must not be in excess of the benefits to the
property. (This would be a violation of the takings clause of
the U.S. Constitution.)
2. The assessment cannot be arbitrary, grossly unequal,
confiscatory, excessive, disproportionate to the amount
charged other similar properties, discriminatory, or so devoid
of any reasonable basis as to be an abusive power. (These
would be a violation of the equal protection clause of the
U.S. Constitution. )
3. The assessment must have been adopted after compliance with
the notice and opportunity to be heard provisions of state
and local law. (A violation of this would be a violation of the
due process clause of the U.S. Constitution.)
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 6, 1991:
16
DATE: JUNE 6, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTAI4 C_
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSESS I)TT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UliILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: 12TH STREET WATER SERVICE PROJECT
RESOLUTION III
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -90 -09 -DS
BACKGROUND
On May i14, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolutions 91-59 and 91-60, which contained -1
the preliminary assessment roll and established the date of the
public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been
notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution 91-59
was published in the PRESS JOURNAL on May 20, 1991.
ANALYSIS
Design of the water distribution system is complete.. Approval of
the attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary
assessments. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the
assessment project. The project will serve an area bordered by and
abutting: 12th Street on the north, 8th Street on the south, 43rd
Avenue on the west, and 27th Avenue on the east. This project
contains 610 lots, of which 81 originally petitioned for water, 32
of which are substandard sized. There are an additional 326
substandard -sized lots. These 407 lots represent 66.8% of the total
610 -lot project. Providing water service to these substandard -sized
properties is required through the Comprehensive Plan.
This assessment cost to the property owners is $827,825.00. The
projected cost for construction of the water main lines on 12th and,
8th Streets and 43rd and 27th Avenues is $314,295.00 but is not
included as a part of the assessment cost. The lines on 12th and
8th Street and 43rd and 27th Avenues are a part of the master water.
transmission system set forth in the Water Master Plan. These lines
are funded as a part of the impact fee. The interior transmission.
lines within the project are included in the assessment cost.
There are three. potential methods of assessment: square footage,'
lineal front footage, and per unit. Any one of these methods will(
recover the total assessment cost. The most equitable for the(
property owners has been proven to be the square footage method.;
This method has been and is presently used and recommended by the(
Department of Utility Services. It is the only method which has
been upheld by the Supreme Court of Florida.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms
the preliminary assessment of the subject project.
17
L JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 F;'E j 7
JUN 18 199i
BOOK 83 FACE
ammIPMEMINIMIMPUI.I."'"••••••••••••••••
vommeswaves..••••••••••••••......wi......a•••••••.
•
,nt
1
1
.141 Clat
SMIIIMMUCI
101,101111121flif
111104 a mubiummona
rusfoirgacriiii
hp Tom $14,161 ril
• 0001ANiini
Emompur
Wisp Nastm
rpm MINtIPAIT PWIREFORP111111
----o.. -
gairmi
•
14/611
teiIv
•
letl
tzfert
n
1
a
18
MIN
Director Pinto detailed the history of this project and the
process of estimating assessments, as well as the reasons for
including areas that have not petitioned for water service.
Director Pinto wished to mention in the record, as requested
by Mr. Chuck Garris, attorney for the Glendale Road Corporation,
that his clients feel they are not receiving any benefit from the
waterline because there is a water line to the south. We disagree
with that, however, and have entered at least 150 feet of depth of
that property into the assessment because we feel there is a direct
benefit.
Chairman Bird asked whether we are committed to this project
and, therefore, limited to talking with individual property owners
regarding their individual assessments, or is there flexibility to
do a portion of the project.
Director Pinto felt we are committed, and explained that this
is only a small portion, possibly 15%, of the water service
necessitated by our Comp Plan; this is a Comp Plan -driven project.
While there may be some larger lots that are not priority items,
our Director of Planning has advised that at some point in time the
entire service area is going to have to be serviced, and it is not
economically wise to skip over areas since we will have to come
back to them in the future. The project has been planned to be
economically sound, and it is very important to understand that it
will be two years before any payment has to be made toward the
assessments. He estimated the construction time for the project
will be about six months, then we finalize the assessment rolls,
and the first annual payment will be due the following year. Mr.
Pinto also mentioned the ten-year payment program will allow for
one annual payment of ten percent of the assessment amount, plus
interest as approved by the Commission.
Administrator Chandler added that he and the Budget Director
have looked at funding for this project and other projects that can
be pooled over the next few years. He felt the ten-year plan is a
"doable" plan and he will be presenting a report to the Commission
at a later date.
Director Pinto stressed that the cost is being distributed as
equitably as possible. He further explained that the assessment
pays for the lines and the work of construction for this specific
area; it does not benefit any other area of the County. The impact
fee, which is paid at the time of connection or reservation of
capacity, pays for the treatment plant capacity at the plant
itself. These are two totally different costs.
Commissioner Eggert understood, regarding the assessment for
the 150 -foot depth on vacant land, there would be a requirement for
19
JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 F„ t �i�J
JUN 18 1991
BOOK
'AGE. 610
more internal lines in the future when that land is developed, and
those would be paid for by the individual owner at that time.
Director Pinto elaborated by demonstrating on the map that this
point only pertains to large acreage and the reasoning is that
there is direct benefit to such large and vacant properties when
the lines are constructed along the main roads.
Commissioner Scurlock felt it should be mentioned that while
only parts of the project was initiated by petition, it is being
propelled by the need to square -off boundaries. He also emphasized
this area was chosen not only because of the petitions but also
because of the undersized lots, which must be given priority
consideration in providing water service.
Director Pinto added that, in looking at the project, it
became obvious, because of the location of the petitioned areas, we
were required to build main lines on 12th Street and on 43rd Avenue
to service the petitioned area so, engineering -wise, it made sense
to build the entire system. Another point is that, although there
are other areas that have petitioned for water service, the plan is
for five phases and this is the logical starting point because of
the location of the existing water; then we will proceed to the
next logical area, rather than leapfrogging around.
Director Pinto elaborated on the subject of main lines and
capacity, pointing out that individual street lines could not be
put in without the main lines and submain lines and, therefore,
they must be included as part of the costs. He stressed that a
complete water system should be built because of the economics. In
choosing a starting point, we start with a hub, begin with the
closest area to the hub and the areas that have environmental
needs.
Chairman Bird pointed out that although there are property
owners, even on small lots, who are satisfied with their Water
supply, the Commission is under mandates and environmental
requirements to provide water.
Community Development Director Keating stated the requirement
by the State of Florida is for counties to identify areas with
deficiencies in services and prioritize those areas. He cautioned
the consequences of not following their policies could be a lawsuit
against the County for not following our plan, as well as a
potential loss of $9 million in revenues.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
John Belfonte, 2585 12th Street, questioned the placement of
a waterline on the north side of 12th Street by the City, and
another line on the south side of 12th Street by the County. Mr.
20
Belfonte complained that he is buying pipe, paying for the labor to
place the pipe, and everything else, and he felt he is paying to
put the County in the water business.
Mr. Pinto explained that 12th Street is one of the divisions
of service boundaries between the County and the City of Vero
Beach. This is also true of 43rd Avenue where we did some
extensive work on one side and the City worked on the other side.
Director Pinto stated it took years of negotiation to decide on
these boundary lines, and the end result truly was based on
engineering and not necessarily City -County boundaries.
Richard Graves, Sun Villa West, commended the County
Commissioners for providing water service. His subdivision is one
of the petitioners for this project. He pointed out the area on
the enlarged map. He recounted discussions where the conclusion
was that the more lineal feet of line that could be bid at one
time, the lower per unit price we could get and it sounded good to
him. He also agreed with the square footage assessment, but not
with his assessment being a portion of the square footage of the
entire area. He thought it should be for just his portion of the
square footage of Sun Villa West's portion of the cost of the
lines, and he pointed out that to serve Sun Villa West only
requires one line. He quoted figures using both methods and felt
by the present method he is subsidizing smaller lots to the west
that require a lot more pipe to reach them all. He felt the
proposed assessment is not rational and is not equitable and
contended that the square footage should relate to the property
adjoining the line as it runs down the street.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if his suggestion is to take areas
that are similar and develop individual assessment rolls on a
square footage basis for those, and therefore they would not be
lumped into the whole bag, paying for something they are not
receiving.
Mr. Graves demonstrated his point on the map regarding the
length of the water line and the property it serves. He also
questioned the placement of fire hydrants on 12th Street and the
law governing the use of hydrants by the various fire districts.
Commissioner Scurlock understood the policy is that the fire
district contracts with both the City of Vero Beach and with the
County and pays a per fire hydrant fee on an annual basis.
Mr. Pinto felt we could review the placement of hydrants. We
have attempted to place the fire hydrants within a five hundred -
foot radius and no matter whose hydrant, if there is one that
belongs to the City and it is within five hundred feet, we are not
21
JUN 1 8 1991
GOOK F'AGEi1L
c•
10 18 199'
BOOK 83 FA6E61
going to place another fire hydrant unless it is detrimental to our
operation as a utility for flushing.
Commissioner Scurlock asked about the feasibility of Mr.
Graves' proposal to address the uniqueness of his subdivision, and
whether specific costs to an area should be identified and assessed
accordingly.
Director Pinto felt that certainly could be done but also felt
that the economics would not be as drastic as Mr. Graves said. He
also pointed out that we could not afford to extend the lines only
to the petitioned subdivisions because there would not be
sufficient impact fees to cover the cost of building the main
lines. So the benefit is there.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that, with the diversity of
neighborhoods as well as the issue of vacant land, Mr. Graves is
making the point that if you divide the areas you could, perhaps,
address the differences.
Mr. Graves felt the common good from bringing a lot of lines
in at one time is getting a lower price, but he contended that the
fact is that the larger lines would be mandated, and did not think
those are a common good to this project.
Commissioner Scurlock and Director Pinto explained the process
of estimating costs and arriving at final figures, emphasizing that
estimated assessments are never increased, but are decreased if the
final costs are lower than estimates.
Russ Diesair (phonetic) asked about the quality of water from
the reverse osmosis plant, whether it will change according to
demand and, as a second question, if the aquifer were to be
contaminated, whether 100 percent of the water would be supplied in
the reverse osmosis process. Director Pinto said that is correct.
Mark Hanks, 1026 Apple Way, verbalized his support for this
project. He felt his street should be assessed in the manner
presented by Mr. Graves. He also asked about power outages, and
Mr. Pinto assured him that the water plant has generating power to
operate the entire system. Mr. Pinto also mentioned that in times
of a hurricane nothing could be guaranteed.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if Mr. Hanks' preference would be
to have an assessment based on square footage of his portion of the
project on his own street and Mr. Hanks agreed.
Chairman Bird asked if the Commission were to break it down
into smaller segments would that require going back and reassessing
the whole project and starting that process all over. Mr. Pinto
believed it would.
Arnold Banner, 1106 Sun Villa Drive, said he is one of the
few, apparently, who voted against the petition and is satisfied
22
with the quality of his water. He wanted to know if the assessment
includes restoring the pavement and Mr. Pinto said yes, it would.
Mr. Banner said he supported Mr. Graves' suggestion.
Leo Cahill, Jr., 1195 43rd Avenue, submitted a petition and
spoke of the many homes for sale in the area and the plight of
those who cannot afford their assessments. His property is used
for agriculture; he intends to keep it that way for 30 years; and
felt he will not benefit by the water project.
Dan Veteran, 746 34th Terrace, objected to the project. He
did not want the water.
Charles Garrett, 1180 Apple Way, one of the original petitions
in the project, was upset about the three changes in the assessment
costs. First, they were told it would be $3,400, then $5,600 and
the letter of June 5th stated it would be $5,000.
Cal Trump, 1176 42nd Avenue, wanted to see the County fund the
cost of the lines and the property owners pay the impact fee. He
was unclear about the $9 million the County would lose, and
Commissioner Scurlock explained that if the County is not in
compliance with the Comp Plan in regard to the urban service areas,
the State could withhold $9 million in State revenue sharing funds.
Dora Seigal, 910 28th Avenue, submitted a petition, stating
that out of the 21 homes in their area, 17 owners are opposed to
the water project.
Joan Evans, 39th Avenue, asked about the hookup charge to her
house, and Commissioner Scurlock explained that the assessment pays
for the lines up to the property line. The owner is responsible
for bringing the water from the street to the house.
Vernon Parker, 950 28th Avenue, inquired about the exact
meaning of an undersized lot; he had been told at an informational
meeting it was a quarter acre or less. Furthermore, he was told
that if there was even one undersized lot on a street, they could
not petition out of the water service. He wanted that confirmed.
Director Keating described a substandard lot as a lot that is
a half acre or less and has an on-site well and septic tank.
Valerie Buffington, who owns a lot on Apple Way, felt it
unfair to pay for the square footage of the full lot when vacant
land owners are paying only for the 150 -foot depth.
William F. Fey, 745 36th Avenue in Florida Acres, wanted to
revoke their petition requesting water service and read a document
addressed to the County Commissioners.
John Tippin, representing Grace Lutheran Church at 12th Street
and 41st Avenue, advised they were looking for some special
circumstance, possibly a 150 -foot depth vacant lot exemption.
23
JUN 18 199
BOOK L) f'AvE W
Fr"
JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 ['AGE 614
Guy Hickman, resident of Apple Way, felt the size of the lots
does not reflect the usage of water, is not equitable, and
suggested placing a cap on the size of lots for assessments on
single-family residences.
Rick Farb, representing Debbie Farb, 856 37th Avenue, asked if
long-term financing was available. Director Pinto explained that,
right now, the impact fee can be financed over five years and we
are working on financing the assessment to possibly ten years at
9.75%. Chairman Bird assured Mr. Farb we will explore all
financing plans.
Ann Johnson, from Rosedale Manor on 36th Avenue, felt that
only those in opposition were here today and the people who want
water and assume it is inevitable are not being heard. She stated
there are many property owners who want the project.
Chairman Bird asked for figures of the pros and cons and
Director Pinto advised that 528 notices, representing 610 parcels,
were sent out.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 11:20 o'clock
A. M. and reconvened the meeting at 11:30 o'clock A. M. with the
same members present, Commissioner Wheeler being absent.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Director Pinto stated that after listening to the comments and
understanding the point of view of the property owners, staff still
feels that square footage is the best method to use and recommends
the current method of assessment to build the entire project.
Chairman Bird stressed we cannot do only portions of the
project because, when the project is started, it will trip the
requirement of the State to provide service to all of the
undersized lots. He asked staff if it would be a good idea to get
bids on the project and get more specific numbers and have another
hearing.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that bids would not make a
difference in the choice of doing the project or not doing the
project because the figures would not change that much. His
opinion was that we must do the project as a whole. He also felt
the square footage basis is correct but wanted to pursue the
question raised by Mr. Graves about breaking the project up into
subdivisions or streets. He has sympathy for larger lots that are
not required to have water service but felt the square footage is
the most equitable basis.
Director Pinto clarified that the Comp Plan does not exempt
the larger lots from water service requirements; the requirement is
to prioritize the smaller lot areas. However, since this County is
24
homogenized and does not have stand-alone small -lot areas, we have
no alternative but to proceed in this manner, because if we do not
we will have to return to those areas eventually and probably at a
higher cost.
Chairman Bird felt we needed two motions on this item: One
would be to re -endorse our support of the project and staff's
recommendation; the other would be regarding modification of
assessments for any individuals who may have proved their case.
Attorney Vitunac advised the motion also should include a
finding that there are no properties which are being assessed more
than the benefit they are receiving; that is inherent in a valid
special assessment.
Commissioner Eggert commented that she could see no other way,
because of the strong requirements of the Comp Plan, than to go
forward with the project at this time. She also felt that
economically it is the best time to build the project, plus the
long-term financing available to property owners would ease the
strain.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) finding that
there are no properties which are being assessed
more than the benefit they are receiving, adopted
Resolution 91-67 confirming the special assessments
in connection with a waterline extension in the area
bordered on the north by 12th Street, on the south
by 8th Street, on the west by 43rd Avenue and on the
east by 27th Avenue; adopted Resolution 91-68
formally accepting utility easements in Sun Villa
West, Sun Villa West Addition, Pinewood Estates,
Glenwood and Apple Way Subdivisions, as recommended
by staff.
25
L JUN 1 8 1991
BOOK 83 FA F. 615
JUN i81991
Boor 83 F GE61 J
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 67
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CONFIRMING THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN
CONNECTION WITH A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN THE
AREA BORDERED ON THE NORTH BY 12TH STREET,
ON THE SOUTH BY 8TH STREET, ON THE WEST BY
43RD AVENUE, AND ON THE EAST BY 27TH AVENUE;
PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS TO BE
MADE OF RECORD.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County has, by Resolution No. 91-59, adopted May 14, 1991, determined
to make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by
a waterline extension of the County located in the area bordered on the
north by 12th Street, on the south by 8th Street, on the west by 43rd
Avenue, and on the east by 27th Avenue; and _
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said
special assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are
to be paid; and _
WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by Section
11-52, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County passed Resolution No. 91-60, on May 14, 1991, which set a time
and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to
be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be
heard as to any and all complaints as to aid project and said special
assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 11-53,
Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was
published in the Press Journal Newspaper on Friday, May 24, 1991, and
Friday, May 31, 1991 (twice' one week apart, and the last being at least
one week prior to the hearing), as required by Section 11-52, Indian
River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least
ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 11-52, Indian
River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County on Tuesday, June 18, 1991, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public
hearing with regard to the special assessments,
26
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are
hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in
full.
2. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution,
which describes ' the properties assessed and the amounts of the
special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute
prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
S c u r 1 o c k, and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman -
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Absent
Aye
Aye
Aye
Eggert
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 18th day of June , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVE#i. COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
•
Richard N. Bir
Chairman
SAID ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
27
J'UN 18 1991
BOOK 83 F'4E 61 S
,J1114 I S 1991
BOOK 83 FADE 618
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 68
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, FORMALLY ACCEPTING UTILITY
EASEMENTS IN SUN VILLA WEST, SUN VILLA
WEST ADDITION, PINEWOOD ESTATES,
GLENWOOD, AND APPLEWAY SUBDIVISIONS.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is in the process of installing water
lines in the area bordered on the north by 12th Street, on the south by 8th
Street, on the west by 43rd Avenue, and on the east by 27th Avenue; and
WHEREAS, in connection with this project, it is necessary for the
County to install its water lines in certain utility easements in the following
subdivisions:
Sun Villa West, Plat Book 8, Page 73
Sun Villa West Addition, Plat Book 9, Page 42
Pinewood Estates, Plat Book 8, Page 61
Glenwood Subdivision, Plat Book 10, Page 64
Appleway, Plat Book 9, Page 2
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,, that the Board
hereby formally accepts the utility easements, as offered to the County,
shown on the plats of the above -referenced subdivisions.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner S c u r 1 o c k,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Absent
Aye
Aye
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 1 Rt h day of
June , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
\By
28
REIMBURSEMENT OF AD VALOREM TAXES COLLECTED FROM INDIAN RIVER
SHORES TO FUND ADVANCED LIFE SUPPORT
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) agreed to move
this item forward on the agenda for consideration at
this time.
The Board reviewed memo from Director of Emergency Services
Doug Wright dated June 12, 1991:
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler
County A .nisttrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Department of Emergency Services
DATE:. June 12, 1991
SUBJECT: Reimbursement of Ad Valorem Taxes Collected
From Indian River Shores to Fund Advanced
Life Support
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be•
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 1,'1991, the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners_'
received a letter from Indian River Shores Mayor F. E. Gierhart
requesting a refund of the ad valorem taxes collected from Indian
River Shores' properties which were used to fund the county Advanced
Life Support operation.
The request was apparently predicated on the fact that the Town of
Indian River Shores provides an Advanced Life Support operation as a
function of the municipal Departmentof Public Safety. The letter
also refers to the scheduled fire district and ALS consolidation to
be effective October 1, 1992, and the desire for the Town to become
an ALS provider as a separate entity, not as a part of the county ALS
service.
The letter from Mayor Gierhart makes reference to two resolutions
passed by the Town Council which resolves that:
1. The Town make application to the state to become licensed
as an ALS provider through its Public Safety Department;
and,
2. The Indian River County Commission be notified that the
Town is making application to become an ALS provider by
October 1, 1991, and that the Commission is requested to
refund to the Town General Fund ad valorem taxes collected
from Indian River Shores' properties to fund the county ALS
portion of itsbudget for 1991-92 fiscal year.
29
JUN 181991
BCO 83 FA [ 61
8e JUN. 18 199 200K Fti�E �d
Staff has had two meetings with the Indian River Shores Town Manager
regarding this matter and it was conveyed to him on June 11, 1991,
that a recommendation would be made to the Board of County-_
Commissioners to deny the reimbursement of approximately $242,000 for
reasons alluded to below.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In April, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners appointed a fifteen
(15) member Ad Hoc Committee to study and recommend a plan to unify
and, consolidate the county emergency services. The Ad Hoc Committee
met for the first time on May 11, 1990, at which time the Committee
was first put on notice by the Indian River Shores representative
that Indian River Shores would probably opt out of the planned
consolidation since they provided their own fire and EMS service.
After direction from the Committee, staff worked diligently to
provide a proposed consolidation plan which was presented to the Ad
Hoc Committee on June 22, 1990. Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.,
and staff met with the Indian River Shores Council on June 28, 1990,
when formal notice was received that the Town determined to keep
their current public safety type of service and not participate in
any consolidation effort. All operational and financial information
relating to the Town of Indian River Shores, was removed from the
'Comprehensive Plan to Unify and Consolidate Indian River County
Emergency Services except for mutual aid references.
Staff revised the plan and presented it to the Ad Hoc Committee which
approved it and recommended it to the Board of County Commissioners.
On November 6, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
plan and authorized a county -wide referendum, except for the Town of
Indian River Shores, to be conducted in March, 1991. The referendum
was approved by the voters in Indian River County'in terms of the new
district and additional taxes for residents in the north county area.
Throughout the process stated above the Ad Hoc Committee nor staff
was advised that the Town would seek a refund of ad valorem taxes or
staff would have included that information in the financial portion
of the plan which dealt with millage and revenue. If a refund should
be authorized at this point, the financial information disseminated
to the public during the referendum process would be inaccurate. The
six year plan as approved by the electorate provides that Indian
River Shores ad valorem taxes will cease to be collected to partially
fund the county operated ALS service on September 30, 1992, when the
new Emergency Services District is created. -
During the meeting with the Town Manager Joe Dorsky on June 11, 1991,
it was concluded that the idea of becoming an ALS provider prior to
October 1, 1992, had only recently been raised and considered. As
stated above, staff advised the Town Manager of the recommendation --
staff planned to make to the Board of County Commissioners.
Hopefully, the Indian River Shores Council will decide not to pursue
the matter since the county has agreed to continue to provide the
same services that the Town has been receiving until the new district
is created and since a time certain has been established which the ad
valorem taxes would cease to be collected from residents to partially
fund the county ALS service.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the Town
of Indian River Shores Council request for a refund of ad valorem
taxes used to partially fund the county ALS service. Staff has
committed to continue to provide the same level.of services to the
Indian River Shores ALS currently being provided until the new
Emergency Services District is created on October 1, 1992.
30
Robert Schoen, Vice Mayor of the Town of Indian River Shores,
restated the Town's request for refund of ad valorem taxes and to
be released from being a participant in the County's ALS system one
year earlier, rather than waiting until October 1, 1992.
Commissioner Eggert stressed the difficulty this would place
on the County's system, since all of the financial planning was
based on Indian River Shores' participation until 1992.
Attorney Vitunac advised that this was presented to the voters
at a projected millage rate for consolidation and a refund to
Indian River Shores would make the cost to the rest of the County
higher than what was stated on the referendum.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Wheeler being absent) denied the
request for a refund of ad valorem taxes, as
recommended by staff.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Community Development Director Keating made the following
presentation:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPAM k
Community Development Director
,DATE: June 10, 1991
SUBJECT: 1990 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
Itis requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
!:regular meeting of June 18, 1991.
:DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
' In September; 1990, the board of county commissioners approved a
stipulated settlement agreement with the state Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) to bring the county's comprehensive plan
"in compliance" with state law and to avoid an administrative
hearing on the non-compliance issue. The stipulated agreement not
only identified comprehensive plan changes necessary to bring the
plan into compliance; it also committed the county to enact those
changes by amending its plan.
31
DR 18 1991
BOOK 83PAGE ,:.,SL
Pr -
JUN 181 9
ROOK 83 PAGE 622
Consistent with the stipulated settlement agreement requirement,
the staff drafted the amendment provisions referenced in the
agreement and initiated the formal amendment process in October,
1990. Along with the stipulated settlement agreement amendment,
eight other amendment requests were processed. These included one
amendment which was an alternative to the stipulated agreement
amendment, three amendments which addressed the concerns of
intervenors in the plan amendment process, and four amendments
submitted during the July window for submitting comprehensive plan
amendment requests.
The 1990 comprehensive plan amendments are:
Amendment # Location
Applicant Request
CPA#118 - Stipulated Unincorporated Indian River Map Amendments
Settlement Agreement County County Policy Amendments
CPA#118 - Alternative
One
43rd Ave and
South County
Line
CPA#117 - Mixed Use Agricultural
Portion of
the County
CPA#116 - Coraci
CPA#114 - Stikelether
Along Sebastian
River
Old Dixie Hwy
(Block "U" of
Dixie Heights
S/D)
•
-CPA#113 - Diamond I-95 and S.R. 60
Wedge
CPA#112 - McRae
CPA#111 - Windsor
I. R. Blvd
North of Walmart
South of 77th St.
West of FEC
Railroad
CPA#110 - Oslo Plaza Oslo Road, West
of 27th Ave
Indian River
County
Bruce Barkett
Coraci (Robert
Riggio
Stikelether
Diamond Wedge
(Darrell
McQueen)
McRae (Warren
Dill
Windsor (Jerome
Quinn)
400 Acres East of
43rd Ave from L-2
to L-1
400 Acres West of
43rd Ave from AG -
to L-1
Creation of a
Mixed Use District
Creation of a C-3
Conservation Dis-
trict
Change from Resi-
dential (L-2) to
Commercial (C/I)
(1.22 Acres)
•
Urban Service Area
Adjustment to 104th
Ave on West & 4th
St. on South
Change from Resi-
dential (M-1) to
Commercial (C/I)
(6.8 acres)
Change from Commer-
cial (C/I) to Resi-
dential (L-2) (14 '
acres)
Oslo Plaza (Steve Change from Resi-
Henderson) dential (L-2) to
Cununercial (C/I)
(4.83 acres)
CPA#113 - Diamond Wedge has since been withdrawn by the applicant,
leaving eight other amendment requests to be considered by the
board.
All of the proposed amendments were considered by the planning and
zoning commission in November, 1990 and considered by the board of
county commissioners in December.' At its December 11, 1990
meeting, the board approved the transmittal of all amendments to
DCA for their ninety (90) day review. Soon after that, staff
compiled all necessary information and transmitted the amendments
to DCA.
32
On April 22, 1991, the county received DCA's review comments on the
proposed amendments. These comments were in the form of an ORC
(objections, recommendations and comments) report, which identified
DCA's objections to each of the proposed amendments. As per state
law, these objections must be adequately addressed, and a final
adoption hearing must be held within sixty days of the receipt of
the ORC. The June 18, 1991 meeting will constitute the final
adoption hearing for each of those amendments. .
Once action is taken at this adoption hearing, DCA will review that
action to determine if its objections were adequately addressed and
then make a compliance finding. Failure to adequately address
DCA's objections may prevent the county's plan from being found in
compliance and subject the county to the same administrative
hearing and sanction process which the county faced with its
original non-compliance finding.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
Since receipt of the ORC report, staff has analyzed DCA's
objections, discussed the objections with DCA during phone
conversations, provided the board with a status report and received
direction from the board, made revisions to the proposed amendments
and staff reports, met with DCA staff on the revisions, made more
revisions, and discussed these revisions with DCA staff during
several phone conversations. At this time staff feels that each of
the proposed amendments and the supporting data and analysis
address DCA's objections.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the board consider each of the proposed
amendments and take final action on each.
Discussion ensued regarding procedure for considering the
various Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0)
approved separate consideration of each amendment.
Under discussion, Chairman Bird asked staff whether this is
the way to handle the amendments and thought it required public
input. Commissioners Eggert and Scurlock explained their motion
was strictly on procedure. Attorney Vitunac advised it was a
proper motion and Director Keating felt it was appropriate.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0).
REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE REMEDIAL
ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/DCA COMPLIANCE
AGREEMENT
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
33
JUN 18 1991
POOK 63 f; GE
G, �
BOOK 83 PAGE be�a±
NOTICE: OF CHANGE OF LAND ,USE.. , .
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider adopting an
ordinance to amend the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County as
shown in the map of the advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on
Tuesday, June 18, 1991, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County'
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing
the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision to amend the County's
Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendment is included in the proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR (SOUTH RELIEF CANAL TO SOUTH COUNTY LINE) FROM 201
ACRES TO 202.2 ACRES; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN BY DECREASING THE HOBART ROAD/U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL NODE
FROM 50 ACRES TO 36+- ACRES AND CHANGING LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR'
14 ACRES TO 1-2; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN BY REPLACING A PORTION OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER C-2 DISTRICT WITH A
NEW CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR PRIVATELY OWNED UPLAND AND XERIC SCRUB
AREAS AND AMENDING THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT; AMENDING THE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR (VERO SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO SOUTH RELIEF CANAL) FROM
367 ACRES TO 375 ACRES; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE OSLO ROAD/ 27th AVENUE COMMERCIAL NODE
FROM 56 ACRES TO 60+- ACRES; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO CREATE A MIXED USE OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR PROPERTIES
HAVING AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REDUCING THE DENSITY FOR AGRICULTURAL LAND WEST
OF ST. JOHN'S MARSH, BY REDUCING THE DENSITY OF AGRICULTURAL LAND BE-
TWEEN 1-95 AND ST. JOHN'S MARSH (EXCEPT FOR AREA AROUND FELLSMERE AND I-
95/C.R. 512), BY REDUCING THE DENSITY OF AREA SOUTH OF SEBASTIAN AND
NORTH OF C.R. 510, BY REDUCING THE DENSITY OF AREA FROM 66th AVENUE TO Y2
MILE EAST FROM 49th STREET TO 33rd STREET, BY REDUCING THE URBAN SERVICE
AREA BOUNDARY IN THE CENTRAL PORTION OF THE COUNTY BETWEEN C.R. 510
AND 33rd STREET AND REDUCING THE DENSITIES IN THESE AREAS, BY REDUCING THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY IN THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE COUNTY FROM
16th STREET TO THE SOUTH COUNTY LINE BETWEEN 82nd AVENUE AND 58th AVE-
NUE AND REDUCING THE DENSITIES IN THESE AREAS, BY AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES TO REFLECT THE DENSITY CHANGES AND REQUIRING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND CLUSTERING WITHIN AGRICULTURALLY DESIGNATED
AREAS, BY AMENDING THE INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT AND THE CONSERVATION
ELEMENT AND THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND AMENDING THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT TO
INCLUDE ALTERNATIVE 1 WHICH ADJUSTS THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND DENSITY IN
THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE COUNTY ALONG 43rd AVENUE.
•
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of
these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public of the Community
Development Division offices located on the second floor of the County Administration Building
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5 p.m. on
weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY: Richard N. Bird, Chairman
34
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961
562-2315.
•
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE OF FLORIDA
Prco 3ournai
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33" at $10.30
per column inch
billedtn T.R.C. Planning
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
of 6/10/91 on page 4A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
(SEAL)
day of .Tune A.D 1991
tiCr&n4S4.41"1412
Business Manager
Notary Public, State of Florida
My Commission Expires June 29, 1993
Community Development Director Keating made the following
presentation with the aid of a colored chart:
35
JUN 1 8 1991
POOK
FAa
J.ti
Pr -
JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 F'A [ O2C
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
•
4,‹0172141-..
Robert M. tin , A
Community Devel men l Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani 5.g. • --'
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 28, 1991
SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO ADOPT THE
REMEDIAL ACTIONS REQUIRED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY/DCA
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration -by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13,
1990. Pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and
Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, a copy of the adopted plan
was then sent to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for
its compliance review. After review, the DCA issued a statement of
intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan not in
compliance. The principal reasons for the noncompliance finding
were the DCA's contention that the plan promoted urban sprawl,
allocated too much land for residential use, and failed to protect
upland plant communities.
Summary Of DCA's Non -Compliance Objections
On April 9, 1990, the Department of Community Affairs issued a
statement of intent to find the Indian River County Comprehensive
Plan not in compliance. DCA's objections are summarized below:
c Over -allocation of Land for Residential Development:
The DCA contended that the county's Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
is not 'supported by data and analysis because it allocates
more residential acreage and allows for the development of
more residential dwelling units than are projected to be
needed by the date depicted on the map (2010).
The DCA stated that the county allocated 5.9 times as many
acres and 11.3 times as many dwelling units within the Urban
Service -Area as are projected to be needed throughout the
planning period. It stated that the county allocated 27.9
times as many acres and 11.6 times as many dwelling units for
the county as a whole than are projected to be needed. Over-
allocation of land is one of the indicators of urban sprawl,
and the above multipliers are the indicators of over-
allocation of land.
36
o Promotion of Urban Sprawl:
The DCA contended that the county's plan fails to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl because the densities and
intensities of uses assigned in the FLUM to rural and
agricultural areas will encourage development in these areas
and the county plan does not have sufficient control
mechanisms for development in rural and agricultural areas to
discourage urban sprawl. The DCA contended that the county's
Urban Service Area (USA) is too large for the projected
population and will cause urban sprawl. The DCA also
contended that the county's plan does not ensure that public
water and sewer expansion will occur in a manner that
discourages urban sprawl.
o Protection of Upland Plant Communities and Agricultural Lands: 1
The DCA contended that the county's plan is not consistent
with the comprehensive regional policy plan. While the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's plan calls for
preservation of a least 25% of each native plant community
occurring on-site, the county plan calls for only 15% to be
set aside. In the county's plan, the 15% set aside could be
reduced to 10% if preservation is in a contiguous tract. This
objection has arisen despite the fact that TCRPC found the
county's plan to be consistent with the regional policy plan.
The DCA. contended that the adopted goals, objectives and
policies do not ensure that residential development in the
Agricultural area will proceed in a manner that preserves 1
agricultural values and provides for clear separation of urban
and rural land uses.
o Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements:
The DCA contended that the data and analysis in the Future
Land Use and Housing Elements do not present a consistent
projection of demand for future dwelling units and residential
acreage, and the projections do not utilize the same
residential categories.
Despite the noncompliance finding, the adopted plan was and still
is the county's official plana Not only has the staff been
implementing the plan since its adoption, but the staff prepared
and the Board of County Commissioners on September 11, 1990,
adopted a set of land development regulations consistent with the
plan.
Compliance Agreement
In an effort to avoid the administrative hearing process and
potential financial sanctions, the county and the DCA negotiated an
agreement to find the plan in compliance. Throughout this
negotiation process, county officials twice traveled to
Tallahassee„ while DCA staff came to the county once. As a result
of this process, the county staff and the DCA staff reached
agreement on measures to be taken by the county to have its plan
found in compliance. These changes involve future land use plan
map amendments, including density reductions in agricultural areas
and reduction in the extent of the urban service area; future land
use plan policy changes to promote clustering of residential
development in agricultural areas; conservation element changes to
reflect more upland preservation; capital improvement element
changes to reflect upland acquisition; and various data and
analysis amendments.
On September 26, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the proposed compliance agreement and directed the staff to proceed'
withthe actual Comprehensive Plan amendments which will implement
37
JUN 181991
BOOK UFA;E D I
JUN 18 199a.
no
ROOK. L:) FK;t
the remedial actions specified in the compliance agreement.
Changes proposed to bring the county's plan into compliance consist
of revisions to the future land use plan map as well as revisions
to the text, objectives and policies for several elements as shown
on attachment "A". Proposed text or policy changes are indicated
-by strike-throughs and underlines.
Summary of Remedial Actions
In order to address the DCA's objections and bring the county's
plan into compliance, the county negotiated an agreement with the
DCA. The main points of the compliance agreement are as follows:
o Over -allocation of Residential Lands:
Over -allocation of residential land was DCA's principal
objection to Indian River County's comprehensive plan.
According to DCA, this over -allocation could produce urban
sprawl.
* DCA's Position
DCA's position was that the county allocated more than 11
times as many dwelling units as projected to be needed through
the planning horizon (1990-2010). The DCA used the following
formula'to calculate the multiplier:
Multiplier = Total number of units allowed - Existing units
Projected number of units needed (1990-2010)
c • Total number of units allowed = Summation of units
allowed for each land use category
c Total number of units allowed for each land use category
= (total acreage of land in each land use category) X
(maximum number of units allowed for the appropriate land
use category).
By using this formula, the DCA's figure showed that the county
allocated more than 11 times as many dwelling units as
projected to be needed.
* County's Position
The county acknowledged that there was some over -allocation of
residential land, but disputed the accuracy of DCA's
multiplier. It is the county's position that flaws in the
methodology overestimate the multiplier. These flaws are
summarized below:
- Historically, the county's development has not occurred
at or near the maximum density allowed in each land use
category, and the county predicts this trend to be
continued in the future. The DCA did not consider this
trend and used the maximum number of residential units
allowed in each land use category to determine the
multiplier.
Existing subdivisions have a much lower density than the
density designated in the PLUM for the areas in which
these subdivisions are located. This was not taken into
account in establishing the DCA multiplier.
- DCA did not reduce gross acreage amounts to reflect land
used for infrastructure improvements (roads, stormwater
tracts); usually 25% or more of a development project
acreage will be allocated for these infrastructure
improvements. The 25% allowance for infrastructure
improvements is a conservative figure. -
38
It is the county's position that the multiplier would be more
accurate if the formula was revised to be as follows:
Total number of units allowed = (net acreage of
lands for each land use category) X (maximum number
of units allowed for that land use category) +
(existing number of lots/units in the major
subdivisions).
o Net acreage = (total acreage of land in each land
use category) - (acreage designated for
commercial/industrial, recreational and
institutional) - (25% for infrastructure
improvements) -(acreage of `existing major
subdivisions).
* Compromise Position
To reduce the over -allocation of residential land, DCA and
Indian River County identified various amendments to Indian
River County's plan which would reduce the number of dwelling
units that could be built. These amendments are depicted on
the Future Land Use Plan Map and are generally as follows:
**
Reduction of density for agricultural land west of
I-95 (except for areas around Fellsmere and I-95/CR
512) to 1 unit/20 acres west of the St. Johns Marsh
'and 1 unit/10 acres in other areas
** Revision of USA boundary in the central and
southern portion of the county by excluding active
agricultural lands and certain areas which do not
have access to the urban services
**
**
Reduction in density for areas east of I-95 and
falling outside of the USA to 1 unit/5 acres
Reduction in density for certain areas within the
USA in the northern and central part of the county
By making adjustments to the USA boundaries, by reducing
density, and by modifying the DCA's method for determination
of total number of units allowed, the county reduced the
multiplier for the portion of the county within the Urban
Service Area to 4.4 or less.
o Urban Sprawl:
Over -allocation of land for residential use and lack of
control mechanisms to cluster development which may occur in
agricultural -areas are indicators of urban sprawl. The
stipulated compliance agreement has the following provisions
•for actions to discourage urban sprawl. Since the urban
sprawl issue is closely related to the issue of over-
allocation of residential land, many of the sprawl actions are
the same as over -allocation remedial actions.
Reduction of the Urban Service Area in the central and
southern portion of the county by excluding active
agricultural land and certain areas which do not have
access to the urban services from the USA.
Reduction of density of agricultural lands west of I-95
by revising policy 1.8 of the Future Land Use Element.
Revision of future land use element policies by
introducing control mechanisms for non-agricultural
development of agriculturally designated lands (required
clustering of residential development, maximum -
residential lot size in agricultural areas). Policies
39
JUN 18 1WWf
BOOK 8:.3 f FiJ
?JUNiS
POOK 83 PACE 63D
1.8, 2.5, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7 and 7.3 were revised, and
new policies 1.32.and 5.8 were added to the future land
use element as identified in attachment "A".
c Protection of Upland Plant Communities:
The remedial actions which address the protection of upland
communities include revisions to the objectives and policies
of the future land use element and the conservation element.
These actions require specific site design for environmental
lands to minimize impacts upon endangered and threatened
plants and animals, and preservation of native upland areas
through establishment of conservation easements and/or fee
simple purchase. The county proposes to comply with TCRPC's
25% preservation objective. Rather than exacting land from
developers, however, the county has opted for acquisition to
compensate for its lower (15%) preservation requirement. As
indicated in attachment "A", the following policies were
revised: Land Use Element policy 7.3; Conservation Element,
objective 6, and policies 6.1, 6.3. The following new
policies were added to the Conservation Element: 6.14 and
6.15.
c Internal Inconsistency Among Plan Elements
There are several minor changes to the data and analysis
portion of the plan to address inaccuracies and typing
mistakes. There are also changes to the data and analysis
portions of various plan elements to justify various policy
changes and to address internal consistency. These changes
are identified in attachment "A".
On November • 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
request as presented by the staff to the Board of County
Commissioners and to recommend transmittal of this request to the
DCA.
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for DCA's ninety (90)
day review.
On April 19, 1991, the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC)
report. The DCA's objections to this proposed plan amendment were
not substantive issues affecting the stipulated settlement
agreement. Rather, the objections were made because the proposed
amendment included several plan changes not specifically referenced
in the stipulated -settlement agreement. Those changes related to
modifications associated •with other proposed plan amendments.
Those modifications were included with the remedial actions
amendment for consistency and clarification.
Specifically, DCA had three objections to this amendment. The
first was that proposed future land use element policy 1.31 should
not be included with the remedial actions amendment because policy
1.31 changes are a part of proposed amendment CPA -116 and because
these changes were not included in the stipulated settlement
agreement. The second objection was similar in that DCA objected
to references in the remedial actions amendment to the C-3 district
and the mixed use district because each of those categories is the
subject of other proposed amendments and because neither is
referenced in the stipulated settlement agreement. Finally, DCA
objected to incorrect references in the data and analysis portion
of the remedial actions amendment to the C-2 district.
40
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the changes
will- be presented. The analysis will identify the general
advantages and disadvantages of the proposed amendments and. will
-evaluate alternatives. The analysis will also address DCA's
objections.
DCA Objections
Each of the three DCA objections to this proposed amendment are
minor. Of the three, two relate to the fact that plan changes
incorporated in other elements were also included in the remedial
actions amendment. By eliminating reference to policy 1.31, the
proposed C-3 land use designation, and the proposed mixed use
district, DCA's objections will be resolved, and the remedial
actions amendment 'will conform to the stipulated settlement
agreement. Resolving the third DCA objection involves making minor
changes to the data and analysis portion of the future land use
element to state that the C-2 district applies to the St. Sebastian
River as well as the Indian River.
Staff have made the above -referenced changes to Attachment "A",
. which is appended to this item. It is staff's position that those
.=changes will -resolve DCA's objections to this proposed amendment.
'Residential Land Use Designation
As indicated in the description section of this item, one of the
major reasons for the DCA finding the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan not in compliance was the amount of land
designated for residential development on the Future Land Use Map
(FLUM). This residentially designated land can accommodate many
more residential units than are needed based on the plan's
population projections. To reduce the number of units allowed, the
county agreed to reduce the density in the agricultural areas west
of I-95, to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area by moving its
boundaries to the east, and to reduce the density of areas falling
outside of the USA.
In evaluating the proposed amendments, it is useful to contrast the
technique used by the county to prepare its land use plan map and
that followed by DCA. While the county focused almost exclusively
on natural constraints and man-made conditions, DCA used a
population based approach. Under its method, the county identified
the limits of urban service provision and designated land within
those limits, assigning different densities based on existing
densities, natural constraints, and proximity to services.
According to the DCA's land use policy, a community's population
projection is the most important factor in land use designation.
With.this method, the population projection becomes a cap, and only
that amount of land needed to serve the- projected population
receives an urban designation. With urban land uses confined to
compact areas, more efficient provision of facilities and services
can occur.
Revision of.the future land use map, as proposed, will leave the
county somewhere between these two techniques. The county does
propose to pull back its Urban Service Area, reduce densities in
the agricultural areas, and reduce densities in the central and
southern portions of the county. However, the county still has an
ample suppLy of land to accommodate the full range of land uses for
a period well beyond the planning horizon, and this density
reduction would not preclude future development in the county.
The proposed new USA boundary has been established by excluding
active agricultural land furthest from existing developed areas and -
other land that does not have access to urban services. The result
41
ritD11 8 1991
BOOK 83
f�1UG j
1
r -
JUS! 1 S f991
800K VJ fr!,,EUtJ
of this reduction to the USA will be more in fill development. The
total amount of growth and development is not expected to be
reduced; however, its location will be changed. The county will
still have residential capacity to accommodate projected demand far
beyond the planning horizon (2010).
The DCA's position was that all active agricultural lands must be
excluded from the USA; that included areas north of Gifford and
areas in the south portion of the county as far east as 20th
Avenue. DCA recommended density reduction in these areas. Since
these agricultural lands have access to urban services and are in
close proximity to existing development, the county opted not to
exclude them from the USA. Further density reduction within the
urban service area is an alternative to the proposed remedial
action amendments, but such action would reduce the county's
capability to provide for various housing types and to provide for
the construction of affordable housing.
Reduction of density in the agricultural areas will provide for
additional protection of agricultural lands. This action combined
with the requirement that all residential development in
agricultural areas be clustered will constrain development of large
lot development projects. While somewhat limiting choice of
housing type, these actions will reduce the existing residential
development unit over -allocation.
Urban Sprawl:
The proposed amendments will effectively eliminate urban sprawl
problems. By constricting the urban service area, these amendments
will increase the overall efficiency for provision of facilities
and services. Provision of services in a compact area is more
economically feasible than extending those services over a large
area. Elimination of urban sprawl will also increase the
opportunity for protection of agricultural lands. Both the
increased efficiency of facility and service provision and the
additional protection of -agricultural lands are positive factors
associated with the elimination of urban sprawl.
One of the most important requirements established as part of the
proposed remedial actions to eliminate urban sprawl and provide a
clear separation of urban and rural land uses is the requirement to
cluster residential development in the agricultural area. The
alternative is to use the traditional land use and zoning
regulations and to reduce agricultural densities even lower.
Protection of Upland Plant Community and Agricultural Lands
The remedial action amendments relating to upland preservation
involve acquisition of conservation easements and/or fee simple
purchase of native upland areas and the requirement for a specific
site -design for environmentally sensitive and important lands to
minimize impacts upon endangered and threatened plants and animals.
The county proposes to acquire more environmentally sensitive and
important lands, actions which would have a direct and indirect
effect on the quality of life. This amendment will give the county
the ability to protect upland communities by acquisition as well as
through developer exactions. Objective groups 5 and 6 of the
Conservation Element will support additional preservation of
environmental lands. The principal disadvantage of this proposed
remedial action amendment is the cost to the county to finance
additional land acquisition.
Agriculture has played a major role in development of the county
and is one of the county's major industries. Preservation of
agricultural lands from encroachment of non-agricultural activities
is important. Requirements such as clustering of non-agricultural
activities and approval of non-agricultural development through the -
Planned Development (PD) process will maximize the preservation of
42
agricultural lands. The major disadvantage is that this
requirement limits creation of large lots and limits the choice of
a rural lifestyle. However, a sufficient number of large lots
already exist to accommodate expected demand for such lots well
beyond the planning period.
Conclusion
The Board of County Commissioners has the option to approve these
amendments as they have been presented, to approve them with
modifications, or to deny the amendments.
Denial of these. amendments will force the county to go to an
administrative hearing. If the county loses and a hearing officer
finds the comprehensive plan not to be in compliance, the county
will lose approximately 10 million dollars annually in revenues.
It has been demonstrated that these amendments to the county's
comprehensive plan will eliminate urban sprawl, will protect
environmental and agricultural lands, and will have a significant
impact on development potential, but will not stifle. development.
Therefore, it is the opinion of staff that' the proposed
comprehensive plan amendments should be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
the comprehensive plan amendments as identified in attachment "A",
and direct staff to transmit these amendments to the DCA for their
compliance review.
43
U8 i'99
p•oorc J
f��
1
1
Figure 2.34a
. FUTURE LAND USE MAF
t
I;—e
w/
e:
•
1 • ..
,i
Land Use Density
C-1 EMI
C-2 79 1:40
AG -1 f777A 1:5
AG -21/ /) 1:10
AG -3 r7A 1:20
R Zj 1:1
L-1 .E::: 3:1
L-2 [7 6:1
M-1 EZZI
M-^ ® 10:1
0
8:1
t.
k
t; apraCIA..41.,f,.)Mwg0404
41$ 4,4ettz4V405:44W-
P4 )441.14,044V434
et
.tic .i`-+^",��.v' j�"" R
. ;'1 `rkEidair'il
/
u _. RCC
• a •
^UeLIC COM/INO - See following page
01,
SCALE
S
- JUNE 1991
4
c
0
0
0
14
z•
c * i
0 1 2 3 4 Mites
1 1 ,
URBAN SERVICE AREA
Chairman Bird asked if it is likely everything inside the
urban service area would receive a residential zoning and
everything outside would be agricultural.
Director Keating explained the comprehensive plan specifically
has a policy that says the County is to promote the continuation of
agricultural use inside the urban service area, so staff is going
to recommend not changing any existing agricultural areas within
the urban service area.
Commissioner Eggert asked about the residential zoning and
Director Keating advised staff would recommend rezoning it to
agricultural designation consistent with the density but any lots
that are specifically identified in the comprehensive plan as lots
of record will be able to be developed at a size which would not
necessarily be consistent with the Comp Plan.
Chairman Bird wished to know if the opposite would be true,
that is, would an existing house not be non -conforming and Director
Keating answered that it would be fine if the house were on a lot
of record and, if something happened to the structure, you would be
able to rebuild it.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
David Feldman, property owner, came before the Board to object
to the comprehensive plan amendment as it might affect the property
that he and his wife own. He submitted a letter that was prepared
by his attorney in Dade County. Chairman Bird suggested, rather
than Mr. Feldman reading the rather lengthy letter, which is being
made part of the record, he should highlight it briefly.
45
JUN 181991
&.1)P00KbJui-
Pr -
JIM 18 1991
BOOT 83 F'tGE 6636
LAW OFFICES 64./0/ ,4 CC;%,'L-/.1" Z. ', �t° !`/
GREENBERG, TRAURIG, HOFFMAN, LIPOFF. ROSEN & QUENTEL, P.A.`..i`n'fe�rA't.: - � E'
rrrrRe. P. A0ROM DART M. 8335 J. HENN ALICIA14. MORALES CLIP."R
I (314 RLE
D A. S HULMAT(/fm,((yA:e., 0-
'ARNANDO C. ALONSO HENRY M. (SUCNT( rOK CARMAN MAINANOEZ•LONSTEIN JANCT L. O BRIAN 40411.4 3. SCHWARTZ
[CSAR L. ALVAREZ ADRIENNE L. rRICSNt3 WILLIAM T 14E55 MAURY I. DUCKER ROS(RT A. SC0ALL
LINDA C ANDREWS ROBERT C. GANG K3NN(TH C. ROTFMAN RCSACCA R. GRAND K. SILVERMAN
DAVID 5 *ERIN CA1OLE K. GANGU!!A LARRY J. no OCBSIA M. 0R9HIrSKT 731514E 0. SIN0LCR
CARLA M. SARROW ITA GARCIA MARTIN KAL■ STEVEN J. PARDO STUART N. 5114013
BARRI 1.. RICHARD G. DAVID S. KC14114 M R. GARY A. SIPLIN
HILAR%[ BASS BRIAN K CART ROSIN J. 111140 JORO3 J. MOLLY R. SKOLNICK
NORMAN J. BCNr0140 JttYRWT 03 TIMOTHY 3. 111514 ALAN J. PARLMAN LAURA P. 5TCPHCN5ON
L ISA J. BERBER •RUC€ M. 911.13 • ALAIN M J. IIRAVITt BYRON 0. J0113.. BTOCKE3
MARK 0. 31.0014 RICHARD J. 01UETD A. O. OU 1. TACHMES
FRANCIS B. BROGAN, J3. LAWI4CNC3 OODOr0KY 8RNASTO A. JOEL 3[114573114 30333? H. TRAURIG
B URT BRUTON ALAN 3. GOLD NANCY I. LASH MARK J. 11t15MAN BRIAN J. WALSH
S TEVE BULLOCK 3.00 ALAN 3 LUIS 3111103 WCITMORN
ALDCN 3. BURLINGTON STEVEN M. GOLDSMITH MARC S. LEVIN COWARD L. RISTAINO 140WARO W WHI
*153370 R. CARDENAS JOSCRH G. GOLDSTEIN GARY A. LEVINSON LAURA THOMAS NIVCRO 303137 C. WHITE. JR
J. PHILLIP CARVER STEVEN S GOODMAN NORMAN H. LIPOrr KA14143T14 B. 11010I14SON JCRROLO A. WI314
CARTN 0. CARVO W O. 0035014 CARLO3 E. LOUMIET PAOUCL A. ROORIGNEL ROBERT M. WOLr
ANY CHOUEKE MARC JGOTTLIAB JUAN P. LOUMIET ALAN H. ROLNICK TIMOTHY 0. WOL1E
S UE M. COBB DIANNE O33CN*CR0 BRUCK C. MACOONOUOM MA3V1N S. ROSEN SHAMA WOLr5O14
A. eta CASTILLO MELVIN N. 03[[145[30 ROSERT P. MACINA RICHARD A. ROSENBAUM
ALAN TDIMOND SANDRA P 13REAN5LAIT P(030 J. MA3TINCZ• PAUL S. ROSEN/ARG
LUCIA A. DOUGH[RYT ROBERT L OROESMAN - JOEL 0. MASER RONALD M. ROSAN0AITEM MAID M. WATSON. M COURSE%
WILLIAM B CCK DIANA L. GRUB JUAN J. MAYOL. JR. . DAVID L. 83033
KENNETH ADELMAN BARSARA A HALL 401414 T. 14153013 GARY A. SAUL
CNA3LCS W. 3D0A3. m RAIOE A. LOUIS R. MONTELL0. JR. MARK I SCMNAPP 8ACHA3Y N. WOLA IREn13.1
MIAMI OFFICE BROWARD OFFICE WEST PALM BEACH OFFICE TELEX 60.3124
1E21 BRICKELL AVENUE 800 EAST BROWARD BOULEVARD 1601 FORUM PLACE PLEASE REPLY TO:
MIAMI, FLORIDA 33131 FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33304 WEST PALM BEACH, FLORIDA 33401 MIAMI OFFICE
(305) 579.0500 (305) 765.0500 (407) 683.6611
TELECOPY (305) 579.0717 TELECOPY (305) 765-1477 TELECOPY (407) 683.6447
WRITER'S DIRECT NO:
June 14, 1991
HAND DELIVERY
(305) 579-0880
The Honorable Mayor and Members
of the Board of County Commissioners
Indian River County, Florida
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Re: Objection of David and Princess Feldman to
Comprehensive Plan Designation on 40 acres of
Property Located West of 58th Avenue, South of 4th
Street and North of First Street. Southwest
Dear Mayor and Commissioners:
This letter of objection is written on behalf of David and
Princess Feldman who are fee simple title owners of certain
property which is legally described in attachment A hereto and
which is generally located in Indian River County in the area south
of 4th Street, west of 58th Avenue and north of 1st Street,
southwest ("Subject Property"). The property is shown on the
proposed future land use map under the AG -1 land use designation
which permits one unit per five acres. The Feldmans' request that
this designation be changed to a "R" Rural designation which
permits one unit per one acre, and that the Urban Service Area
Boundary be amended so as to include the Subject Property.
.
The basis for the Feldmans' objection and their request is set
forth below:
I. THE FELDMANS ARE BEING DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW
UNDER THE FEDERAL AND FLORIDA CONSTITUTIONS BECAUSE
THE HEARING PROCESS BEFORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMIBSIONERB DOES NOT PERMIT A MEANINGFUL
OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD ON THE MERITS OF THEIR
OBJECTION AND REQUEST.
Indian River County initially adopted its comprehensive plan
on February 13, 1990. As adopted, the plan was acceptable to the
Feldmans. Under that plan, the Subject Property was designated
"Rural", permitting one single family unit per acre. Subsequent
to the plan's adoption, the Department of Community Affairs found
the plan "not in compliance" with Florida law and filed an adminis-
trative proceeding requesting remedial action.
46
Once the administrative proceeding was indicated, it is
our understanding that Indian River County was advised of the
policy of the Administration Commission (Governor and Cabinet) to
withhold state revenue funds in the event that DCA's appeal was
ultimately successful, and that the way to avoid the imposition of
such penalties was to enter into a Stipulated Settlement Agreement
with DCA requiring certain remedial actions. In fact, such a
Settlement Agreement was executed on April 9, 1990 following a
public hearing which in our view did not meet lawful notice
requirements by clearly advising property owners of the effect of
the Stipulated Settlement Agreement on their land as it pertain to
future amendments to be considered pursuant to the Settlement
Agreement.
Simply stated, the Settlement Agreement requires the County
Commission to adopt amendments as specified in Exhibit B under the
implied threat that if the amendments are not adopted as required,
Indian River County would lose $10 million in state revenue funds.
This conclusion was further confirmed by your Chief, Long Range
Planner, Saam Ohani by telephone conversation held on Friday, June
14, 1991, whereby he advised that any effort to obtain a different
designation at the County Commission hearing to be held on Tuesday,
June 18, 1991 would be "futile" because of the Settlement Agreement
and the revenue sharing situation, and that relief should occur
through future land use plan amendments. Based upon experience
with other counties, I can advise that seeking relief through a
future land use plan amendment is no relief at all because DCA
finds such amendments to be "not in compliance" with Florida law
and the adopted comprehensive plan.
My point is that the hearing process being afforded my
clients is inherently unfair and fails to provide any meaningful
citizen participation. This is clearly in violation of Florida
law. In other proceedings on the comprehensive plan adoption
process, the Administration Commission has recognized that citizens
should be afforded timely access and education concerning the
growth management decisions entrusted to elected and appointed
officials. See Austin v. Department of Community Affairs and the
City of Cocoa, 89 F.A.L.R. 128 (Fla. Admin. Comm'n., Sept. 29,
1989). Indeed, the Florida Legislature has expressed its intent
that the public participate in the comprehensive planning process
to the fullest extent possible, and Section 163.3181(2), F.S., and
Rule 9J-5.004, F.A.C., specify minimum requirements to assure such
meaningful public participation. On balance, the Administration
Commission has concluded that "public participation" is an essen-
tial supporting element in preparing and adopting a local
comprehensive plan pursuant to Part II of Chapter 163, F.S., and
that the "public participation" element is a proper subject of
compliance review under Section 163.3184, F.S.
Meaningful citizen participation is precluded when Indian
River County, pursuant to the Joint Stipulation Agreement, is
obligated, under penalty of sanction, to prepare and transmit
comprehensive plan amendments that must result in the reduction of
intensity of uses that includes my client's property. Exhibit B
to the Settlement Agreement requires such revision by specifically
deleting my client's property from the Urban Service Area and
requiring a reduction in intensity of use from one unit per acre
to one unit per five acres.
Any argument that meaningful public participation will occur
at this juncture of the plan adoption process is without basis.
Meaningful public participation cannot occur when a decision
already has been mandated under penalty of sanctions and the County
Commissioners conclude that it has no alternatives under the Joint
Stipulation Agreement but to adopt the proposed plan without
change. The problem is further compounded when the Joint
Stipulation Agreement is not properly advertised so as to place
property owners on notice as to the actual effect the Compliance
Agreement will have on their properties both immediately and during
the amendment proceedings which implement it.
47
JUN 18 1991
BOOK L.) Fi+.UE tiJ Q
Pr -
AM 1S 199I
BOOK 83
PAGE �1p
II. THE DESIGNATION OF ONE UNIT PER FIVE ACRES IS
INCONSISTENT WITH URBANIZATION WHICH DIRECTLY
SURROUNDS THE FELDMANB' PROPERTY.
The Feldmans' property fronts on the west side of 58th
Avenue. North of the Feldmann' property (also located west of 58th
Avenue) is a tract of land, approximately one quarter of a section
in size, which permits 6 units to an acre under the L-2 land use
designation. The only difference between this undeveloped property
and the Feldmans' property is that the L-2 designated property
abuts a waterline which also can be made immediately available to
Feldmans' property through a normal water main extension. Under
such circumstances, the Feldmans' property (and that of their
neighbors immediately to the west) should be permitted a rural,
designation as a transition to the land uses to the south.
Certainly it cannot be argued that rural use on the Feldmans'
property constitutes "urban sprawl" when land uses further to the
west, in the area of 74th Avenue, are designated for use at three
units ver acre. Rural use on the Feldmann' property would also be
consistent with land uses immediately to the east of 58th Avenue,
which are designated on the proposed comprehensive plan for 3 units
per acre under the L-1 land use category.
It is respectfully submitted that the time to correct
;inequities and errors in the proposed comprehensive plan is at the
!adoption hearing. If the change makes sense, as this one does, it
ought to be addressed now and not left to future amendments.
Mr. Feldman indicated on the chart the property is located
immediately south of that parcel of land that is indicated on the
amended plan for six units to the acre and if this plan goes
through his property will be downgraded to one unit per five acres.
Commissioner Eggert asked if this is used for citrus.
Mr. Feldman said he had tried citrus and had leased it to a
gentleman but it was not successful. It is a vacant piece of land
not presently being used. Mr. Feldman wanted the opportunity to
argue, and related that his attorney advised that any argument with
meaningful public participation which would occur at this juncture
is almost without basis, in that meaningful public participation
cannot occur when the decision has already been mandated under
penalty of sanctions, and the County Commissioners feel they really
have no alternative under the joint stipulation agreement. It was
his understanding and his attorney's understanding that the
Commission is in a position now to have to adopt a plan at this
hearing without change, or face the loss of nine million dollars in
state funds. He requested the opportunity to raise his objections,
now or later on when the other people who have previously submitted
objections to the amendment get an opportunity to speak. He would
like his property to be exempt from changes to the designation in
the pending master plan.
Chairman Bird felt there was a question whether the Board had
the latitude or authority to make any additional changes today, or
48
whether Mr. Feldman should apply when the window of opportunity
opens twice a year for land use amendments.
Mr. Feldman preferred his position be considered before rather
than after because he worried that there would be a very serious
problem with the State of Florida considering it after the
adoption. He wanted to participate in the negotiation and
settlement process.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that we had notice of this
change and notice of public hearings when we originally put the
agreement together, which was the perfect window for this to be
addressed and she asked if there was a reason he did not make his
request at that time.
Mr. Feldman stated he was not made aware of it through a
publication because he did not see the publication. When he did
obtain a copy and showed it to his attorney, his attorney felt he
would not have understood the impact that publication could have
had on this particular piece of property. Mr. Feldman also
commented that other citizens and residents of Indian River County
were of the same opinion.
County Attorney Vitunac advised that even though the applicant
missed all the earlier deadlines, if he had come to the meetings he
might have gotten relief as five or six other people had. Mr.
Vitunac asked, if Mr. Feldman today presented a case that could
convince the Board, would that be sent to DCA as the recommendation
of the Board, meaning we are not precluded from changes even at
this late date.
Mr. Keating said that is correct, the Board can make that
decision.
Attorney Vitunac continued by stating that if Mr. Feldman
makes a case, even though it would mess everything up, the Board
has the power today to do something with Mr. Feldman's case.
Commissioner Scurlock felt we are under a hammer to go with
the recommendation and any changes would cause the whole process to
start from step one.
Director Keating emphasized that we have entered into an
agreement with DCA to make the changes that we have worked out with
them and felt that, if we were to make another change, probably
everything would be back on the table. He was sure if DCA would
accept an amendment that is sent today, they certainly would accept
it if it is done in the next time frame; there would be absolutely
no difference in their decision-making philosophy.
Chairman Bird emphasized that the amendments that are coming
up have had hours and hours of dialogue between the applicant and
the Commission and staff, as well as staff research and so forth.
49
JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 FAGF.6r 2
Pr"
zJIM 1S 1991
1" n
C
BOOK FA E. U
While it is possible and legal to make a change, he felt it would
be difficult.
Assistant County Attorney Collins advised the important
distinction to be made is that, while the Board has the power to
make changes, it would be a breach of the remedial agreement, and
any change sent to DCA should be based on proper data and analysis.
All these amendments have gone through heavy research, and if we
send an amendment with no facts and figures to support it, DCA is
very well within their power to say, "You haven't provided any
support or justification for that change."
Commissioner Scurlock asked Mr. Feldman if he is prepared to
present substantial evidence.
Mr. Feldman stated the main crux of his argument was going to
be that the boundary on Kings Highway is an artificial boundary
created by the street as opposed to using good sound land planning.
Mr. Feldman questioned what he felt was an arbitrary decision of
the DCA which places a designation of agriculture on his property
while the property on the other side of the street has three units
per acre, property to the north is six units per acre and west of
the agriculture is also three units per acre. He believed this has
forced the Commissioners to use mathematical calculations to
appease the DCA. He further contended this is the first time he
really has had the opportunity or personally received notice and he
wanted to preserve his property designation of rural zoning at one
unit per acre, which he felt was a good concept.
Commissioner Eggert recalled arguing the issue of that service
area in previous public hearings, and Chairman Bird remarked that
it was a very difficult area to deal with, affecting hundreds,, if
not thousands of acres.
Mr. Feldman was not suggesting in any way that the Commission
has singled him out but was simply trying to argue his best
argument so the record would reflect whether the Commission is
willing to consider any arguments at this time and whether the
argument would be meaningful in light of this petition.
Assistant County Attorney Collins addressed Mr. Feldman's
reference to the question of notice. He stated the County did
comply with the Notice requirements of Florida Statute 163.3184,
Subsection 15. Because the whole County is affected by this change
we are required to publish a map in a quarter page ad. To call out
each and every piece of property that is being affected is almost
meaningless because agriculture densities are being changed
throughout the County and development is being clustered to fulfill
the requirements.
50
Attorney Vitunac commented that since the applicant said he
did not see the ad in the newspaper, nothing in the ad could have
misled him. Atttorney Vitunac further advised no action is needed
on this request. The staff recommendation is to adopt the
amendment as presented. This applicant wanted to make a change.
Unless the Board changes it, the motion should beifollow the
recommendation.
Julie Young came before the Board to comment on the public
notice issue. She described the publication of the public notice
in October of last year and, even though her business is reading
legal descriptions, she felt the public notice was by no means
something that the general public of this county could understand.
She felt the public was not given ample opportunity to understand
what was going on, and felt the County did a disservice. As a
second comment, Ms. Young felt publishing the original notice
during a Thanksgiving holiday week was not a good option.
Commissioner Eggert noted that it had to have been published
a number of times.
Ms. Young continued that the changes were listed at the end of
a page of legal descriptions, describing a number of commercial
nodes, and felt it was unclear. Additionally, Ms. Young disagreed
with the changes in density, commenting that it was "backpaddling
just to satisfy the State's need."
Ed Schlitt, 4745 Pebble Bay Circle, had many clients who were
adversely affected by this downgrading of units per acre and
suggested that better notice be given of these land use amendments.
He also suggested that the County consider hiring someone to lobby
the DCA to protect the rights of property owners in regard to the
Comp Plan amendments.
At Mr. Schlitt's request Director Keating explained the
changes in densities in various areas in the west end of the
County.
Chairman Bird commented that everyone felt equally powerless
and frustrated by the attitude we ran into on the issue of
decreased densities. Perhaps, through some cooperation, attitudes
may change in the future. He cannot believe the legislature ever
intended to create the monster that it created with the 1985
comprehensive planning act, with the power the DCA has assumed from
that act, to absolutely mandate what counties will look like for 20
years.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
51
tjTh181S
BOOK 83 " r
f'.•vt.
PP-
JUR 18 T991
BOOK 8 3I AG.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0)
Commissioner Wheeler being absent, adopted Ordinance
91-25, amending the comprehensive plan as identified
in attachment "A", and directed staff to transmit
these amendments to the DCA for their compliance
review.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-25
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
-FOLLOWING ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: FUTURE LAND USE;
HOUSING; INFRASTRUCTURE; CONSERVATION; CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; AND PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to adopt the remedial actions
required by the Indian River County/DCA Stipulated Settlement
Agreement to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments on December
19, 1990, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
52
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised this comprehensive plan
amendment to strictly comply with its stipulated Settlement
Agreement in response to the ORC report pursuant to F.S.
163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public
Hearing on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
This proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended
to adopt the remedial actions required by the Indian River
County/DCA Stipulated Settlement Agreement by:
o Revision to the Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.34), as
shown on attachment A
o Revision to the policies 1.8, 2.5, 5.4, 5.5, 5.6, 5.7,
and 7.3 of the Future Land Use Element, as shown on
attachment A
o Addition of policies 1.32 and 5.8 to the Future Land Use
Element, as shown on attachment A
o Revision to the data and analysis portion of the Future
Land Use Element, including Tables 2.26a and 2.26b, as
shown on attachment A
o Revision to objective 6, and policies 6.1 and 6.3 of the
Conservation Element, as shown on attachment A
o Addition of policies 6.14 and 6.15 to the Conservation
Element, as shown on attachment A •
o Revision to the data and analysis portion of the
Conservation Element, as shown on attachment A
o Revision to policy 2.2 of the Housing Element, as shown
on attachment A
o Revision to the data and analysis portion of the Housing
Element, including Table 7.21, as shown on attachment A
o Revision to the Water and Sewer Connection Matrix (Tables
3.A.16 and 3.B.19) of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable
Water sub -elements, as shown on attachment A
o Revision to the data and analysis portion of the Capital
Improvements Element, including Tables 13.18 and 13.23,
as shown on attachment A
53
JUN 1 8 1991
Pr -
JUN 181991
001( 83 F'AGE 644
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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 6.
Effective Date
This ordinance shall become
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the
Indian River County, Florida, on
effective upon adoption pursuant
Board of County Commissioners of
this 18th day of June ,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th 'day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Bowman , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Absent
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
54
ATTACHMENT "A"
FUTURE LAND USE MAP
The adopted Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.34) is changed as
follows:
Reduction in density for agricultural land
west of the St. Johns Marsh from 1 unit/5
acres to 1 unit/20 acres
Reduction in density for agricultural land
between I-95 and the St. Johns Marsh (except
for areas around Fellsmere and the I-95/CR512
area that will remain 1 unit/5 acres) from 1
unit/5 acres to 1 unit/10 acres.
Revision of the urban service area boundary in
the central portion of the county between
CR510 and 33rd St. The boundary will be moved
east from 74th Avenue to 66th Avenue, except
for the area between 81st St. (approximately)
and 49th St. where the boundary will be moved
generally 1/2 mile east of 66th Avenue. This
reduces densities in these areas from 1
unit/acre and 3 units/acre to 1 unit/5 acres.
Revision of the urban service area boundary in
the south county from 16th Street to the south
county line, generally from 82nd Avenue to
58th Avenue. Mostly, this is a density
reduction from 1 unit/acre to 1 unit/5 acres;
however, it also includes some areas which are
reduced from 3 units/acre and 6 units/acre to
1 unit/5 acres.
Revision of two areas within the revised urban
service area. These are:
reduction in density of area south
of Sebastian and north of CR510 from
3 units/acre to 1 unit/acre.
reduction in density of area from
66th Avenue to 1/2 mile east from
49th Street to 33rd Street from 6
units/acre to 3 units/acre.
A copy of the amended Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.34) is
attached.
GOAL, OBJECTIVES, AND POLICIES
The following plan element objectives and_ policies are hereby
amended as indicated by strike -through and underlines:
Future Land Use Element
POLICY 1.8:,Development of agriculturally designated lands shall be
limited to the following:
Agricultural uses such as Farming, Groves,
Range and Livestock Activities and Forestry
Excavation Activities
Residential Uses
1 unit/5 acres AG -1
JUN 18 1991
55
tlor1K 83 EAu
tJ
Pr -
,SDK 18 1991
1 unit/10 acres AG -2
1 unit/20 acres AG -3
.Agricultural Research
Agriculturally Related Business
Recreational Uses
Public Facilities and Institutions
ROOK 83 PAGE b46
No residential development in a•riculturall desi•nated areas shall
lanned development
occur unless such development is ap
and meets the requirements of Policy 5.8; the following activities
shall be exempt from this requirement:
Construction of a single-family dwelling unit on a tract
or parcel existing on October 1, 1990.
Division of a tract or parcel into two lots, each meeting
or exceeding the minimum lot size of the agricultural
zonin• district• an subse•uent slit of such •ro•ert
shall require approval as a planned development project.
Division of a tract into parcels of at least 40 acres in
size.
roved as a
POLICY 1.32: The county will maintain a concurrency database which
identifies areas with facility surpluses and deficiencies.
Development shall be directed to areas with adequate facility
capacity through publication of this information and through
implementation of the county's concurrency management system.
POLICY 2.5: Indian River County shall encourage and direct growth
into Urban Service Areas through zoning, subdivision and land
development regulations. Such regulations shall promote efficient
development by requiring connection to the existing street system,
extension of public facilities where necessary, and incentives for
mixed use projects.
POLICY 5.4: A special planned development (PD) district may shall
I be designated as an overlay on the County Zoning Atlas. The PD is
intended to provide for the development of projects which require
flexibility 'from the land development regulations in order to
maximize open space and conserve natural features, incorporate
1 recreational facilities, and mixed use projects.
POLICY 5.5: Commercial uses shall be limited to less than 10% of a
planned development, unless the planned development project is
located within a commercial or industrial node.
POLICY 5.6: PD's shall be permitted within-the-tirlsafr--Se-rv-i mea;
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.
PD's shall be consistent with the maximum density permitted by the
Future Land Use Map unless density bonuses are permitted by Policy
5.7.
POLICY 5.7: The land development regulations shall be structured to
encourage the use of Planned Developments (PD's) by allowing for
density bonuses for projects within the urban service area for:
a) The inclusion of low and moderate income housing units in
the project in accordance with the housing element.
b) Development rights transferred from Conservation
Districts.
c) Development rights transferred from AG, Agriculture,
areas.
56
Density bonuses for PD's shall not increase the project's density
by more than 20% of the underlying land use designation.
POLICY 5.8: All planned development (PD) projects approved in any
area designated' as AG, Agriculture, on the future land use map
shall meet the following criteria:
The density of the project shall not exceed the maximum
density of the AG land use designation; no density
transfers from off-site lands and no density bonuses
shall be permitted within PD projects in AG.designated
lands;
Lots created through the PD process shall not exceed one
acre in size, with the remainder of the area designated
as open space;
Open space areas shall be retained as natural areas or
used for agricultural uses; however, up to thirty percent
of the open space area may be used for recreational
purposes in AG -1 areas; up to twenty-five percent of the
open space area may be used for recreational purposes in
AG -2 areas and up to twenty percent of the open space
area may be used for recreational purposes in AG -3 areas.
POLICY 7.3: Any development activity in areas designated as
environmentally sensitive or important as defined in policies 5.4
and 6.11 of the Conservation Element shall require an environmental
survey as part of the approval of a development order. Based upon
the results of the environmental survey, development projects shall
be required to provide a site design which minimizes impacts upon
endangered and threatened plants and animals.
Conservation Element
OBJECTIVE 6 Upland Vegetative Communities
Sufficient upland vegetative communities to maintain viable
populations .of all native plant and animal species, and
representative stands of each habitat type in Indian River County,
will be preserved. By 2010, Indian River County shall preserve a
minimum of 750 acres of upland native plant communities through the
establishment of conservation easements or fee simple purchase, or
combination thereof.
POLICY 6.1: The county shall establish and/or assist state,
federal, and regional agencies in the establishment of preserves
for sand pine/xeric scrub, tropical/coastal hammock, coastal
strand, and pine flatwood/dry prairie vegetative communities, of a
sufficient size to maintain viable populations of endemic plant
and/or animal species. The county shall coordinate with the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) to contribute to
the establishment or such preserves in conjunction with a regional
"wilderness corridor", as identified by the TCRPC.
POLICY 6.3: By. 1992, the county shall acquire and/or assist state
and federal agencies in the acquisition of a minimum of 100 acres
of coastal/tropical hammocks and complementary habitats for the
protection of the vegetative community. The following sites shall
be considered:
a. coastal/tropical hammocks and other complementary native
plant communities adjacent to the (IFAS) Florida Medical
Entomology Laboratory, north of Oslo Road, east of U.S.
#1;
b. coastal/tropical hammocks adjacent to northern Jungle
Trail, in coordination with the proposed Pelican Island
National Wildlife Refuge expansion;
57
1JUN 18
EOOK. 8J F; uE 6 g i
'JUN 18 199
BOOK 83 F.Aa:64S
c. coastal/tropical hammocks on Orchid Island north of
Wabasso Beach and east of S.R. A1A, in conjunction with
the proposed CARL Wabasso Beach/Sea Turtle National
-Wildlife Refuge project; and
d. coastal/tropical hammocks and other complementary native
plant communities along the western bank of the St.
Sebastian River, in conjunction with ongoing state and
federal land acquisition proposals.
POLICY 6.14: B 1993 the count shall .rotect a minimum of 300
acres Lnot including those areas protected throu
•olic 6.12 of •ine flatwoods/dr •rairie throu•h the
establishment of conservation easements or fee simple purchase, or
combination thereof. The following pine flatwood/dry prairie
communities shall be given special consideration in satisfying this
policy:
h
application of
a. Flatwood/dry prairie communities in southwest
Indian River County, identified by the Florida
Game and Freshwater Fish Commission (GFC) and
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council
(TCRPC) as potentially contributing to a
regional "wilderness corridor"• and
b. Flatwood/dry prairie communities complementary
to riverine wetlands and other natural systems
which contribute to upland wildlife species
diversity. _
POLICY 6.15: The county shall establish an ongoing acquisition
•ro•ram to extend be and 1993 and to 2010 for the •rotection of
flatwoods/dry prairie areas. Such program will be developed by 1994
and shall include amounts of land to be protected, land area to be
acquired, and revenue sources to be used for acquisition.
The data and analysis section of the conservation element is
revised to provide adequate justification of the policy changes
referenced above.
Housing Element
POLICY 2.2.: Indian River County through its future land use plan
map hereby designates land for residential land uses and support
services for a wide variety of housing types (including mobile
homes), densities, and physical environments to facilitate an
equally -wide variety of housing costs for present and future
residents with special consideration given to the following:
1. Lot sizes, setbacks, and land use mixes;
2. Proximity to public transportation,
recreational facilities, and community
services such as shopping, personal services,
and health care; and
3. Compatibility of land use relationships and
neighborhood character.
4. Reduction of automobile travel to meet normal
daily needs for access to employment,
services, recreation and other local
activities.
Residential Land Use District
Bistriet--Gross-Aerea:e--Max-Bensit --Res.--Bevelo:ment
M-2
M-1
2440
5341
10
0
58
Matti-Fam:;-Mobile-Home
Multi-Fam-;-Mobile-Home
E-2----- `18348-------3---21388-------6--------Mn}t1-Fam:;-Sang}e-Fame
Single -Family
R--------1}648- ---
District
M-2
M-1
L-2
L-1
R
Net
Acres
1143
5526
14098
11878
1075
Existing
Subdivision
Acres
300
2196
5995.
6393
269
Net
Net
Acres
843
3330
8103
5485
806
Maximum Res.
Density Development
10 MF, Mobile H.
8 MF, SF, Mobile H.
6 MF, SF
3 MF, SF
1 Single Family
Infrastructure Element
Revisions to Sanitary ar Sewer Sub -element & potable Water Sub -element
Table 3.A.16 and Table 3.B.19 are attache.
Ca ital Im rovements Element and Tables 13.23 and 13.18 of
Revisions to the data and analysis,
the CIE are attached.
Future Land Use Element portion of the Future Land Use
Revisions to the data and analysis p
Element are attached.
Housin ElementElement
Revisions
to the data and analysis portion of the Housing
are attached.
JUN ig1991
Conservation Element portion of the Conservation
Revisions
to the data and analysis p
Element are attached.
ALTERNATIVE 1 TO
SERVICE AREA AND
The Board r
Rohani dated June 10, 1991:
43RD AVENUE.
THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT ADJUSTMENT OF THE
TYoURBAN
DENSITY IN THE SOUTH PORTION OF THE CO
NG
eviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan
59
BOOK 83 PAGE
�I
JUN 18 1991
[100r, * 3 f'AE 0
-TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Keati g, v P
Community Devel•pme Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 10, •1991
RE: ALTERNATIVE 1 TO THE COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT: ADJUSTMENT OF
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND DENSITY IN THE SOUTH PORTION
OF THE COUNTY ALONG 43RD AVENUE.
(CPA #118, Alternative 1)
.:It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the proposed remedial actions comprehensive plan amendment for
transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. The proposed
remedial actions amendment incorporates into the plan those actions
reflected in the Indian River County/DCA stipulated settlement
agreement executed on October 15, 1990.
At the December llth_meeting, the Board of County Commissioners -
also approved for transmittal "Alternative 1" as shown on
attachment "A". It was the Board's intent that "Alternative 1" be
reviewed as a separate amendment request. The Board's position was
that if DCA found "Alternative 1" acceptable then the remedial
actions amendment could be modified to reflect the urban service
area boundary and density changes in Alternative 1.
As transmitted, the "Alternative 1" land use map would change the
density and Urban Service Area (USA) boundary in the south portion
of the county, along 43rd Avenue, from that proposed in the
compliance (stipulated settlement) agreement and the remedial
actions amendment:- According to the compliance agreement, the USA
boundary will be 43rd Avenue; consequently, lands east of 43rd
Avenue will remain urban and retain their density of 6 units per
acre, while lands west of 43rd Avenue will become non -urban and
have their density reduced to 1 unit per 5 acres. As shown in
attachment A, the "Alternative 1" land use map involved moving the
USA boundary to the south of 13th Street S.W. between 43rd Avenue
and 58th Avenue by approximately 4 mile and moving the USA boundary
to the west of 43rd Avenue by approximately 4 mile. The
southernmost portion of this area abuts St. Lucie County.
Besides enlarging the urban service area, the "Alternative 1" map
involved reducing the density of 400 acres of land east of 43rd
Avenue from 6 units per acre to 3 units per acre and increasing the
density of 400 acres of land on the west side of 43rd Avenue from
1 unit per 5 acres to 3 units per acre. This change would equalize
density on both sides of 43rd Avenue and would create an area of 3
units per acre density between the 6 units per acre area to the.
east and the 1 unit per 5 acres area to the west. This amendment
60
would also reduce the overall number of units allowed in the area
by 80 units.
On April 19, 1991, the Florida Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) issued its Objectives, Recommendations, and Comments .(ORC)
'report. The DCA had several objections to this proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment, all of which were substantive.
Specifically, DCA objected to this amendment because the amendment
provided for a USA expansion which would be inconsistent with the
stipulated settlement agreement; because the amendment would result
in a premature expansion of the USA into active agricultural areas;
because the amendment would not discourage low density residential
sprawl development;. and because the amendment would not encourage
well planned and appropriately located residential development.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of "Alternative
1" will be presented. The potential impact on the environment,
transportation, utilities, surrounding areas and future development
potential will be considered. The analysis will also assess the
request for consistency with the land use policies and objectives
of the comprehensive plan and will address DCA's objections.
DCA Objections
.DCA's objections to this amendment request were not only
substantive; they seemed unresolvable. Since the objections
focused on the proposed amendment's inconsistency with the
stipulated settlement agreement as well as its inconsistency with!
urban sprawl prohibitions, it seemed that the objections could not
be addressed.
Subsequent to release of the ORC report, however, DCA staff
contacted county staff and indicated that the ORC objections did
not mean that any amendment to the stipulated settlement agreement
would be prohibited._ Instead, DCA staff indicated that the data'
and analysis provided with the "Alternative 1" amendment request
may satisfy DCA's concerns regarding the amendment.
To resolve the conflict between the DCA ORC report and the DCA'.
staff verbal communications, county staff met with DCA staff. As
a result of that meeting, DCA staff indicated that the data and
analysis supporting the "Alternative 1" request would be sufficient
to approve the request if the request were amended to reduce the
urban service area expansion and related density increase. While
DCA expressed concern with the county plan's
agricultural/residential buffering requirements, it was agreed that
those amendments could be addressed during a subsequent amendment
cycle.
With the revision of the "Alternative 1" amendment request as
referenced above, staff feels that DCA's objections have adequately
been addressed.
Analysis
This analysis is based upon the revised "Alternative 1" request.
As depicted in Attachment "B", the revised "Alternative 1" request
limits the urban service area expansion and density increase to an
area from 43rd Avenue to o mile west of 43rd Avenue from 13th
Stteet S.W. to the south county line. As revised, "Alternative 1"
now involves expanding the urban service area by 240 acres instead
of the original 400 acres. For those 240 acres, the density would
be increased from 1 unit/5 acres to 3 units/acre. The 400 acres on
the east side of 43rd Avenue to be redesignated from 6 units/acre
to 3 units/acre would remain as proposed in the original -
"Alternative 1".
61
L_ till% 18 1991
,� tt�.,, as
BOOK :� F� �;E 1J
JUAN 1 -991
•
BOOK 83 PAGE 6152
- Environment
The general physical conditions and natural constraints of the
properties on'both sides of 43rd Avenue in the south portion of the
county are similar. While the properties in this portion of the
-county are not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan, they are
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM). This section of the county, however, is on the edge
of the designated floodplain area; consequently, these lands
contain some areas which do not have any flooding problems.
Because of the existence of a 298 drainage district and an
extensive canal system, both of which serve the subject properties,
this area has characteristics which somewhat mitigate the
floodplain conditions. Even though the proposed changes will
result in more areas within the USA being designated as floodprone,
the overall effect will be to minimize the flooding potential by
decreasing density east of 43rd Avenue and providing for larger
lots which could retain stormwater on-site. Based on these
environmental considerations, it is reasonable to assign the same
land use designation to lands on both sides of 43rd Avenue.
- Transportation
Access to these properties is provided by 43rd Avenue. 43rd Avenue
is classified as an urban minor arterial road on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 43rd Avenue is a two-lane
paved road with fifty (50) feet of road right-of-way. An
additional fifty (50) feet of right-of-way is required for this
segment of the road.
Due to the existence of a drainage canal on the east side of 43rd
Avenue, the access to 43rd Ave from the east side is limited, but
there is no restriction for access from the west side of 43rd
Avenue. However, fifty (50) feet of additional right-of-way shall
be provided from the west side at the time of site development.
The existing Level of Service on this segment of road is "C" or
better, and the proposed changes will not reduce the L.O.S.
This portion of Indian River County has easy access to I-95 through
Indrio Road in St. Lucie County (less than three miles). Based on
staff analysis of the transportation system, the density adjustment
in this portion of the county is justified.
- Utilities
This portion of the county is within the Urban Service Area (USA)
of the county based on the adopted Comprehensive Plan; however,
water and sewer lines do not extend to this portion of the county
at present.
Based on approved development projects and the county's plan to
serve these projects, it is expected that water and sewer lines
will be available to this portion of the county within three years.
For any future development the applicant must buy water and sewer
ERUs, pay appropriate impact fees, and enter into a developer's
agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to
expand county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the
needs of his development.
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. The active segment of the land
fill has a 5 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity
beyond 2010.
All development's are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
62
development proposals will have to meet discharge requirements of
the County Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development will
be required to maintain its pre-existing discharge rate for the
design storm.
-Based on staff analysis of the utilities system, the density
adjustment in this portion of the county is justified. This
amendment will not only balance a density increase with a density
reduction; it will actually reduce the overall number of units
which could be built under the terms of the adopted plan by 560
units.
- Impact on the Surrounding Areas
In the 1982 Comprehensive Plan, this portion of the County was
designated as low density residential, LD -1 (up to 3 units per
acre). In the adopted 1990 comprehensive plan, the County changed
this area's land use designation to 6 units per acre east of 43rd
Avenue and.1 unit per acre west of 43rd Avenue. The Compliance
agreement, however, will 'reduce the density of the area to the west
of 43rd Avenue to 1 unit per 5 acres.
Compatibility is not a major concern for this land use density
adjustment, since this area is characterized predominately by
agricultural uses, particularly citrus groves. A close examination
of the groves in this area, however, shows that they are older
groves, in poor condition, with limited production ability. In the
near future these groves would have to be replanted with new trees
or be converted to other uses. This land use density change and
Urban Service Area adjustment will provide a transitional land use
designation between the density of six (6) units per acre east of
43rd Avenue and 1 unit per five (5) acres west of 43rd Avenue. It
has been the county's policy to provide for a gradual density
change on the land use map to provide for more compatible
developments, and better planned land use designation.
Because the property being proposed for redesignation is located
adjacent to the Indian River County/St. Lucie County boundary, the
compatibility of the proposed density change with uses in St. Lucie
County must be considered. According to the St. Lucie County
Comprehensive Plan, the adjacent lands in St. Lucie County are
designated as residential with a density of 2 units per acre. It
is staff's position that a density of 3 units per acre for this
area of Indian River County will be more compatible with the
density of land in St. Lucie County than will the 1 unit per five
acres as reflected in the compliance agreement Future Land Use Map.
- Future Development Potential
This land use change will decrease the overall number of
residential units which could be built in the county under the
comprehensive plan because the density decrease east of 43rd Avenue
involves a' larger area than the density increase west of 43rd
Avenue. As indicated in attachment "B", this amendment involves a
density decrease on 400 acres of land included in the flood plain
area east of 43rd Avenue and a density increase in 240 acres of
land west of 43rd Avenue. These modifications will reduce the
county's residential allocation ratio, which is the relationship
between the number of dwelling units allowed by the future land use
map to dwelling units projected to be needed through the planning
horizon (1990-2010).
Staff review•of the comprehensive plan policies indicate that this
amendment is consistent with the land use objectives and policies
of the future land use element of the comprehensive plan. This
amendment is also consistent with other policies of the
comprehensive plan.
63
� +JUN 18 1991
BOOK) fAui �jta
r �
JUN 18 1991
f
BOOK 8 P'u� Uc)
Conclusion
It has been established that the physical characteristics of the
land on both sides of 43rd Avenue are similar; in fact, the
analysis has shown that there are even fewer constraints for
-development on the west side of 43rd Avenue, due: to the existing
canal on the east side of the road.
It is the staff's position that the difference between the density
on the west of 43rd Avenue and the density on the east side of 43rd
Avenue as proposed in the compliance agreement future land use map
is too drastic and does not provide for a gradual density change.
Also, similar ].ands in St. Lucie County have a higher density than
the adjacent area in Indian River County. The adjustment in the
USA boundary and density in this portion of the county will reduce
the potential number of residential units. Also, with this change,
the land use compatibility of the areas on both sides of 43rd
Avenue will be enhanced. For these reasons, the staff feels that
the proposed change in land use would be consistent with county
policies and existing land uses, and will correct an oversight in
the compliance agreement plan.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to revise the urban
service area boundary and redesignate land on the future land use
plan map as shown on attachment "B".
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PROPOSED LAND USE BOUNDARIES
ZONING BOUNDARIES •
64
Community Development Director Keating reported that four
weeks ago staff recommended denial. Subsequent to that time he got
a call from DCA that said "Do not be too hasty in doing it," which
was one of the reasons that precipitated the trip to Tallahassee to
confer with DCA staff.
Director Keating advised that this is a request from Mr.
Poppell for his property to the west of 43rd Avenue and just north
of the South County line to be included in our urban service area
and have a density increase from one unit per five acres to three
units per acre. Staff now is recommending that the Board approve
this request to revise the urban service area boundary and
redesignate land on the future land use plan map, as shown on the
above map, by adopting the attached ordinance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 91-26, amending the future land
use map of the comprehensive plan, redesignating
land as shown on Attachment "B", as recommended by
staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 26
•AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING
FOR CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS,_ the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
65
JUS 18 1991
soon 53 F,,cF i7 5
JUS 18 1991
BOOK 83 FAH 656
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting.this comprehensive plan amendment and revised the scope
of this amendment in response to the ORC Report pursuant to F.S.
163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held its Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public
Hearing on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT. ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
This proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The future land use plan map of the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows:
O Expanding the Urban Service Area (USA) (240 acres) in the
south portion of the county, west of 43rd Avenue, as
shown on attachment 1
o Changing the land use designation of 400 acres of land
east of 43rd Avenue from L-2, Low -Density Residential (up
to 6 units/acre), to L-1, Low -Density Residential (up to
3 units per acre), as shown on attachment 1
o Changing the land use designation of 24'0 acres of land
west of 43rd Avenue from AG -1, Agricultural (up to 1
unit/5 acres) to L-1, Low -Density residential (up to 3
units/acre), as shown in attachment 1
66
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4., Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of
June .1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
-Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
JUK 1 8 1991
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Absent
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Ll�
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
67
BOOS F'� ur.
JUS 18 1991
BOCK 83 PAGE bc�8
SUBJECT PROPERTY
PROPOSED LAND USE BOUNDARIES
ZONING BOUNDARIES
. Attachment "B"
Revised Amendment Request
68
BRUCE BARKETT REOUEST TO CREATE A MIXED USE FLOATING LAND USE
DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES HAVING AN AGRICULTURAL DESIGNATION
The Board reviewed memo from Long -Range Planning Chief Sasas
Rohani dated June 10, 1991:
-TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert,M.. Keati g, A
Community Devel•pmen Director
FROM: Sasan Rohani 54.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 10, 1991
RE: BRUCE BARKETT REQUEST TO CREATE A MIXED USE FLOATING LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR PROPERTIES HAVING AN AGRICULTURAL
DESIGNATION
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
_meeting of June 18, 1990.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bruce Barkett, on behalf of two of the intervenors in the
Comprehensive Plan administrative process, R. Dale Sorensen and
James B. Cain, has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and create a new mixed use floating land use designation for
properties having an agricultural designation. The purpose of this
request is to provide an opportunity to develop properties in the
agriculturally designated portion of the county through the planned
development process._ The intent is to establish a mechanism -
whereby multi -use projects can be allowed in the agricultural areas
of the county without creating urban sprawl. This type of mixed
use project will create self sufficient communities and provide
opportunities for residents to live, work, shop, and attend
recreational activities in the same place.
On February 13, 1990, the county approved its Comprehensive Plan
and sent a copy of the adopted plan to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) for its compliance review. On April 9, 1990, the DCA
issued a statement of intent to find Indian River County's
Comprehensive Plan not in compliance. One of the major issues in
the non-compliance finding, was urban sprawl. The DCA, in the
statement of•intent to find the Indian River County. Comprehensive
Plan not in compliance, stated that "the plan fails to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl because the densities and
intensities of uses assigned in the future land use map to rural
and agricultural areas will encourage development in these areas
without meaningful controls or regulations designed to discourage
the proliferation of urban sprawl".
69
S�l18 1991
BOOK 83
�wT.
Pr -
JUN 18199'
BOOK 83 PAGE, 650
With respect to this request, staff worked with the applicant to
develop the proposed mixed use land use designation amendment.
This designation is structured to correspond to the DCA's criteria
for non -urban sprawl rural development. The concept is that a
large mixed use project which provides opportunities for living,
shopping, working, and taking care of other daily needs internally
will create a self-sufficient community, will capture most of the
trips internally, will preserve natural and agricultural areas, and
will not cause urban sprawl. These mixed use planned development
projects will provide meaningful controls and regulations for.
development of agricultural areas while discouraging urban sprawl.
This mixed use designation would be established upon approval of a
mixed use project meeting the specific criteria set out in the
proposed mixed. use designation amendment. These criteria will
ensure that project residents will have the opportunity to live,
work, shop, and take care of other daily necessities within the
project. Since the mixed use designation is a floating zone and
will be approved only upon an applicant's request, the number of
mixed use projects that will be established and the number of
people that will be attracted are not known. With establishment of
minimum separation distances between such districts, however, the
number of potential projects/districts can be limited, and the
potential population increase can be controlled.
Attachment "A" identifies the proposed changes to the data and
analysis section of the Future Land Use Element to address the
mixed use designation and provides the proposed new policies
establishing the mixed use designation. The proposed amendments to
the plan include the following:
- Changes to the sprawl section of the data and analysis
portion of the Future Land Use Element.
Revision to Policy 1.2 of the Future Land Use Element and
creation of a new mixed use designation.
- Addition of two new policies to the Future Land Use
Element which establish criteria for a mixed use
designation.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
request as presented by staff with one change. Staff had
recommended that at least twenty (20%) percent of the total housing
units be affordable housing units; the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended this percentage be changed to (10%) percent
instead. The Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended -
transmittal of this request to the DCA.
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, with changes
as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission, to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for the DCA's ninety
(90) day review. On April 19, 1991, the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) issued its Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report.
The DCA's ORC report included a number of substantive objections to
this proposed amendment. While many of these objections focussed
on insufficient location criteria and project development
standards, •others referenced a lack of justification to establish
the need for such a land use designation.
70
IMO
With respect to the inadequate need justification objection, DCA
noted that the county already has an over allocation of residential
land, and increasing the density for mixed use projects would
further increase that over allocation. Related to that issue was
another objection; that was that the proposed amendment does not
include any limitation on the number of mixed use projects that
could be established. It was DCA's position that without such a
limitation the residential over allocation would be increased even
more.
Besides the population need issue, the DCA objected to several
mixed use project standards. These included the size, the
composition, the amount of affordable housing, the protection of
agriculture and natural resources, and the method of establishing -
mixed use districts. While some of those objections reflected a
lack of data and analysis to support the standard, others were more
substantive, referencing a conflict between the standards and the
objective of the proposed mixed use designation.
-ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of current and future land uses in the agricultural
areas and potential impacts qn the other plan elements.
Current and Future Land Uses in the Agricultural Areas
At present, there is no mechanism in the adopted comprehensive plan
other than density limitations to control the development of
agricultural lands. Agricultural land may now be developed in
large lot patterns which could lead to ranchette type development
and rural sprawl. This ranchette type development could
potentially absorb large portions of agricultural land area for
non-agricultural uses and adversely affect active• agricultural
operations by limiting aerial spraying and restricting other
agricultural activities. Provisions identified in the proposed
remedial actions amendment to the plan, however, will resolve this
problem by requiring non-agricultural uses within areas having an
agricultural land use designation to be clustered.
'As identified in Policy 1.7 of the Future Land Use Element, the
agricultural use category was established for several purposes;
these are to ensure continuation of the agricultural industry, to
protect agricultural lands from urban encroachment, and to provide
natural open space. The clustered, non-agricultural development
requirement which has been incorporated in the proposed remedial
actions plan amendment will ensure that the intent of Policy 1.7 of
the Future Land Use Element will be met. However, the proposed
remedial actions do not provide for development of multi -use
projects in the •agricultural areas. Such multi -use projects
functioning as self-sufficient communities could be established -
without creating urban sprawl through the mechanism of a mixed use
designation.
The mixed use concept is one of several development control options
for agricultural areas. The others are large lot zoning, transfer
of development rights, and density limitation with required
clustering. Essentially, the mixed use designation is a variation
of the last of those techniques. While the mixed use designation
limits density and requires clustering, this concept also imposes
additional •restrictions designed to produce a self -contained -
community type of project.
Historically, the large lot zoning and the transfer of development
rights land use control methods have not met the objectives of
protectingagriculture while providing for limited development.
While the large lot zoning method has the effect of dispersing
development -and inefficiently using resources, the transfer of
development rights method has seldom been successful because of its
need for an active market, high demand, and limited land
availability. Despite these drawbacks, the county does provide for
the transfer of development rights from agriculturally designated
land. 71
JUN 18`091
BOOK U FAL OL
BO 181991
DOH( 83 F L 662
Through traditional land use and zoning regulations, residential
and other non-agricultural development are limited in
agriculturally designated lands. With a mixed use floating
designation, increased residential densities and other non-
agricultural uses could be allowed in the agricultural areas under
strictly controlled conditions. The ability to provide for higher
residential densities and associated non-agricultural uses makes a
mixed use designation an important tool for development within
agricultural areas. The stringent requirements of the mixed use
designation will ensure the creation of self-sufficient communities
which can absorb increases in density and intensity and ensure high
internal trip capture to reduce travel demands, on county roads
without adversely affecting the surrounding areas.
Through buffer requirements, these mixed use projects will be
buffered from neighboring land uses, eliminating potential land use
conflicts. Compatibility of uses internally and externally will be
addressed through the requirement that projects within the mixed
use designation comply with established Planned Development (P.D.)
standards. Such mixed use projects will provide even more county
control over development in the agricultural areas than provided by
current county regulations.
In analyzing the advantages and disadvantages of a mixed use land
use designation, the county must consider its adopted plan, its
revised plan if the• remedial actions are approved by the Board of
County Commissioners, and its revised plan if the mixed-use
designation is approved in addition to the remedial actions. The
following chart summarizes the land use advantages and
disadvantages for each of the above scenarios:
72
ADVANTAGES
DISADVANTAGES
Adopted Plan
Maximum flexibility for
No control mechanism over
residential development in the
residential development in the
agricultural area in respect to
residential lot size ..
agricultural areas
Creation of large lot development
(ranchettes)
•
Limitation on the
amount of residential and other
non-agricultural development
Encouragement of Urban Sprawl
Insufficient protection for
_
agricultural and environmental
lands
Revised plan according to the
Establishes criteria for non-agri-
Limits flexibility
remedial actions
cultural development
for non-agricultural development in
respect to residential lot size
Limits Urban Sprawl
Limits the amount of residential
Protects agricultural and environ-
and other non-agricultural
mental lands
development
Revised plan according to the.
Establishes criteria for non-agri-
Limits flexibility for non-agricul-
remedial actions and
cultural development
tural development in respect to
establishment of mixed use des-
residential lot size
ignation
Limits Urban Sprawl
Creates opportunities for mixed
use self-sufficient communities
Provides support for agricultural
areas
Protects agricultural and environ-
mental lands
72
Need for Mixed Use Designation
Given the geography of Indian River County, there is an obvious
need.for a mixed use land use designation. Unlike' most counties,
Indian River County is severed into two distinct areas by the St.
-Johns marsh, an undevelopable wetlands under public ownership. The
marsh effectively isolates the undeveloped portion of the west
county from the urbanized eastern section of the county. This
separation also isolates the western portion of the county from the
services and facilities in the east. With development pressures
certain to arise in the west county which currently has a 1 du/5
acres density (to be changed to 1 du/20 acres as per the remedial
actions amendment), providing for a mixed use land use designation
is a reasonable way to accommodate that growth.
Besides the western portion of the county, there are other areas in
the county which are currently designated AG and warrant
consideration for mixed use designation. One such area is the ten
mile ridge, theportion of the county upon which I-95 was built.
Generally unsuited for agricultural (citrus) uses, this area has
characteristics which are favorable for development.
Both of the areas referenced above would be appropriate for
establishment of a mixed use land designation. Allowing mixed use I
projects in these areas will provide an alternate lifestyle choice
for residents, that of a small, compact rural community. At the
same time, such a land use designation could provide protection for
agricultural and natural areas through the mixed use district
requirement of preserving at least fifty percent of the land as
agriculture or natural open space..
o Population
The need for a mixed use land use designation cannot be justified
by the county's population projections. There is more than enough
residentially designated land in the urban service area to
accommodate the county's population through the 2010 horizon of the
plan. Two factors,_ however, serve to justify the mixed use -
district and its added population potential.
One factor is that rural densities were not counted in developing
Indian River County's residential allocation factor. Since the
proposed mixed use district is applicable to the rural (AG) areas
of the county and its maximum density is only 1 du/acre, the
potential mixed use population should be considered in the same
manner as the•total projected AG population. At 1000 acres and a
density of 1 du/acre, a mixed use project could have a maximum
build -out of 1000 units. With an AG density of 1 du/5 acres, the
1000 acre site could accommodate 200 units. Therefore, the maximum
increase per project would.be 800 units.
The second population factor supporting the mixed use district
designation is a population projection increase. Since the
county's plan utilized a twenty year planning period from 1990 to
2010, and it is now 1991, an additional year of population growth
could be added to the 2010 projection to reflect a twenty year time
horizon. With the additional population increment of approximately
4,500 persons, several mixed use projects could be accommodated
without affecting the county's residential allocation factor. For
those reasons staff believes that the need for a mixed use land use
designation has been established.
While the above factors justify the creation of a mixed use land
use designation, they do not provide the necessary justification
for each potential mixed use project. That justification will have
to be provided by the applicant prior to approval of a mixed use
project. As part of that approval process, the applicant must
provide data and analysis sufficient to demonstrate not only that
mixed use districts are needed generally, but that his project is
73
JUN 18 1991
BOOK>: °" ,
;) FA6c bt3
8 1991
BOOK 83 FACE 664
warranted. Such justification must include data and analysis that
show that the proposed mixed use project, given its size and
project population as well as the projected population of any other
approved mixed use project, will not increase the county's
residential allocation factor.
Mixed Use Project Criteria
The mixed use concept will be successful only if sufficient
controls are established to ensure that its objectives are met.
Such controls involve limiting the number and location of
districts, mandating more rigorous approval criteria, ensuring the
protection of natural resources, and setting specific project
design standards. Each of these issues are addressed below.
0 Location
•
The location of mixed use districts will be an important factor in
their viability. By restricting the location of mixed use
districts, the total number of districts can be limited, and the
interaction between project residents and outside attractors can be
minimized. These are important factors in creating successful
mixed use districts. Probably the most effective location
criterion is a minimum separation distance between mixed use
projects. This will not only .limit the potential number of
projects; it will also limit external project trips.
To establish a reasonable separation distance between mixed use
districts, staff assessed existing travel distances in the county.
In so doing, the staff found that•the average trip length for
residentially based trips (as used in the county traffic impact fee
model) was 3 miles. Recognizing that the three mile length is an
average distance for residential trips, staff determined that a
minimum separation distance between mixed use districts which is
double the average distance would significantly reduce inter -
district interaction and reduce external trips overall. A six mile
separation distance between mixed use districts has therefore been
established. With such a six mile limitation, the number of-
potential districts is theoretically limited to approximately
eight, but realistically to far fewer.
c Approval Criteria
As a floating land use designation, the mixed use district is a
discretionary designation. Without an entitlement to a mixed use
designation, applicants are subject to the discretion of the Board
of County Commissioners. By having such discretion, the Board can
impose requirements designed to produce high quality projects. Two
requirements would have that effect.
One is to require that all mixed use land use designations be
established by comprehensive plan amendment. With such a
requirement, the timing of district approvals could be controlled,
and the comprehensive plan data and analysis could be amended to
reflect population impacts of mixed use designation approvals. The
second requirement would be to mandate that all mixed use projects
be approved as Florida Quality Development Projects. With this
requirement, the quality of mixed use projects can be ensured.
Both of these requirements have been incorporated into the mixed
use district criteria.
' 0 Natural Resource Protection
While the mixed use designation will enhance natural resource and
agricultural preservation through its fifty percent preservation
requirement, •there is a need to provide even greater natural
resource protection. For that reason, it would be beneficial to_
require that mixed use projects not adversely impact
74
environmentally sensitive areas of the county. This requirement
has been included with the mixed use district criteria.
o Project Standards
-Any mixed use district must have a minimum size and an adequate mix
of uses to function as a relatively independent community. While
justification to support specific standards is difficult to obtain,
staff have assessed community size and market area in the county
and determined that a 1000 acre size with a 1 du/acre density and
a person per household factor of approximately 2.5 would be
adequate to produce an independent community. With a mix of
residential, retail commercial, employment commercial, and
recreational uses, the interdependence can be assured.
At 1000 acres, however, the viability of a mixed use project and
its ability to function as a self-contained community is marginal.
As the distance from the urban service area increases, the
viability of communities of that size is reduced even more. For
that reason it appears appropriate to establish a range of minimum
district sizes, with those minimum sizes increasing with distance
from the urban service area.
Since a mixed use project close to the urban service area can draw
upon the resources within the urban service area for higher order
shopping needs, the 1000 acre size does not need to be increased
substantially. For that reason, a 1,200 acre minimum size has been
set for mixed use projects located within one mile of the urban
service area.. With respect to projects located more than a mile
from the urban service area, it is necessary for such projects to
have a minimum size sufficient to accommodate shopping and
employment facilities which provide enough higher order goods and
sufficient diversity to limit external trips and ensure that the
project will function as a self contained community. Since the
need for increased size is a function of distance from the urban
service area, it is appropriate to set several minimum sizes
dependent on the project's distance from the urban service area.
While the minimum size for projects within one mile of the urban
service area has been set at 1,200 acres, establishing two other-
size/distance thresholds would be appropriate. For that reason,
the following thresholds are set: more than one mile and less than
six miles from the urban service area -2400 acre minimum size; more
than six miles from the urban service area -3600 acre minimum size.
Besides establishing a mix of uses, it is necessary to establish a
mixed of housing types. Particularly important is an adequate
amount of affordable housing. Such housing is needed to
accommodate lower wage employees working in the community. By
providing housing for such employees in the project, the number of
external trips can be kept to a minimum.
In setting an affordable housing standard, staff estimated the
number of low income jobs based upon the required mixed of uses in
the mixeduse district. With an assumption that twenty-five
percent of the jobs will be low income jobs and assuming a high
number of two income families in the low income category, it is
estimated that thirteen percent of the housing units will need to
be affordable.. This also assumes that some of the lower paying
jobs will be taken by secondary wage earners in non -low income
households. For those reasons a thirteen percent minimum
affordable housing requirement has been incorporated in the mixed
use district criteria.
While establishing a minimum amount of affordable housing and
requiring a mix of uses for each mixed use project is necessary, it
is even more important that the housing and use mix reflect the
needs of the specific project that is proposed. For example, a
retirement -type mixed use project will have different needs than a
conventional community. For that reason, it will be necessary for-
a project applicant to justify his proposed housing and use mix
75
!JUN 18 1991 _ __
BOOK 83 FAu-r. -ot)
LAIN ib 199 BOOK 83 F H 66
through sufficient data and analysis at the project application
phase.
Impacts on Other Plan Elements
Any change in the land use element of the comprehensive plan has
the potential to affect other plan elements. For that reason any
proposed plan change must be evaluated in relation to the other
plan elements. In this case the proposed amendment was reviewed
for consistency with all other plan elements. This review found
that theproposed amendment was consistent with other plan
elements. However, three elements, the traffic circulation
element, the infrastructure element, and the conservation element,
warrant special consideration.
- Traffic Circulation Element
Establishment of a mixed use designation which allows development
of self-sufficient communities will have a positive effect on the
county's traffic network. As mentioned above, large lot
development could lead to a ranchette type development pattern.
Such a land use pattern, creating 5, 10, or 20 acre lots with no
provision ,for other daily necessities such as work, shopping,
recreation and other needs, would add substantial trips to county
roadways. Due to the remote location of agricultural designated
lands, the length of these trips generally exceeds the average trip
length in the county. - Creation of self sufficient communities
based on criteria established as part of attachment "A" will reduce
both the number of trips and trip length. A mixed use project will
capture most of the trips internally and will not have a negative
effect on the County's roadways. -
- Infrastructure Element
The proposed mixed use designation has been structured to minimize
impacts on the county's -infrastructure system. With the minimum
size requirement for a mixed use designation, it is anticipated
that public services and facilities will be provided on-site.
These criteria ensure that no adverse impacts to the county's
infrastructure will occur.
- Conservation Element
The mixed use land use designation will maximize the use of open
space by requiring residential and non-residential activities to be
clustered. Together with land use changes proposed through the
remedial actions plan amendment, the proposed mixed use designation
will eliminate the potential for ranchette type of development in
the agricultural areas. With the mixed use designation, not only
will the opportunity exist to create self-sufficient communities in
the agricultural areas, but there will be an added incentive to
preserve natural areas and provide working open space which could
be used for agricultural uses and recreational uses.
While Policy 6.12 of the Conservation Element exempts agricultural
operations from setting aside native plant communities, a mixed use
planned development project will minimize environmental impacts by
requiring preservation of environmentally sensitive and
environmentally important lands. Through the planned development
process which is required of any project in the mixed use
designation, the county has more control to ensure maximum
protection of environmentally sensitive and environmentally
important lands, while allowing for mixed use projects in the
agricultural areas.
Through the provisions established as part of the mixed use land.
use designation, Objective 6 and Policies 6.1, 6.2, and 6.3 of the
76
,Conservation Element will be implemented, and protection of the
agricultural industry in the county will be further enhanced.
DCA's Objections
-Although DCA's objections to the mixed use district proposal, as
transmitted, were extensive and substantive,.staff feels that all
of the objections have been adequately addressed. Besides
providing justification for the mixed use designation, staff has
made several changes to the mixed use district criteria. These
changes include establishing a minimum separation distance between
districts, increasing the minimum amount of affordable housing,
requiring that the mixed use designation be established through a
comprehensive plan amendment, and mandating that all mixed use
districts be, approved as Florida Quality Development Projects.
With these modifications, staff feels that DCA's objections have
been satisfied.
Conclusion
In considering this request for establishment of a mixed use
designation, it is important to note that application of the mixed-
use designation process to agricultural areas is a relatively new
concept; there are few examples of similar successful efforts.
Through the staff analysis, it has been demonstrated that a mixed
use floating -designation in the agriculturally designated portion
of the county will provide an opportunity for non-agricultural,.
development while protecting agricultural land. This floating
designation.will create self-sufficient communities and provide for.
county control over developments in agricultural areas through the
planned development process. Therefore, it is the opinion of staff
that the proposed comprehensive plan amendment would be reasonable
and is compatible with the intent of the comprehensive plan and
will satisfy both the DCA and two of the intervenors in the.
Comprehensive Plan administrative process. The criteria
established for a mixed use designation are restrictive and provide
for maximum county control over development in agricultural areas.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request.
Director Keating pointed out that this item is an opportunity
to create a mixed use in agriculture districts. Staff has worked
extensively with DCA in making changes. When the Board considered
this item in December there were still rigorous and substantial
requirements for anyone wanting to do this. We had a minimum size
requirement along with a minimum mix of types of uses, including
residential, service commercial, employment commercial,
recreational, and all these uses in one self-contained community
that would function pretty much independently. DCA had comments
and criticism, and they came back with a number of objections in
their ORC report. We negotiated with them, and among the major
changes we have here is a separation distance between these types
of mixed use projects. You can have one right adjacent to the
Urban Service Area, but otherwise they have to have a six -mile
separation distance between themselves. There are three minimum
77
JUS 18 1991
ROOK n
`!5q)
MMN1EX99'
BOOK 83 f'NLE tj
sizes, depending on the distance from the urban service area. The
least intensive is a minimum of 1200 acres, and if it is within one
mile of the Urban Service Area the one mile is "boundary to
boundary" and does not include the entire project.
A few other important points with this mixed use district are
that any proposal for the mixed use district would have to be
approved by this Board through the mechanism of the comprehensive
plan amendment. It would have to go through a process known as
Florida Quality Development project, which is a rigorous process in
itself. There would have to be sufficient data and analysis
accompanying the recommendation or proposed amendment to justify
its need and to justify all the parameters of the project. There
would be a minimum amount of affordable housing.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett came before the Board and commended
staff's work and the Commission's action. He felt if this proposal
holds up going through all the hoops, it will be held up globally
as a model. He requested that in the motion the Commission should
record Mr. Keating's comment that the proximity requirement is
boundary to boundary and not that the entire project has to be
within the one -mile proximity of the Urban Service Area.
Chairman Bird thanked staff for their work on this project.
He reflected it gives some of the large agriculture property owners
some glimmer of hope and, in view of the process, it is going to be
interesting to get through.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (4-0)
adopted Ordinance 91-27 amending the future land use
element of the comprehensive plan by creating a
mixed use land use designation, including the
"boundary to boundary" clause, as recommended by
staff.
78
y�,
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 27
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CREATING
A MIXED. USE LAND USE DESIGNATION AND PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY,
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners allowed each
intervenor in the comprehensive plan administrative hearing process
to submit a comprehensive plan amendment application in an attempt
to .resolve his disputes with DCA and the county, and
WHEREAS, Bruce Barkett, on behalf of two of the intervenors in
the comprehensive plan administrative process, has submitted a
request to amend the comprehensive plan and create a new mixed use
floating land use designation for properties having an agricultural
designation, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to create a mixed use floating
land use designation for properties having an agricultural
designation to the Board of County Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
79
' JUN 181991
BOOK 83 F,•:GE bb
iWi.81991
ORDINANCE NO 91-_27
BOOK 83 PAGE 6 d
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised this proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment and its supporting data and analysis
in response to the ORC Report, pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
This proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended
to create a mixed use floating land use designation for properties
having an agricultural designation by:
0 Revision to the data and analysis portion of the Future
Land Use Element, as shown on attachment A
c Revision to policy 1.2 of the Future Land Use Element, as
shown on attachment A
c Addition of policies 1.33, and 1.34 of the Future Land
Use Element, as shown on attachment A
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the. word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions,.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
80
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 27 -
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of June ,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Absent
Aye
Aye
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ORDINANCE 91-27, IN ITS ENTIRETY, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF
CLERK TO THE BOARD
81
J U $18 1991
ROOK 0 WJE U ! . ,
JUN 8 1991
Poor
83 PAGE 672
2
Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves entered the meeting at
12:30 P.M. and took over from Deputy Clerk Patricia Held for the
remainder of the meeting.
DISCUSSION RE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT (CORACI/ST. SEBASTIAN
RIVER)
Community Development Director Keating reviewed the
following:
'TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
1/42
t M. Min•, A
Community Devel••men
FROM: Roland DeBloislICP
Chief, Environmental
& Code Enforcement
DATE: May 29, 1991
RE:
Director
Planning
CPA #116: Coraci/St. Sebastian River
C-3 Land Use Designation;
Comprehensive Plan Amendment
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting on June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Last year, Robert Riggio, on behalf of Anthony Coraci, an
intervener in the comprehensive plan administrative process,
submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and create a
new C-3 conservation land use designation to replace the present C-
2 conservation land use designation in the area surrounding the
St. Sebastian River. Mr. Coraci is the present owner of the W.W.
Ranch, an area of approximately 8,000 acres. The ranch property
lies predominately within the AG land use designation, with the -
exception of approximately 600 acres of largely undisturbed xeric
scrub community designated C-2 and lying west of and adjacent to
the St. Sebastian River.
The purpose of the applicant's request was to modify existing land
use designations as they apply to xeric scrub communities adjacent
to the river to allow for residential development up to 1 unit/2.5
acres. The applicant's contention is that the present C-2 land use
designation of his property with its 1 unit/40 acres density
limitation is an unreasonable restriction of his land in the C-2
District.
On November 15, 1990, this matter came before the Planning and
Zoning Commission, which voted to recommend to the Board of County
Commissioners the approval of staff's recommendation. The staff's
recommendation was a variation of the applicant's request.
Although the staff recommended that the C-3 district be created,
82
the recommendation was to set the density at 1 unit/5 acres with
required development clustering and extended setbacks; the main
difference between the applicant's request and staff's
recommendation was the development density (1 unit/5 acres vs. 1
unit/2.5 acres).
On December 11, 1990, a public hearing was held by the Board of
Codnty Commissioners concerning the proposed amendment. The Board
approved staff's recommendation for transmittal to the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA), proposing the creation of
the C-3 conservation land use designation, with a density of 1
unit/5 acres applying to xeric scrub adjacent to the St. Sebastian
River. The Board made the following modification to staff's -
recommendation:
Within the C-3 district, the total area of
xeric scrub disturbed by a planned development
project shall not exceed 20% of the total
xeric scrub area occurring on site.
On April 22, 1991, the county received DCA's ORC (Objections,
Recommendations and Comments) report pertaining to this and other
proposed comprehensive plan amendments. The ORC report contained
a number of objections relating to the Coraci/C-3 amendment (CPA
#116), which are paraphrased and summarized as follows:
1. L.U.E. Policy 1.31 does not define
"environmentally sensitive" or
"environmentally important"; environmental
survey criteria are not specified.
2. L.U.E. Policy 1.31 is not supported by
sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate
that the 1 unit per acre for non -scrub uplands
east of the St. Sebastian River is
appropriate.
3. Sewer and water impacts are not fully
addressed; Orsino and Electra soils may
necessitate central sewer and potable water
facilities.
4. The character and magnitude of vacant land
within the C-3 has not been sufficiently
analyzed.
5. The item is not supported by an analysis of
potential residential development vs.
projected population needs. (ref. Housing
Policy 2.2)..
6. The proposed C-3 is not consistent with
Conservation Policy 6.2, in that the St.
Sebastian River area xeric scrub is to be
considered for acquisition.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
This analysis section consists of two parts: a general overall
analysis of the proposed amendment; and additional analysis and
alternatives to address concerns raised by the DCA.
JUN 8 199
83
BOOK
JUN 1819911
GENERAL ANALYSIS
BOOK 83 FA1 67L±
- Current and Future Land Uses
Currently, the St. Sebastian River area is designated C-2,
Conservation -2 district, a designation which allows up to 1 unit/40
acres. As identified in Policy 1.4 of the Future Land Use Element,
the main purpose of the conservation district is to "protect areas
which contain or possess lands with qualities and features which
play vital or essential roles in the normal functioning of the
ecdsystems". The C-2 district provides that protection by limiting
residential densities and prohibiting intense non-residential uses.
The C-2 designation in this area applies to the St. Sebastian
River, associated wetlands, and xeric (dry) scrub upland adjacent
to the river. According to the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish
Commission (GFC), approximately 900 acres of "viable" (relatively
undisturbed) scrub habitat exists along the south fork of the St.
-Sebastian River. Approximately 300 acres along the east bank are
dominated by xeric hammocks undergoing sporadic development. The
remaining 600 acres along the west bank are a mosaic of xeric
hammock, scrubby flatwoods, sand pine scrub, dry prairie, pine
flatwoods, and forested wetlands.
The combination of the mentioned natural communities provides
significant biological benefits beyond each individual, separate
community type. Ospreys, bald eagles, and river otters are
examples of wildlife found in the St. Sebastian River area that
utilize the combined upland/wetland St. Sebastian River ecosystem.
The GFC describes the area as one of the most valuable natural
areas remaining in the county.
- Environmental Impacts
The requested Comprehensive Plan amendment would affect not only
the Coraci property, but all property presently designated as C-2
along the St. Sebastian River. As such, environmental planning
staff have studied the implications of the proposed changes as they
pertain to the entire St. Sebastian River C-2 area.
Following is a comparison of existing comprehensive plan policies
applicable to the St. Sebastian River C-2 area vs. the proposed
amendment as approved by the BCC in December 1990, pertinent to
environmental protection.
EXISTING
C-2: 1 unit/40 acres
(uplands & wetlands)
Transfer of Density Incentive•
1 unit/acre, off-site
(scrub uplands & wetlands)
Planned Development
encouraged; clustering encouraged
50' upland vegetation
buffer along river for
unplatted parcels, 25'
buffer for platted parcels
measured from M.H.W. of
river
10/15% upland preservation
set aside requirement for
property 5 ac. or larger
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
C-3:1 unit/5 acres (upland)
1 unit/40 acres (wetlands)
Transfer of Density Incentive
1 unit/5 acres on-site (internal transfer);_
1 unit/acre off-site
Planned Development required;
development contained to 20% of
scrub
100' upland vegetation
buffer measured from M.H.W. of
river, or 50' from jurisdiction
wetlands, whichever is greater
80% of scrub to be preserved
References restriction of boat access as
may conflict w/manatee protection
8
The Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission (GFC) identifies
approximately 2,709 acres of viable scrub habitat remaining in
Indian River County; approximately 900 acres (33%) of that total
occurs along the St. Sebastian River. The ecological value of the
St. Sebastian River area xeric scrub versus other scrub areas in
the county is high due to its relatively large size, its
association with other complementary habitats, and its presently
ungisturbed/unencroached status. Other xeric scrub areas in the
developing portion of Indian River County have been largely
isolated by urban development, are relatively small in size or are
not part of a bigger, diverse ecological system such as the St.
Sebastian River area. Thus, the St. Sebastian River area xeric
scrub community has been given extra consideration in its.
conservation designation.
Outside of the St. Sebastian River conservation area, lands
designated as C-2 in the existing comprehensive plan are limited to
privately owned wetlands and islands associated with the Indian
River Lagoon. In such cases, a 1 unit/40 acre development density
with a 1 unit/acre density transfer credit is appropriate.
Wetlands are inherently not conducive for development based on
their environmentally sensitive characteristics. The low density
serves to deter development within the C-2 wetlands while still
providing relief via the density transfer credit.
The intent of the established 1 unit/40 acre C-2 density was
primarily to provide needed protection to sensitive wetlands. In
reassessing the C-2 density as it applies to the scrub upland along
the St. Sebastian River, the appropriateness of the density
restriction is subject to scrutiny. Contrary to wetlands, xeric
scrub upland physical characteristics are highly conducive for land
development. The land is "high and dry" and, as such, xeric scrub
has been largely developed elsewhere in the county and in Florida
as a whole. Thus, the conflict of development vs. preservation is
greater than with wetlands.
An increase in the density allowance for the scrub uplands adjacent
to the St. Sebastian River, however, may be appropriate in striking
a reasonable balance between private development rights and public
preservation interest.
The 1 unit/2i acre density, as originally proposed by the
applicant, is too substantial of a density increase for the uplands
of the St. Sebastian River conservation area, particularly as it
would apply to the west bank of the south fork. The area west of
the river is physically isolated from existing infrastructure and
access, and the proposed density would substantially increase
development pressure in the face of conservation objectives.
A majority of the W.W. Ranch is agriculturally designated with a
density of 1 unit/5 acres. The original intent of the C-2 district
around the St. Sebastian River was to provide additional protection
for the environmentally significant areas than would be afforded to
the agriculturally designated lands. The applicant is proposing a
higher density (1 unit/2 i acres) in the conservation area than when
the area was originally designated as agriculture (1 unit/5 acres).
A 1 unit/5 acre density would be more compatible with the adjacent,
similar density of agriculturally designated lands in the vicinity.
Moreover, the county would retain its percent set-aside purview
over created parcels within the conservation area.
Unlike the comprehensive plan's AG designation, the present C-2
designation does not allow agricultural use. The purpose of the
agricultural use exclusion is to prevent the unregulated conversion
of the environmentally significant natural communities to grove or
pasture. Likewise, the proposed C-3 district would exclude
agricultural use.
JIJW 181991
85
PO( 83 FA E 6 i5
r
JAN 18 199
EOOK 8 3 ME 6-1
While the C-3 district would result in an increase in density from
the ldu/40 acre C-2 district, the C-3 district does contain
additional restrictions to provide environmental protection. One
such restriction is the establishment of a required upland buffer
abutting the St. Sebastian River and associated wetlands. Given a
substantial increase in development density potential, the proposed
extended upland buffer along the river would provide complementary
habitat to river and wetland -utilizing wildlife, would contribute
toward surface water runoff pollution control and erosion control,
and would provide protection to the river from potential pollutants
such as lawn herbicides, pesticides, and septic leachates.
As structured, the proposed amendment includes planned
development/cluster requirements for any development in the C-3
-district. This requirement of clustered development is a more
effective habitat protection measure (for conforming parcels of
record) than a lower density, non -required clustering alternative,
in that the benefits of natural area protection associated with
clustering would occur in all development cases and would restrict
unnecessary habitat modification.
Besides clustering, the C-3 district related revisions also address
infrastructure. New Conservation Element Policy 6.14 includes
wording as follows: "appropriate infrastructure such as central
sewer service and surface water management systems may be required
for the protection of the St. Sebastian River ecosystem". While
central sewer service (and/or central potable water service) is a
viable option east of the river, the west side -of the river is
outside of the county's Urban Service Area, and therefore central
service is not an option (reference Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 6.1). However, the soil west of the river (largely Electra
fine sand) , while not ideal for individual septic systems, has been
identified by local soil scientists as one of the better soils in
the county for septic drainfields, provided river setback and soil
modification precautions are taken. As development occurs,
planning staff would coordinate closely with such agencies as the
Environmental Health Department/HRS and the FDER to ensure that
potential negative water quality impacts associated with septic
systems are minimized.
Policy 1.31 of the Future Land Use Element provides that the exact
boundaries of the C-2 District shall be determined by environmental
survey. Expanding the policy to also apply to the new C-3
Conservation District would be appropriate, defining the C-3 east
and west boundaries based on scrub soils and/or scrub vegetation.
In that the intent of a conservation designation is to protect
relatively undisturbed resources, areas disturbed east of the St. -
Sebastian River within the general boundaries of the C-3 District -
which no longer have wetland or scrub characteristics - could
appropriately revert to a compatible higher density, such as R,
Rural, 1 unit/acre. The 1 unit/acre density in such instances
would be'compatible with existing development density east of the
river, which is included in the county's Urban Service Area.
In adjusting the western boundary of the C-3 District, that portion
of the property which is not determined to be in the C-3 District
shall revert to the same land use designation as the contiguous
adjacent property. When considering the eastern boundary of the C-3
District, however, the adjacent contiguous property is largely
incorporated lands of the city of Sebastian. Therefore, specific
to the east boundary adjustment of the conservation area, the lands
determined not to be within the C-3 District are proposed to revert
to R, Rural, 1 unit/acre, which is the area's historic density.
86
DCA ORC REPORT OBJECTIONS; ADDITIONAL
ANALYSIS & REVISIONS
- L.U.E. Policy 1.31 Terminology Clarification
DCA raised an objection that revised Policy 1.31 of the Land Use
Element as transmitted does not adequately define and specify the
criteria associated with the terms "environmentally sensitive",
environmentally important", and "environmental survey".
The terms "environmentally sensitive" and "environmentally
important" are defined in Conservation Policies 5.4 and 6.11,
respectively. The information needed and actions associated with
an environmental survey to determine xeric scrub boundaries in the
C-3 area were partially explained in the transmitted revised Policy
1.31. Staff have now revised the policy by adding clarification
-wordage to address DCA's objection.
- Justification of 1 Unit/Acre East of River; Non -scrub Upland
One of DCA's objections is that Land Use Element Policy 1.31 is not
supported by sufficient data and analysis to demonstrate that a 1
unit per acre density for non -scrub uplands in the C-3 area east of
the St. Sebastian River is consistent with river, wetland and water
quality protection. Staff have revised the data and analysis
section of the Conservation Element to address the concern (see
attachments).
Approximately 500-600 acres of land exists between the river and
Roseland Road (on the east side of the river in the general
boundaries of the C-3 area). Of this acreage, approximately 300
acres are classified by the Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
(GFC) as xeric scrub; roughly 125 acres of the remaining 200-300
acres are wetlands. Therefore, approximately 75-175 acres between
the St. Sebastian River and Roseland Road are non -xeric scrub
uplands, subject to the proposed 1 unit per acre density.
The referenced density is consistent with the historic growth
pattern of the area. The 75-175 potential residential units are
consistent with overall projected population in the Urban Service
Area of ,the county, in that the density allowance results in a
relatively small unit increase -that would not create an
unreasonable "supply" of potential homesites beyond the projected
population's need. Moreover, much of the land in the area consists
of nonconforming parcels of record, 5-10 acres in size, whereby a
1 unit per 40 acre density could not reasonably be applied to such
parcels.
A 1 unit per 5 acre density applied to the xeric scrub east of the
river (with clustering requirements) provides reasonable protection
to the scrub and river, in combination with the 1 unit per 40 acre
density (applying to the 125± acres of wetlands) and a
river/wetland buffer setback. The number of potential development
units within the 300 acres of xeric scrub on the east side of the
river is further reduced when one accounts for the approximately
125 acres of scrub already protected within Donald McDonald Park
and Boy Scout Camp Oklawaha.
- Sewer and Septic Impacts
The DCA has raised the concern that the soils associated with the
xeric scrub along -the St. Sebastian River, "Orsino fine sand" (on
the east side) and "Electra sand "(on the west) are not conducive
for individual septic drainfields, which are necessary to serve the
potential development in the C-3 district. This primarily affects
the west side of the river.
JUN 18 1991
87
BOOK 83 f,4 d'
JUN 18 1q91
BOOK 83 PAa 678
The east side of the St. Sebastian River is within the Urban
Service Area (USA), and is projected to be fully served by public
sanitary sewer by the year 2010. On the other hand, the west side
of the river is outside of the USA. While the soils, on their
face, have substantial limitations for septic drainfield use, they
are actually some of the better soils in the county for septic use.
Modifications to the soil, such as the common practice of
supplementing the soils with fill, in combination with river
setbacks, will minimize any potential pollution problems. Staff
have drafted revisions the Conservation Element analysis section to
address DCA's objection on this issue.
- Character/Management of Vacant Land
Staff have drafted revisions the Conservation Element analysis
section to address DCA's concern regarding vacant land analysis,
which is focused on the east side of the St. Sebastian River. As
previously explained under "Justification of 1 unit/acre East of
the River", staff estimates that approximately 75-175 acres of non -
scrub uplands exist between the river and Roseland Road that would
be subject to the 1 unit/acre density. Other undeveloped land in
the area will be subject to C-3 and C-2 standards and development
densities.
- Residential Development vs. Projected Population
As previously indicated, only the east side of the St. Sebastian
River falls within the USA for purposes of projected
population/residential development ratio calculations. Following
is a comparison of potential residential development units east of
the river under the existing 1 unit per 40 acre density vs. a
combination of 1 unit/40 acres (wetlands), 1 unit/5 acres (xeric
scrub), and 1 unit/acre (non -scrub uplands), as proposed.
Existing C-2 Proposed C-3
(E. of River) (E. of River)
Approx. Total Acres
Potential Units
at Allowed Density
Total Potent. Units
500-600+ 500-600±
12-15 125 Ac. Wetl. x 0.025
= 3
300 Ac. Scrub (-125 Pres.)
x 0.20 = 35
75-175 Ac. Non -scrub Upl.
x 1.00 = 75-175
12-15 113-213
The above calculations are approximate, and do not take into
account those parcels already developed or those nonconforming
parcels of record that are "grandfathered" and subject to a 1 unit
per parcel density, rather than the present 1 unit per 40 acre
density. As such, the estimates are conservative, and the
variation between the two scenarios is in all likelihood much less
than the approximately 100 to 200 unit gap. However, even with
these figures, the -difference in the number of units, when viewed
on a county -wide scale of projected population, is not significant
enough to warrant concern of promoting urban sprawl.
- Consistency with Conservation Policy 6.2
Policy 6.2 of the Conservation Element identifies the xeric scrub
on the western bank of the St. Sebastian River as one of several
scrub sites that the county will consider acquiring, to fulfill a
v..
commitment to acquire a nsauof acres
the proposedcCs 3rdistrict9 is
1.
DCA has filed an objectionsaying that
not consistent with Policy 6.2.
Thd proposed amendment is consistent with Conservation Policy 6.2;
it will not jeopardize the county's consideration of the property
(along with several other properties) for purpose of scrub
acquisition. In fact, the County Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAC) is in the process of prioritizing the St.
Sebastian River western bank scrub nes,nd other
rand usproperties in ndmtht
county for land acquisition purpo
proposals, in general, necessarily have to be evaluated independent
q
from any potential county acquisition of lands, due to legal
considerations. Therefore, unfoo chand geA the
proposed amendment is
-warranted to address the
Conclusion
The proposed amendment has been revised to f the dresspropoD A's ORC report
objections. Following is a
• Create a new C-3 conservation land use designation
applying to the St. Sebastian River, associated wetlands,
and adjacent xeric scrub communities.
• Utilize a density of 1 unit/5 acres for xeric scrub areas
in the C-3 land use designation, instead of the original
requested density of 1 unit/2 2 acres.
o Retain the C-2 land use designation at 1 unit/40 acres
for wetland areas.
• Establish a 100'/50' vegetation buffer requirement.
• Require the same clustering requirements in the C-3
district
agricultural
comprehens d estricts as plan amendmernt. inn
the
the remedial action
• Determine specific boundaries of the C-3 District on a
site -by -site basis, based on existence of wetlands and/or
xeric scrub communities/soils.
o Establish the R, Rural, land use designation at a density
of 1 unit/acre for areas within the overall conservation
boundaries that do not have the characteristics of xeric
scrub communities or wetlands. The Rural land use
designation shall only apply to the east side of the St.
Sebastian River.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners adopt the proposed amendment to the
comprehensive plan to establish a new C-3 District (as set forth in
Attachment "A") for the St. Sebastian River area at a density of 1
unit/5 acres for xeric scrub communities. Specifically, the staff
recommends that the Board amend the Future Land Use Element and the
Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan as indicated in
attachment "A", amend the background data and analysis of the
utevLandn seePlan Mapent as 1tolcated in establishaatachment "B", C-3 designationdamend in the Ste
Future Land U
Sebastian River area as identified in attachment "C".
JUN
Q. 1991
89
BOOK
83 F c b 70
Pr -
JUN 1.8 199'
BOOK 83 F'AEE 680
Director Keating explained that this is an amendment that
was initiated by and to satisfy one of the intervenors in the
Comp Plan process.. Essentially it is a recommendation to create
a new LU District which would partially replace a current
conservation district we have. The specific request is to create
a C-3 Conservation District that would be applicable only to the
St. Sebastian River area. Director Keating referred to a graphic
and pointed out the wetlands along the river, noting that LU
designation for those wetlands would stay the same at C-2, which
is a density of 1 unit to 40 acres (1/40). The uplands on each
side of the wetlands area are a very broad area that would be
narrowed down to go along with this request. There would have to
be certain soil types and vegetative characteristics found for
the area to be considered C-3, and the particular boundaries of
the C-3 would be designated at time of development by an
environmental survey.
Director Keating believed the staff and applicant are
generally in agreement with most of the characteristics of the
C-3 District itself, which has a lot of the same characteristics
and requirements that are applicable to AG areas in general, such
as required clustering provisions, minimum amount of open space,
and required conservation easements. In the C-3 there is a
minimum buffer separation from the wetlands of the river of 100'.
The major sticking point is the density issue. Staff is
recommending 1/5 and applicant wants 1/2.4.
Director Keating advised that staff's position is this area
has been designated as one of the most important natural areas in
the county, and it has a lot of characteristics that indicate the
area deserves added protection through lower density, plus the
other requirements. Also, staff looks at the fact that most of
the area around this to west, like this area, is not in the urban
service area, and except for a small area around Fellsmere, the
lowest density within the urban service area is 1/5. Staff,
therefore, feels that such an environmentally sensitive area that
should be protected as much as possible should not have a higher
density than the less sensitive areas that are similarly situated
in the urban service area. There have been some considerations
about whether or not it would be better to put centralized
services in this area and have the density increase rather than
have lower density on well and septic tank, but staff's feels
that, despite the fact there are some drawbacks, the soils are
some of the best in the county for septic tank use, and that,
combined with the separation distance from the river and the
other characteristics makes it appropriate not to extend the.
urban service area to this particular area. Director Keating
90
informed the Board that when he and Attorney Collins were in
Tallahassee, they spent a lot of time talking with the DCA about
this amendment, and he can personally state that the lower level
DCA felt the 1/22 recommended by the applicant was not appropri-
ate. The DCA, both upper and lower level staff, did concur with
the request as the staff is recommending it right now.
Director Keating then suggested the elimination of the
following wording included in Page 294 the backup material under
Attachment "A" relating to the Conservation Element: "Appropriate
infrastructure such as central sewer service and surface water
management systems may be required for the protection of the St.
Sebastian River ecosystem." He informed the Board that with the
changes discussed, staff would then recommend approval.
Chairman Bird noted that basically out of the thousands of
acres this man owns in this area, we are boiling this down to
about a 600 acre parcel where they disagree about density.
Attorney Collins confirmed that he and Director Keating did
meet with the DCA in Tallahassee, and Walker Banning, who is
reviewing our Plan, does agree with the recommended 1/5 density
because it is outside the urban service area. Mr. Knave,
however, indicated that if Coraci and the County could come to
some negotiated compromise, the DCA would listen to it. Attorney
Collins felt that actually it is all pretty much up in the air as
to just how the DCA would react to this. If we send it up at
1/5, they have said that is okay with them; if we send it up at
at 1/22 as proposed, we do not know whatthey will say, but the
important thing from his standpoint is that they are not looking
at the remedial amendments and making a compliance determination
based on this particular amendment. They have told him they will
analyze each of these other amendments we are hearing this
afternoon individually and deal with them individually.
Chairman Bird asked if anyone present wished to be heard on
the proposed amendment.
Alan Watts of Cobb, Cole and Bell, Daytona Beach, came
before the Board representing the Coraci interests. He felt the
Board has a good handle on where we are procedurally. He stated
that if the amendment that has now been separated out from the
Compliance Agreement is adopted, they will withdraw their peti-
tion for intervention. He noted that the Board disposed of Mr.
Barkett's intervention earlier, and if this amendment is
approved, he expected all parties represented by counsel in the
administrative proceedings will be in agreement that the County's
plan should be approved as amended. If their proposed amendment
is not granted, then they are still in the administrative pro-
ceedings whether or not the County and DCA come to an agreement
JUN 1 8 9991
91
BOOKP,��J
�./� F.AuC ll'a
Pr -
'JUN
'JIJ 18199t
Roos 83 rA E682
under the compliance stipulation, and they would move forward,
but they would rather not do that because they feel they have had
a lot of cooperation and have come a long way in working with
staff on this.
Mr. Watts confirmed that they support the staff responses to
the ORC report other than the issue of density. As to talking
about what the higher and lower level DCA personnel think, in
working with their staff while having the administrative hearing
pending, they have learned the DCA staff that has reviewed the
County's plan is by and large one man's view of the world - they
work in a team but essentially it is one man's work.
Mr. Watts went on to discuss what was done in the Brevard
County part of the Coraci holding where it is 1/21 and 1/1, which
gives them some confidence that if the 1/21 is adopted, the DCA
will not challenge it. He promised that if the Board does submit
the 1/21 and is challenged by the DCA, the Coraci people would
represent the County's interest and defense in working with Mr.
Collins and Mr. Vitunac. Mr. Watts noted that in checking the
DCA records to find where the population figures and the density
caps come from for the 20 year horizon, they have learned that
the DCA uses whatever figures the county sends up based on
professionally accepted methodology, but they don't even have a
demographer on the DCA staff. Nor do they have an economist on
their staff to substantiate that their figure of 1.25 coverage
won't distort the marketplace, and that figure, in essence, means
that for every 4 people who move to the county in the next 20
years, you need to have 5 lots available. Mr. Watts did not want
to be too critical of the DCA because he realized they are
understaffed and overworked, but he did believe there are a lot
more possible views of the world.
For purposes of the record to support this applicant's
request to come in at 1/21, Mr. Watts wished to point out that in
Brevard County this same tract south of the C-54 Canal has been
accepted in their compliance agreement with DCA at 1/21 along the
banks of the St. Sebastian River and 1/1 in the western part of
that land away from the river. The only way to get to that
Brevard County land is through Indian River County going north
from CR 512 and in so doing, you must traverse land that Indian
River County says is 1/5. The County in a lengthy public hearing
this morning addressed their plans for utilities extensions and
the importance of having everyone participate so the County could
build the infrastructure and fill in the gaps, and his question
is how can the County run infrastructure up to the Brevard County
part of the Coraci holdings through land the County has planned
92
as Conservation and said cannot be used for anything but residen-
tial at 1/5. While Director Keating has made the point that a
lot of the Land Use restrictions in the C-3 are similar to AG,
the key distinction is that they cannot use Conservation lands
for AG. Mr. Watts stressed that if Mr. Coraci can't put cows or
citrus on this land, he must have some residential use, and in
order to cluster and preserve 80% of the land, you must be able
to obtain a certain economic yield from that land.
Mr. Watts then addressed the proposed striking of the
sentence regarding infrastructure from Attachment "A" and felt
that sentence should not be eliminated. They had originally
requested this property be in an urban service area because they
thought it should be required to have central utilities, and he
stressed that although it might be an advantage to them economic-
ally, they do not want to go to 1/5 and put in a bunch of septic
tanks on the bluff of the river; they do not think that is the
right thing to do.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that the sentence referred
to says "may be required" not "shall be;" so, actually you can do
it or not.
Chairman Bird asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Warren Dill, Roseland resident, speaking as an individual
thought the question is what is a reasonable use of the property.
He felt it is very clear in the state that no one is entitled to
the highest and best use or the most profitable, and this issue
all boils down to economics. We also know that this property has
been high on the CARL list, and we all know if the County took
any action to increase the density, that probably would increase
its value and certainly would kick it off the CARL list. Mr.
Dill urged the Board not to take the quick fix and succumb to the
carrot that the Coraci people will participate in the County's
defense if it comes to that. If this does get approved,
however, he would strongly urge that the Board increase the
setback from 100' up to 200/300 feet back from the river. This
is very environmentally sensitive land and needs a meaningful _
setback. Mr. Dill had one further point, which is that the C-3
could be modified to provide for TDRs within this zone itself
which would allow them to transfer out at a higher density. He
believed that is already allowed in the Comp Plan under other
districts.
Attorney Watts wished the Board to know that they have
checked and determined that a change would not affect their posi-
tion on the CARL list.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that we should not confuse those
'JUN 18 vat
93
POOK 83 a{, UJ
['ON( 83 PAGE u34
two issues. The CARL program should not have anything to do with
what we are doing today, and in his mind, it does not.
Chairman Bird determined that no one else wished to be
heard. He then closed the public hearing and asked what was the
Board's pleasure.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock to adopt
Ordinance 91-28 amending the Land Use Element of
the Comp Plan, including a new C-3 Conservation
District at a density of 1 unit/2i acres for xeric
scrub communities as recommended by the applicant
rather than the 1/5 recommended by staff.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Commissioner Scurlock wished to
include eliminating the sentence regarding infrastructure in
Attachment "A", but he noted that sentence only says "may be" not
"shall," and he had no problem with that.
COMMISSIONER EGGERT SECONDED the above Motion.
Discussion then followed regarding requiring a larger buffer
or setback from the river, and Attorney Watts pointed out that
the applicant doubled what is in the ordinance.
Commissioner Eggert agreed, but noted it is to be an 100'
natural buffer and she believed they can have a house touching
that natural buffer.
Mr. Watts pointed out that since they are doing clusters,
80% of the river bank wouldn't have anybody, and the other 20%
would have 100'.
Commissioner Eggert expressed concern about being able to
get equipment in there to build houses and still have "undis-
turbed native vegetation." She felt they still would have to set
back another 10' or 15' in order to accomplish that.
Environmental Planner DeBlois, to give the Board some
perspective, advised that the actual area of scrub is roughly
1500/1800' in width, and Commissioner Scurlock asked him if the
100' setback is acceptable.
Planner DeBlois advised that there are other significant
rivers in Florida where they have gone up to 1,000' and he has
heard of 500'. From the soil scientists' viewpoint, however, the
100' setback seemed to be sufficient, but no less.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0)
Commissioner Wheeler not being present.
94
INN
ORDINANCE NO. 91-28
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REPLACING A
PORTION OF THE ST. SEBASTIAN RIVER C-2 DISTRICT WITH A NEW C-3
CONSERVATION DISTRICT FOR PRIVATELY OWNED UPLAND AND XERIC
SCRUB AREAS AND AMENDING THE CONSERVATION ELEMENT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
report pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
rawIS MI
95
JUN 18 1991
,OOK O'J P„uC 11:
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
This proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended
to replace a portion of the St. Sebastian River C-2 District with
a new C-3 conservation district for privately owned upland and
xeric scrub areas and amending the conservation element by:
c Revision to Future Land Use Map as shown on Attachment
c Revision
Land Use
0 Addition
shown on
0 Revision
Land Use
to policies 1.4, 1.5, and 1.31 of the Future
Element as shown on Attachment "A";
of policy 6.14 to the Conservation Element as
Attachment "A";
to the data and analysis portion of the Future
Element as shown on Attachment "A"; and
c Revision to the data and analysis portion of
Conservation Element as shown on Attachment "B".
the
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance” may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict..
SECTION 5.
Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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.
J
96
ORDINANCE NO. 91-28
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of June ,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
AyP
Ahcent
Aye
AyP
AyP
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ORDINANCE NO. 91-28 PLUS ATTACHMENTS IS ON FILE IN THE ORDINANCE
OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 1:00 P.M. and
reconvened at 1:15 P.M. with only three Board members present -
Convnissioner Wheeler being out of state and Commissioner Bowman
not returning to the meeting.
L %MN 1991
97
BOOF:bLt)51
ROO83
KFAU63U
WINDSOR POLO REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE
14+/- ACRES ON HOBART ROAD
Director Keating reviewed the staff recommendation of
approval, as follows:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keat'ng, 'ICP
Community Dev lop 'nt Director
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani 5:4t-
Chief,
:46t•Chief, Long -Range Manning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworekt
Senior Planner, Lon. -Range Planning
DATE: May 29, 1991
SUBJECT: WINDSOR POLO REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
REZONE 14+/- ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Windsor Polo has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive
Plan and rezone property. The subject property is located on the
south side of Hobart Road (77th Street), west of the FEC Railroad
right-of-way. The request includes 14+/- acres of a +/-480 acre
parcel.
The request entails changing the existing land use from C/I,
Commercial/Industrial Node to L-2, Low Density Residential (up to
6 units/acre), and rezoning the property from IG, General
Industrial District to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District
(up to 6 units/acre). The purpose of this request is to secure the
necessary land use designation and zoning for multiple family
development and polo fields. The Windsor Polo Corporation is
proposing to develop an overall 480+/- acre site as phased
multiple -family housing and polo fields. Phase I of the project is
being reviewed by the Planning Department.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 torecommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve
transmittal of this request to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit this request to the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), for their review and comment. Planning staff received DCA's
Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report on April 22,
1991.
98
DCA's objections to this amendment were limited to one issue -
public facility demand analysis. Although several objections were
cited, all related to an inadequate or unclear concurrency analysis
in the transmittal staff report for this amendment. Specifically,
DCA's objections focused on a failure to analyze public facility
demand based upon the most intense use of the property under the
proposed land use designation and a failure to adequately address
adopted level of service standards in the analysis. No substantive
objections to the amendment were cited by DCA.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property currently lies within the Hobart Road and U.S.
#1 Commercial/Industrial Node and has an IG, General Industrial
zoning classification. The site contains one vacant structure and
is otherwise overgrown land. Hobart Estates Subdivision is north
of the property and is zoned IL, Light Industrial. Hobart Welders
is situated directly east of the property and is Zoned IG. The
easternmost portion of subject property abuts the FEC Railroad
right-of-way. Properties located west and south are vacant lands
currently zoned RM -6. Both properties are included in the overall
480+/- acre multi -phased development project.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property currently lies within the Hobart Road and U.S.
#1 Commercial/Industrial Node. This designation permits various
types of commercial and industrial zoning categories. The
properties north and east also share this land use designation.
The properties west and south lie within the L-2 land use
designation.
Transportation System
Hobart Road (77th Street) forms the northern boundary of the
subject property and bisects the overall 480+\- acre project area.
Hobart Road is classified as an urban minor arterial road on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Hobart Road
is a two-lane unpaved road with seventy (70) feet of road right-of-
way.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or.
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps. (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county; however,
water and sewer lines do not extend to the site.
ti
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
* concurrency of public facilities
* compatibility with surrounding areas and potential impact
on environmental quality
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
JUN 181991
99
BDoK 83 Er,,r.O
JUN 18 199
aoOK
FACE 690
DCA Objections
As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff report, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA)
made several objections to the subject plan amendment. Each of the -
objections addressed insufficient analysis relating to the demand
on public facilities by the proposed request. To address those
objections, planning staff have revised the format of the
Concurrency of Public Facilities sub -section of this staff report
to include specific information relating to the demand on public
facilities by the proposed land use amendment, based upon the
-county's adopted levels of service and the most intense use allowed
by the proposed plan amendment.
That analysis demonstrates that public facility service levels will
be maintained even with development of the site at the most intense
level allowed under the proposed land use designation. With this
analysis, staff feels that DCA's objections have been adequately
addressed.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
The site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum adopted level of service standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and non -PD (Planned Development)
rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intensive use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For residential comprehensive plan amendment
requests, the most intensive use (according to the county's LDR's)
is the maximum number or units that could be built on the site,
given the size of the property and the maximum density under the
proposed land use designation. The site information used for -
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: 14 acres
2. Existing Zoning Classification: IG, General Industrial
District
3. Existing Land Use Classification: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Node
4. Proposed Zoning Classification: RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre)
5. Proposed Land Use Classification: L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre)
6. Maximum Number of Units for Proposed Plan Amendment: 84 Units
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed
development of the property indicates that the existing Level of
INN
10
Service "D" would not be lowered. A retail commercial use of
14,000 square feet on the subject site with the existing zoning
would generate approximately 140 daily trips, based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates.
With the proposed zoning, the maximum build -out would be 84 units,
generating approximately 512 daily trips. The traffic capacity for
Hobart Road (77th Street), is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction) at a Level of Service "D". The existing traffic volume
on this segment of Hobart Road is 47 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction). The additional 512 Trip Ends Per Day
created by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment will increase
the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this
segment of Hobart Road by approximately 42 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that Hobart Road and
other roadways serving the project can accommodate the additional
trips without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies eachof the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. Impacted roadways are
defined in the county's Land Development Regulations as roadway
segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of daily project
traffic or fifty (50) or more daily project trips, whichever is
less. As indicated in that table, there is sufficient available
capacity on each of the impacted segments to accommodate project
traffic and maintain the adopted Level of Service""D".
Roadway
Segment Road
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
3610 77th Street
1355 U.S. Highway #1
1360 U.S. Highway #1
1365 U.S. Highway #1
1370 U.R. Highway #1
1375 U.S. Highway 91
1380 U.S. Highway 91
1385 U.S. Highway 41
1390 U.S. Highway 41
1395 U.S. Highway 81
3030 58th Street
3035 58th Street
3040 58th Street
3045 58th Street
3050 58th Street
3055 58th Street
66th Ave.
No.V.B.City Lets
Old Dixie Hwy
41st St.
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
Old Dixie Hwy
Schumann Dr.
S.R. 60
41st St.
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
Existing Demand
Roadway Existing Vested
Segment Volume Volume
3610
1355
1360
1365
1370
1375
1380
1385
1390
1395
3030
3035
3040
3045
3050
3055
JUN 181991
47
1252
1252
1252
1252
1252
729
729
729
729
391
225
225
225
225
225
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.-0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Segment
Demand
47
1252
1252
1252
1252
1252
729
729
729
729
392
225
225
225
225
225
U.S. 41
Old Dixie Hwy
41st. St.
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
Old Dixie Hwy
Schumann Dr.
C.R. 512
41st St.
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
C.R. 510
Available
Segment
Capacity
101
583
486
638
468
1558
1558
2081
2081
2081
2081
499
405
405
405
405
405
Project
Demand
42
5
10
10
12
12
15
26
20
10
8
8
12
12
12
14
630
1720
1890
1720
2810
2810
2810
2810
2810
2810
890
630
630
630
630
630
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
BOOK 83 E4..vE. ii 1
it18199�
RUOK 83 F'AGE d2
vC Wit..,,
- Water
The site is within the urban service area; however the area is not
currently serviced by water. At present, capacity for this service
isnot available for this portion of the county. The proposed land
use change and zoning request will allow a maximum of 84
residential units on the subject property. This number of units
will have a water consumption rate of 84 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERUs), or 21,000 gallons per day. This is based upon the
level of service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. Since no_
ERUs for water have been reserved as of the present time, the
applicant has entered into a developer's agreement with the county
which states that the developer agrees to purchase ERU's if
available at the time that his project's impacts occur or expand
county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the needs of
his development, if capacity is no longer available when the
impacts of the project occur. With this condition, the utility
concurrency test for potable water has been met for the subject
request.
- Wastewater
Wastewater service is not currently available to the subject
property by county wastewater systems. Based upon the site
development parameters referenced above, wastewater generation for
the site after development consistent with the proposed amendment
will be approximately 84 -Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or
21,.000 gallons per day. This is based upon the county's adopted
level of service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. Since no
ERUs for wastewater have been reserved as of the present time, the
applicant has entered into a developer's agreement with the county
which states that the developer agrees to expand county facilities
or pay for their expansion to meet the needs of his development.
With this condition, the utility concurrency test for wastewater
service has been met for the subject request.
Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal, at the county. landfill. Solid waste generation by 84
units of development on the subject property will be approximately
397. cubic yards of solid waste per year. This is based upon the
county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yard per
capita per year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the
active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of
more than 900,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill
has a 4 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity
beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the subject
property is located within the R-5 Drainage Basin and no discharge
rate has been set for this basin, any development on the property
will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the
pre -development rate.
In this case the floodplain storage and minimum floor elevation
level of service standards do not apply, since the property is not
within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge
standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the
maximum amount of impervious surface for the proposed request will
be approximately 462,000 square feet. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon the amount of impervious surface, will be 405,398 cubic
feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service,
the applicant will be required to retain 363,860 cubic feet of run-
off on-site. It is estimated that the pre -development run-off rate
is 34.3 cubic feet per second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 34.3 cubic feet per second and •requiring
retention of the 363,860 cubic feet of run-off for the most
intensive use of the property.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and projected demand as a
result of this request indicates that adopted levels of service
will be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional
park demand associated with the proposed amendment and the existing
surplus acreage by park type. This indicates that no additional
park space will be needed, and the level of service will be
maintained.
L.O.S. Project
(acres per Demand Surplus
Park Type 1000 population) (acres) Acreage
,Urban District 5 .92 222
Community (North) 3 .55 28
Beach 1.5 .27 77
River 1.5 .27 _ 38
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas and Potential Impact on
Environmental Quality
Compatibility -is not a major concern for this property. The area is
predominantly vacant land, and the subject property is a part of an
overall 480+ acre project, including parcels to the north, east and
south of the subject property. The owner is planning to develop
multi -family housing and has submitted site plan drawings for
Phase -I of the project to the planning department. The industrial
property adjacent to the northeast corner of the subject property
is in the process of being rezoned to multi -family residential as
well. Therefore, the proposed zoning and land use designation will
be compatible with the surrounding uses. Since multi -family
developments undergo either site plan or PRD review, specific
buffering and compatibility will be addressed at that time as well.
As indicated in the_description and conditions section of this
report, the subject property has no environmentally sensitive
characteristics. Given the county's adopted environmental
protection regulations, the property could be developed as either
commercial or residential without significant adverse impacts on
environmental quality.
Based upon the analysis performed, staff feels that the requested
residential land use designation would be compatible with the
surrounding area.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
JUN 18 5991
103
Ekon' U Et!
,SUN 1_81991 aooK 83 raCE 6114
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted
on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are the actions which the county
will take in order to direct the community's development.
Specifically, policies are the courses of action or ways in which
programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal
or objective. While all comprehensive plan policies are important,
some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan
amendment requests.
A review of this amendment request with the Future Land Use Element
reveals that approximately 700 acres of land are currently
developed with commercial/industrial land in the county. According
to the plan, approximately 3,000 acres of land will be needed for
commercial/industrial uses in the future. Since more than 5,000
-acres in the county are designated for commercial or industrial
uses, a surplus of 2,000 acres of Commercial/Industrial designated
land exists in the county. For this reason a change in the land
use designation of• the subject property from commercial/industrial
to multi -family will not adversely affect the supply of
commercial/industrial designated land in the county. There will
still be an ample supply of commercial/industrial land.
-Policy 13.3
Policy 13.3 of the Future Land Use Element allows the approval of
plan amendments only upon a showing that one of the following
criteria has been met:
O The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the
approved plan
O The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the
approved plan
O The proposed amendment is warranted based on a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
The staff feels that the proposed amendment is consistent with
policy 13.3 because of a change in -circumstances related to the
subject property. In this case, the subject property is a part of
a much larger tract of land to be used for multiple -family
development and polo fields. In order for the applicant to pursue
this development, he needs the land use changed to allow multiple -
family uses. Since the applicant has recently acquired several
discrete parcels and must now unify the land use and zoning into
one that is appropriate for his desired development, this
constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the property and -
warrants a land use amendment. Residential development of this
area would also facilitate the development of non -residentially
designated land along Old Dixie Highway and U.S.#1 to the east.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major
incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses.
Since no major environmental issues have been identified relating
to the site, the subject property could be developed residentially
with no significant adverse environmental impacts. It has been
established that the concurrency test for drainage, roads, solid
waste and parks has been met with the proposed zoning. Analysis
also shows that the proposed request will be consistent with other
plan policies.
The subject property is located in an area designated for
Commercial and Industrial Uses. However, land on two sides of the
subject property is designated for residential development, and
Hobart Road abuts the subject property on a third side. In
addition, the subject property is a part of an application for an
overall large-scale residential project which abuts two sides of
the subject property. For these reasons the proposed change in
land use and zoning would be consistent with county policies and
existing land uses.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to amend the land use map
from commercial to L-2 and rezone the subject property to RM -6.
E. SUBJECT PROPERT
ZONING BOUNDARIES
LAND USE BOUNDARIES
ATfAav nr •2•
1991
105
BOOK
83
Pr?v-.0)u)
JIM 18 J
BOOK 83 FAGS b0C
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, Commissioners Bowman and Wheeler
being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted
Ordinance 91-29 amending the Land Use Element of the
Comp Plan decreasing the Hobart Road/U.S.I Commercial
Node and changing the Land Use Designation of the
property removed from the node to L-2 and adopted
Ordinance 91-30 rezoning the subject property to RM -6,
all as requested by Windsor Polo.
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 29
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
ACCOMPANYING FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY DECREASING THE HOBART
ROAD/U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL NODE FROM 50± ACRES TO 36±
ACRES AND AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM C/I TO L-2,
AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the County received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 1990 amendment submittal window, and.
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant. to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
0 The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
Being a part of the N.E. k of the N.E. k of Section 4,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East and also being a part of the
N.W. k of the N.W. k of Section 3, Township 32 South, Range 39
East being more fully described as follows:
Commencing at the N.W. Corner of the N.E. a of the N.E. k of
said Section 4; thence S 00001'59"E a distance of 40 feet to
the south Right -of -Way Line of 77th Street; thence 589058'47"E
along said south Right -of -Way line a distance of 788.44 feet;
thence 500001'13"W a distance of 354.00 feet; thence
589058'47"E parallel to said South Right -of -Way line of 77th
Street a distance of 585.59 feet; thence S70000'00"E a
distance of 180.23 feet; thence 589058'47"E parallel to said
South Right -of -Way. Line of 77th Street a distance of 44.48
feet to the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of the F.E.C.R.R.;
thence along said Westerly Right -of -Way of the F.E.C.R.R.
525054'42"E a distance of 227.30 feet; thence N89058'47"W
parallel to said South Right -of -Way of 77th Street a distance
of 146.55 to the East line of said Section 4, Township 32
South, Range 39 East; thence along said section line
500007' 58"E a distance of 271.81 feet; thence parallel to said
westerly Right -of -Way line of the F.E.C.R.R. N25054'42"W a
distance of 302.24 feet; thence parallel to said South Right -
of -Way Line of 77th Street N89058'47"W a distance of 1208.72
feet to the West line of the N.E. 4 of the N.E.* of said
ROOK 83E4E607
107
19
QooK 83 FcE
Section 4; thence along said west line N00001'59"W a distance
of 620.00 feet back to the Point of Beginning. All of the
above lying and being in Indian River County, Florida and
containing 15.33 acres more or less.
Is changed from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node to L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6 units/acre):
0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
0 Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
delete ±15 acres from the Hobart Road/U.S. Highway #1
Commercial Node
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners' of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of June
,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Absent
Aye
Absent
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
108
ORDINANCE NO. 91-30
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM IG TO
RM -6, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF
HOBART ROAD (77TH STREET), WEST OF THE FEC RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-
WAY, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Being a part of the N.E. 4 of the N.E. 4 of Section 4,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East and also being a part of the
N.W. 4 of the N.W. 4 of Section 3, Township 32 South, Range 39
East being more fully described as follows:
Commencing at the N.W. Corner of the N.E. 4 of the N.E. 4 of
said Section 4; thence S 00001'59"E a distance of 40 feet to
the south Right -of -Way Line of 77th Street; thence 589058'47"E
along said south Right -of -Way line a distance of 788.44 feet;
thence S00001'13"W a distance of 354.00 feet; thence
589058'47"E parallel to said South Right -of -Way line of 77th
Street a distance of 585.59 feet; thence 570000'00"E a
distance of 180.23 feet; thence S89058'47"E parallel to said
South Right -of -Way Line of 77th Street a distance of 44.48
feet to the Westerly Right -of -Way Line of the F.E.C.R.R.;
thence along said Westerly Right -of -Way of the F.E.C.R.R.
S25054'42"E a distance of 227.30 feet; thence N89058'47"W
parallel to said South Right -of -Way of 77th Street a distance
of 146.55 to the East line of said Section 4, Township 32
South, Range 39 East; thence along said section line
500007'58"E a distance of 271.81 feet; thence parallel to said
westerly Right -of -Way line of the F.E.C.R.R. N25054'42"W a
distance of 302.24 feet; thence parallel to said South Right -
of -Way Line of 77th Street N89058'47"W a distance of 1208.72
feet to the West line of the N.E. 4 of the N.E.4 of said
Section 4; thence along said west line N00001'59"W a distance
of 620.00 feet back to the Point of Beginning. All of the
above lying and being in Indian River County, Florida and
containing 15.33 acres more or less.
'JUN 18 1991
109
ElOOK 8.3 F,",6E.609
UN 18 T991
BOOK 83 ['AGE 700
Be changed from IG to RM -6.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this18th day of June , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 28th day of May , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Scurlock , seconded by
Commissioner Eggert , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Absent
Aye
Ahsent
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Table 2.30
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LOCATIONS
NODE
COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL
TOURIST -COMMERCIAL
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LOCATION
Sebastian/US #1
CR 510/CR 512
CR 510/62nd Ave
Hobart/US #1
Storm Grove/US #1 *
North Gifford/US #1
43rd Ave./1st St. SW
Oslo Road/US #1
Oslo Road/27th Ave.
SR 60/Kings Hwy.
Moorings
Gibson St.
S. Winter Beach Road
Lindsey Road
I-95/CR 512
CR 510/US #1
Oslo Road/74th Ave.
SR 60/I-95
Roseland Road/US #1
Barber Ave.
CR 510/SR A -1-A
Grand Harbor
Schuman to Breezy
North of CR 510
South of CR 510
Hobart to 65th
65th to N. Relief
N. Relief to 49th
Gifford
Vero to S. Relief
Oslo East
S. Relief to S. County
ACRES
84
50
5
RR 36
93
90
15
62
60
160
10
15
100
100
665
120
690
795
120
205
25
65
Village 136
239
92
232
57
46
272
365
63
Line 201
* Includes 83 acres for
u\v\c\comind.loc
TOTAL
a Regional Mall
Msecx 5349
GRAHAM STIKELETHER, JR., REQUEST TO AMEND COMP PLAN AND REZONE
0.32 ACRES ON OLD DIXIE
Director Keating made the staff presentation, as follows:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
4,214tiL
Robert M. �in , A
Community Developmenirector
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani %•1/C
Chief, Long Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner,Long Range Planning
DATE: May 29, 1991
SUBJECT: GRAHAM W. STIKELETHER, JR. REQUEST TO -AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE ± 0.32 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The original request was for property located on the
southwest corner of Old Dixie Highway and 14th Place S.W.,
presently owned by Dale and Lucille Rockwell. The Rockwell's
property is ± 0.32 acres in size and consists of Lots 4 and 5 of
Block U, Dixie Heights Subdivision. Subsequently, the Planning and
Zoning Commission reviewed the request and recommended to the Board
of County Commissioners the approval of the comprehensive plan
amendment 'and rezoning of the entire Block "U", which contains
approximately 1.2 acres.
The request entails changing the existing land use from L-2, Low -
Density Residential (up to 6 units per acre) to Commercial/
Industrial Area, and rezoning the property from RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (6 units/1 acre) to CH, Heavy Commercial
District. This request is considered an expansion of the
Commercial/Industrial Area between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. #1 in
the South Relief Canal to the South County Line Commercial/
Industrial Corridor area. The purpose of the Rockwell's request is
to -secure the necessary land use designation and zoning for a
proposed mini -warehouse facility, which would be an expansion of an
existing mini -warehouse facility located on the property.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval of the
applicant's request as recommended by staff. The Planning and
Zoning Commission also recommended that the entire block "U" of the
Dixie Heights Subdivision (1.2± acres) be included in the South
Relief Canal to south county line commercial/industrial corridor.
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit this request (with the recommended changes by the
Planning and Zoning Commission) to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), for their review and comment. Planning staff
JUN 18 1991111 Boor;83 FAGS 701
i8 i991
BOOK 83 f'Ai;E 102
received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC)
Report on April 22, 1991.
DCA's objections to this proposed amendment were both substantial
and substantive. They involved identified inconsistencies between
the proposed amendment and comprehensive plan policies and included
an objection related to an inadequate public facility demand
analysis.
Specifically, DCA objected to the amendment based upon the
amendment's inconsistency with the county plan's 70% node expansion
criterion; its inconsistency with the plan's amortization of non-
conforming use policy; and its inconsistency with the plan's policy
to discourage strip commercial development. A final objection was
that the staff report on this amendment request failed to note that
the public facility demand analysis for the proposed amendment was
based upon the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed land use designation. The DCA based its objections on
inconsistency with Rule 9J-5 (FAC), Chapter 163 (F.S.), the state
comprehensive plan, and the comprehensive regional policy plan.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential
District, and contains mini -warehouses and undeveloped property.
The parcels south of the subject property are also zoned RS -6 and
contain four mobile homes. The west side of the subject property
is zoned RS -6 and contains some commercial uses.
The parcels located in the blocks north and south of the subject
property are zoned RS -6 and are currently undeveloped. Land to the
east of the subject property and Old Dixie Highway is zoned CH,
Heavy Commercial, and is currently undeveloped. The parcels
located in the block west of the subject property are zoned RS -6
and contain single-family residential homes as well as some vacant
lots.
Future Land Use Pattern -
The subject property is designated L-2, Low Density, on the county
future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential
densities up to 6 units per acre. All property to the west, north
and south is also designated L-2. Property to the east, across Old
Dixie Highway, is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, which
permits commercial and industrial zoning designations.
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county, and County
water lines extend to the site; however, sewer lines do not extend
to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts Old Dixie Highway to the east and 14th Place
S.W. to the north. Old Dixie Highway is classified as a collector
road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of
Old Dixie Highway is a two lane paved road with approximately 35
feet of existing public road right-of-way. 14th Place S.W. has a
local road classification and has approximately 50-60 feet of road
right-of-way and is a two lane paved roadway.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
* concurrency of public facilities
* compatibility with surrounding areas and potential impact
on environmental quality
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid waste, Drainage, and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum level of service standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and non -PD (Planned Development)
rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For commercial comprehensive plan amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the county's LDR's) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: 1.2 acres
2. Existing Zoning Classification: RS -6, Single Family
Residential District (up to 6 unit/acre)
3. Existing Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density Residential
(up to 6 units/acre)
4. Proposed Zoning Classification: CH, Heavy Commercial District
5. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Area
6. Most Intense .Use of the Subject Property: 12,000 sq. ft.
of Retail Commercial
- Transportation -
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better would not be lowered. The maximum number of
units allowed on the subject property by the existing zoning would
be 7.2 single-family units; those units would generate
approximately 72 daily trips.
A retail commercial use of 12,000 square feet on the subject site
would generate approximately 570 daily trips, based on the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates.
Of these trips, only 49% or 279 TEPD (Trip Ends Per Day), would be
new trips. The peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips produced
by the proposed request would be 63 trips. The actual number of
trips would depend on the total square footage and the exact mix of
uses.
JUN 181991
113
BOOK 63 fAr6E 700
JIB 18 199
BOOK 83 PAGE 702
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that Old Dixie Highway
and other roadways impacted by the project can accommodate the
additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of
service. Impacted roadways are defined in the county's Land
Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive. five
-percent (5%) or more of daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more
daily project trips, whichever is less.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient available capacity on each of the
impacted segments to accommodate project traffic and maintain the
adopted Level of Service "D".
Roadway
Segment Road
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
2305
2310
2320
1305
1310
1315
2580
2570
2560
4970
4960
4950
1110
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
Old Dixie Highway
U.S. Highway 41
U.S. Highway 81
U.S. Highway 41
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
4th Street
4th Street
4th Street
Indian 'liver Boulevard
'Roadway
E.q. ment
So.Co.Line
Oslo Rd
4th St.
So.Co.Line
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
U.S. 41
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
U.S. 41
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
4th St.
Existing Demand
Existing Vested
Volume Volume
2305
2310
2320
1305
1310
1315
2580
2570
2560
4970
4960
4950
1110
189
484
484
1079
1370
1266
386
386
386
428
428
428
800
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Total
Segment
Demand
190
484
484
1080
1370
1266
386
386
386
428
428
428
800
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
27th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
27th Ave.
12th St.
Available
Segment
Ca•acit
441
346
186
811
390
164
174
444
284
202
202
202
586
Project
Demand
63
36
15
10
16
10
15
10
8
15
10
6
12
630
830
670
1980
1760
1430
560
830
670
630
630
630
1386
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
Yes
pm
Yes
Pm
Pm
Pm
Pm
Pm
Pm
Pm
yes
Yes
pm
- Water
Water service is available to the subject property from the South
County Water System. Based upon the site development parameters
referenced above, water consumption for the site after development
consistent with the proposed amendment will be approximately 3
Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or 725 gallons per day. This
is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons per ERU
per day. The South County Water System currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2.59 million gallons per day and can
accommodate the additional water consumption by the proposed
amendment. The applicant has paid the necessary impact fees for
water service for the subject property and will connect to the
South County Water System at the time of development. This is
consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.7 which requires
development projects to maintain established levels of service.
-Wastewater
A retail commercial use of 12,000 square feet on the subject
property will have a wastewater generation rate of 3 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 725 gallons per day. This is based
upon the county's adopted level of service standard of 250 gallons -
per ERU per day. County wastewater is not currently available for
this site. Since no ERUs for wastewater have been reserved as of
the present time, the applicant has entered into a developer's
agreement which states that the applicant agrees to purchase ERU's,
if available at the time that his project's impacts occur, or
expand county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the
needs of his development if capacity is no longer available when
the impacts of his project occur. With these conditions, the
utility concurrency test for wastewater has been met for the
subject request.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by a
12,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site will
be approximately 265 cubic yards of solid waste per year. This is
based upon the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37
cubic yards per capita per year. A review of solid waste capacity
for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the
availability of more than 900,000 cubic yards of capacity. The
active segment of the landfill has a 4 year capacity, and the
landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based upon staff
analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can
accommodate the additional solid waste. _
Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the subject property is located within the R-1 Drainage Basin and
no discharge rate has been set for this basin, any development on
the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in
excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case the floodplain storage and minimum floor elevation
level of service standards do not apply, since the property is not
within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge
standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the
maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be
approximately 39,600 square feet. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon the amount of impervious surface, will be 34,748 cubic
feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service,
the applicant will be required to retain 31,188 cubic feet of run-
off on-site. It is estimated that the pre -development run-off rate
is 2.94 cubic feet per second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 2.94 cubic feet per second and requiring
retention of the 31,188 cubic feet of run-off for the most
intensive use of the property.
- Recreation
Concurrency for recreation is not applicable for this request as
the request is for commercial development, and recreation levels of
service apply only to residential development.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas and Potential Impact on
Environmental Quality
Compatibility with surrounding land uses is an important issue
concerning this property. With respect to the original .32 acre
subject property, the existing adjacent land uses to the south and -
west are non -conforming uses in the current zoning district (RS -6).
'JUN 18 199
115
BOOK 83 F'd6.,cz
JUN 18 1991
BOOK 83 F CE IOC
Changing the zoning to CH and the land use designation to
commercial would lessen the extent of these existing non -
conformities. Some of the existing uses, such as the mini -
warehouse facility, have been in place for over 10 years.
-The purpose and intent of the Heavy Commercial District is to
provide areas for establishments engaging in wholesale trade, major
repair services and restricted light manufacturing activities. In
addition, the district permits a variety of commercial uses
including: business and commercial services; eating and drinking
establishments; furniture and appliance sales; and vehicular sales,
service and storage.
Staff recognizes that the property in question is not suitable for
single-family residential development, due to its location, size,
and existing non -conforming uses. Although in the past the staff
has opposed extending the commercial land use designation to the
west side of Old Dixie Highway, this situation is unique because
the small size of the subject property and its location with
respect to existing non -conforming uses make it unfeasible for
single-family residential development. With property across Old
Dixie Highway to the east designated as Commercial/Industrial on
the county's land use map, and zoned CH, there is additional
justification for the request.
In reviewing -this request, the staff had determined that it would
be appropriate to amend the land use map and change the zoning for
the entire Block (U), not just the ±0.32 acres requested by the
applicant. Subsequently, the Planning and Zoning Commission agreed
with staff's determination and recommended that the Board of County
Commissioners expand the request to include all of Block "U". At
its transmittal hearing, the board concurred and expanded the
request as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission and
staff. The entire block is ±1.20 acres in size.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
This land use change and rezoning does require a change to the
adopted Future Land_Use Map in the county's Comprehensive Plan. -
However, a review of these changes does not reveal any
inconsistencies with the Future Land Use Element or other
Comprehensive Plan element policies.
-Policy 13.3
Probably the most important policy to consider is Future Land Use
Policy 13.3. That policy requires that one of three criteria be
met in order to approve a land use plan amendment. These criteria
are:
* an oversight in the approved plan
* a mistake -in the approved plan
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property
The staff is of the opinion that this land use amendment and
rezoning request is warranted based on an oversight which occurred
when the county rezoned this property as part of the 1985 county-
wide rezoning changes. Prior to 1985, the subject property was
zoned C-1, Commercial; in 1985, the county rezoned the property to
its current zoning, RS -6, as part of the rezoning of the
residential Dixie Heights Subdivision, which is located just west
of the property. The comprehensive plan land use designation was
then established based on the residential zoning of the site. It
is•staff's position that the existing uses on Block "U" were not
considered when the residential land use designation was set and
that this lack of consideration constituted an oversight in plan
preparation.
116
-Other Plan Policies
Besides Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3, several other policies
have. applicability to this amendment request. These include
Policies 1.23, 1.21, and 10.1, all of the Future Land Use Element.
Future Land Use Policy 1.23 requires 70% of the land area in a node
or commercial/industrial corridor area to be developed or approved
for development before the node or corridor can be considered for
expansion. Under typical circumstances Future Land Use Policy 1.23
is a major consideration in deciding whether land use and zoning
changes are warranted; however, due to the previous oversight in
the rezoning and land use change made in 1985, the 70% criterion
stated in Policy 1.23 is not applicable.
Similarly, policies 10.1 and 1.21 are not applicable because of the
oversight. According to policy 10.1, non -conforming uses are to be
amortized and eventually eliminated. In this case, however, it was
an oversight that made the referenced uses non -conforming. It is
staff's position that if the uses on Block "U" had been considered
in detail, the block would have been designated commercial and the
existing uses not made non -conformities by the plan. That would
have been consistent with the plan preparation methodology of
recognizing the predominant land use pattern in an area by
assigning a land use designation consistent with that pattern.
With respect to Policy 1.21 which provides for discouraging strip
commercial development, staff feels that the proposed amendment
would not be inconsistent. Since Block "U" is substantially
developed already, allowing the remaining lot to be used non -
residentially will not promote strip commercial development. Given
the compact nature of Block "U" and a recognition that Block "T" is
appropriately designated residential, approval of the subject
amendment request will not promote strip commercial development in
this area.
The comprehensive plan policies referenced above were adopted to
guide the county's_ future growth and development. As such, their
intent was to encourage or discourage certain types of development
in certain areas. The policies were not designed to effectively
preclude the use of certain properties. In this case, the small
size of the subject property, its limited developability as
residential, and the existing uses in Block "U" warrant approval of
the request.
DCA Objections
Despite the nature and intent of DCA's objections to the subject
amendment request, staff feels that the preceeding analysis
adequately addresses the state's concerns. These concerns extended
beyond the subject property, itself, and reflected DCA's concerns
that a similar rationale would be used to justify extending the
commercial land use designation to adjacent tracts.
It is staff's position that the analysis section of this staff
report establishes that an oversight occurred during the plan
preparation process. It also indicates that approval of the
amendment request would not be inconsistent with established plan
policies. With the more detailed concurrency analysis based upon
the most intense use of the property under the proposed land use
designation, staff feels that all of DCA's concerns have been
adequately addressed.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major
incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses. The
subject property is located in an area designated for low density -
single -family residential development; however, the property's
1991
117
BOOK ;.J FAE /t,17
A
HEIGHTS l
/•
l'"
JUN 1819T
EOO' 83 PAGE 708
location, size, existing land use and adjacent land uses are not
compatible with single-family development. The proposed change in
land use and zoning would be consistent with county policies, and
with the proper buffering would be compatible with the surrounding
land uses. No environmental issues have been identified relating
-to the site, and the requested amendment has a positive concurrency
determination.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners amend the Future Land Use Map as depicted in
Attachment #3 which expands the Commercial/ Industrial area between
Old Dixie Highway and U.S. #1 in the South Relief Canal to South
County Line Commercial/Industrial Corridor area to 202± acres by
including 1.20± acres, change the land use designation of the
subject property from L-2 to commercial, and rezone the property
from RS -6 to CH.
OSLO RD
0 RD.
RM -6
4.0–GE
sl
_
P 1 e
UNIT 4-
–.—"• II
1.
If ice':•.
UNIT .1„;
�. C
117M l♦
`DIXIE
• .:UNIT 2
T 7.. S
N P1../•
RDEN8
C
RS -6
L-2
RM -6
UNIT 2
I: TN 67 6E��
RIVER SHORES ESTATES
4
N
UNIT I
o..rr w •
•
1•
R
l
=I:3- 14711 P1.. 111
o \ v
RS
• •.'
GROVE ISLE AI vl1
6.01.9,14
•
RN
• .•..:'i 16711 67. SW
11
./ —1E–
~ 16711 P1.. 6•
UBJECT PROPERTY
•6"U.!. is
_ 16711 67,
UNIT I -A
•"1"--1..,r •^��711 P
E +G 1; :1C
n
X01 o I o
:^ 1 2
.
i•y,
EXISTING
ZONING BOUNDARIES
LAND USE BOUNDARIES
Attac]vmnt 2
118
Mkt
• CPAR114
OSLO RD
i R M-6
af.mxx
OSLO F DGE
SUB
.t
Pa. J [ a •1
UNIT 4
M •
•STN ST. S• •—
ISTN ►L.
I D ' UNIT1.;
IS TN LA.
P'-
rJ 0
• ,Y. `DIXIE "
P I+TN ST
�
T +� oUNITS 2
0
N
IS/
r
1
f'
A —
HEIGHTS
!'
• RS -6
L-2
O
RM -6
UNIT 2
• RIVER SHORES ESTATES '
•
RS
UNIT,
-gics
I I I •
f _
GROVE ISLE A' it,
Y•..
-••_�� 1lTN fT.�
I/TN PL. ■•
SUBJ.ECT PROPERTY
ISTN ,L!Et1. Sw
..`:,--_ \\ A
fw
F 1"a`f1 UNIT I -A
10
MST• ♦4.
" " 1 w
E I'D $ •C u
...TTN ST, f' •
L-2
Proposed
— ZONING BOUNDARIES
LAND USE BOUNDARIES
RN
Attachment "3"
Director Keating noted that the subject property is probably
one of the few blocks in the county that doesn't have a conform-
ing use on it. The DCA did have some substantive objections, :and
one was whether the staff representation that this was inappro-
priately designated L-2 because of an oversight would be extended
subsequently and be a reason for including the block to the north
in a later amendment. Director Keating pointed out that the
proposed Ordinance includes a WHEREAS clause in which the Board
acknowledges that the area around this is appropriately
designated as residential right now but that this block because
of the unique circumstances is worthy of consideration for
redesignation to commercial. Staff is recommending approval.
1991'
119 ROOK 83 3 F'h�,E 70
JUN 181991
POCK o') PAGE 10
The Chairman asked if anyone wished to be heard regarding
the requested amendments. There were none, and he closed the
public hearing.
Graham Stikelether, representing the applicants, Dale and
Lucille Rockwell, just wished the Board to know that Mr.
Rockwell, who followed this procedure closely, passed away
recently after a brief illness, and Mr. Rockwell had followed
this matter with a great deal of concern but with admiration for
the entire staff. Mr. Stikelether also wished to give accolades
to the professionalism of the EMTs and Fire Department personnel
who had responded and transported Mr. Rockwell to the hospital.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (3-0)
adopted Ordinance 91-31 amending the Comp Plan and
Ordinance 91-32 rezoning the subject property to
CH as requested by the Rockwells.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-31
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
ACCOMPANYING FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY
#1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR (SOUTH RELIEF CANAL TO SOUTH
COUNTY LINE) FROM 201± ACRES TO 202.2± ACRES AND AMENDING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM L-2 TO C/I, AND PROVIDING FOR
CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the County received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1990 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of
this comprehensive plan amendments to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public
Hearing on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has found that
unlike neighboring properties which are developed with residential
uses or are vacant, the subject of this amendment was
inappropriately designated L-2, Low -Density Residential, because
the subject property of this amendment was originally zoned and
developed commercial/industrial, and consists of several parcels,
under seperate ownership, with buildings of various ages, which are
not susceptible, as a whole, to amortization if treated as non-
conforming uses in a L-2 Low -Density Residential area.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
This amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be
transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
JUN 1 8 1991 121 ROCK. 83 F'�•.�t � 11
� _
JW ��J BOOK 83 f'� �E 112
Block "U", Dixie Heights Subdivision, Unit 5, according
to the plat recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 8, Public
Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential (up to 6
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node:
0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
0 Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
enlarge the U.S. Highway #1 Commercial/Industrial
Corridor (south Relief Canal to South County Line) by
1.2± acres
SECTION 4. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 5. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 6. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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 7. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day ofjune ,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Absent
Aye
Absent
Ay e
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
122
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ORDINANCE NO. 91-32
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 TO
CH, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED IN DIXIE HEIGHTS
SUBDIVISION, UNIT 5, BLOCK "U", LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY S.W. AND 14TH PLACE S.W.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Block "U", Dixie Heights, Unit 5, according to the plat
recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 8, Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida.
Be changed from RS -6 to CH.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described.- in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of June . 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 28th day of May , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
JUN 1.8 1991 123
Aye
Absent
Aye
ROOK: �� F'�uC. ~1de1
Jo 18 1991
BOOBOOf 83 F'„ E
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Absent
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY :�l�S1T
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
Rich rd N. Bird, Chairman
Table 2.30
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL
LOCATIONS
NODE LOCATION
COMMERCIAL Sebastian/US #1 84
CR 510/CR 512 50
CR 510/62nd Ave 5
Hobart/US #1 50
Storm Grove/US #1 * 93
North Gifford/US #1 90
43rd Ave./lst St. SW 15
Oslo Road/US #1 62
Oslo Road/27th Ave. 60
SR 60/Kings Hwy. 160
Moorings 10
ACRES
INDUSTRIAL Gibson St.
S. Winter Beach Road
Lindsey Road
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL I-95/CR 512
CR 510/US #1
Oslo Road/74th Ave.
SR 60/I-95
15
100
100
665
120
690
795
HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL Roseland Road/US #1 120
Barber Ave. 205
TOURIST -COMMERCIAL CR 510/SR A -1-A - 25
Grand Harbor 65
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL Schuman to Breezy Village 136
North of CR 510 239
South of CR 510 92
Hobart to 65th 232
65th to N. Relief 57
N. Relief to 49th 46
Gifford 272
Vero to S. Relief 365
Oslo East 63
S. Relief to S. County Line na 202.2
TOTAL UNIX 5365.2
* Includes 83 acres for a Regional Mall
124
BETTY McRAE ET AL REQUEST TO AMEND COMP PLAN & REZONE 4.3 ACRES
W OF IND. RIVER BLVD. N OF 4TH ST.
Director Keating reviewed the following:
-TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
,(2441,,f11-7/11e4L-f
Robert M. Keat.in
THRU: Sasan Rohani S
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 11, 1991
RE: BETTY F. MCRAE, et. al., REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN +/- 6.8 ACRES/REZONE +/- 4.3 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
This is, a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is located on the west side of
Indian River Boulevard, just north of the 4th Street and
U.S.Highway #1 intersection and is presently owned by Betty F.
McRae,Mr./Mrs. Thomas 0. Fultz, Jr., Peggy Fultz Brinson and
Mr./Mrs.Charles B. Roach. The land use amendment includes a total
of 6.8 acres; however, the rezoning request includes only 4.3
acres of the total 6.8 acres.
The request includes_ changing the land use designation from Mu -2, -
Medium -Density Residential (up to 10 units per acre) to
Commercial/Industrial Area, and rezoning property er
the p ty from RM 10
Multi -Family Residential District10 units/1 acres) ) to CG, General
Commercial District. This request is considered an expansion of the
City of Vero Beach to South Relief Canal Commercial/Industrial
Area. -
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting as
the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting the Planning
and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend denial of the
applicant's request.
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners•voted 5 to
0 to transmit the above -referenced land use amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and announced their
intention to hold a final public hearing concerning the amendment.
At that hearing, the Board requested and the applicant agreed to
reduce the proposed zoning for the subject property from CG to OCR
in order to provide a use transition from the property to the south
to the property to the north.
Planning staff received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report on April 22, 1991. The DCA ORC report
contained a number of substantive objections to this proposed
amendment. Identified as inconsistencies with state law (9J-5, FAC
and 163, FS) with the state comprehensive plan, and with the
comprehensive regional policy plan, these objections ranged from
node expansion without sufficient justification to an inadequate_
public facility demand analysis.
JUS 18 IS91
125
BOOK 83 fhic. d1,J
JUN 18 199
POOK 83 F C[ (1b
Specifically, DCA's objections were that the amendment was not
consistent with the county plan's node expansion policy which
requires a 70% level of node development prior to node expansion
and that the amendment was not justified by the buffering
justification referenced in the staff report transmitting the
-proposed amendment request to DCA. In addition, DCA stated that
the public facility demand analysis was inadequate because it
failed to evaluate facility capacity based upon the most intense
use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation, and it failed to reference adopted level of service
standards.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RM -10, Multi -Family Residential
District and currently contains single-family homes and undeveloped
land. The property directly north of the subject property is also
zoned RM -10, and contains a single-family home and undeveloped
land. The property west of the subject property is zoned CG,
General Commercial District, and contains a citrus packinghouse.
Land to the south of the subject property is also zoned CG and
contains a large commercial/retail center. Both the packinghouse
to the west and the commercial center to the south are intense uses
with significant truck traffic.
The property east of the subject property and across Indian River
Boulevard is zoned RM -10 and contains multi -family residential
dwelling units and undeveloped property.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated M-2, Medium Density, on the
County's future land use map. The M-2 designation permits
residential densities up to 10 units per acre. The property north
and east of the subject property is also designated M-2. Property
to the south and west is designated part of the
commercial/Industrial Area, which permits commercial and industrial
zoning designations._ -
Environment
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county, and county
water lines extend to the site; however, sewer lines do not extend
to the site. ti
Transportation System
The property abuts Indian River Boulevard to the east. Indian River
Boulevard is classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on
the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Indian
River Boulevard is a four lane divided paved road with
approximately 150 feet of existing public road right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In' this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
* concurrency of public facilities
* compatibility with surrounding areas and potential impact
on environmental quality
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
This section will also consider alternatives for development of th1____
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum level of service standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility, with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and non' -PD (Planned Development)
rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For commercial comprehensive plan amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the county's LDR's)is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information
which is used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: 6.8 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 4.3 acres
Size of area to be Redesignated: 6.8 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification:
a. 4.3 acres: RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District,
(up to 10 units/acre)
b. 2.5 acres: CG, General Commercial District
4. Existing Land Use Designation: M-2, Medium Density
Residential (up to 10 units/acre)
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: CG, General Commercial
District (for the 4.3 acres)
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Area
7. Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 68,000 sq. ft.
of Retail Commercial
- Transportation -
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better would not be lowered for the existing land
use designation. The maximum buildout permitted by the existing
land use designation is 68 units; that amount of development would
generate approximately 415 average daily trips.
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better would not be lowered. With the proposed land
use designation, the most intense use would be 68,000 square feet
of retail (shopping center) commercial use, generating
approximately 316 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips, based
on the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation
rates. The traffic capacity of Indian River Boulevard is 2300
trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Service -
JUN 18 1991
127
pooK 83 ['AGE 717 7
DM 18 i991
BOOK 83 PnE 718
The existing traffic volume on this segment of Indian River
Boulevard is 800 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The
additional 316 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created
by the proposed comprehensive plan amendment will increase the
total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
of Indian River Boulevard by approximately 44 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that Indian River
Boulevard and other roadways serving the project can accommodate
the additional trips without decreasing the existing level of
service. Impacted roadways are defined in the county's Land
Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive five
percent (5%) or more of daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more
daily project trips, whichever is less.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment Road . From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
1160
2580
2570
2560
2550
4970
4960
4950
4940
4930
4880
4870
4860
2260
2250
2120
2110
2060
2050
U.S. Highway
U.S. Highway
U.S. Highway
U.S. Highway
U.S. Highway
U.S. Highway
U.S. Highway
Indian River
Indian River
Indian River
Indian River
Indian River
Indian River
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
4th Street
4th Street
4th Street
4th Street
4th street
8th Street
8th Street
8th Street
12th Street
12th Street
17th Street
17th Street
17th Street
17th Street
91
91
91
91
91
91
91
Boulevard
Boulevard
Boulevard
Boulevard
Boulevard
Boulevard
•4
So.Co.Line
Oslo Ad.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
So.V.B.City Lilts
17th St.
4th St.
12th St.
So.V.B.City Lmts
17th St.
21st St.
S.R. 60
U.S. 91
Old Dixie
20th Ave.
27th Ave.
U.S. 91
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Indian River Blvd.
U.S. 91
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 91
Old Dixie Hwy
S.R. A -1--A
Indian River Blvd
U.S. 91
Old Dixie Hwy
Hwy
Existing Demand
Roadway Existing Vested
Segment Volume Volume
1305
1310
1315
1320
- 1325
1330
1335
1110
1120
1130
1140
1150
11d0
2580
2570
2560
2550
4970
4960
1079
1370
1266
1266
1266
1266
1266
800
800
800
611
611
89
386
386
386
275
428
428
428
1
0.
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
Total
Segment
Demand
1080
1370
1266
1266
1266
1266
1266
800
800
800
611
611
89
386
386
386
277
428
428
428
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
So.V.B.City Lets
17th St.
S.R. 60
12th St.
So.V.B.City Lets
17th St.
21st St.
S.R. 60
W.V.B.City Lets
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
58th Ave.
U.S. 91
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
20th Ave.
Indian River Blvd
U.S. 91
Old Dixie Hwy
27th Ave.
Available
Segment
Capacity
1220
850
954
954
954
1034
1034
1500
1500
1500
1689
1689
931
494
494
494
1943
452
452
452
Project
Demand
33
66
66
44
33
22
11
44
44
33
22
11
11
33
33
22
11
44
44
33
2300
2220
2220
2220
2220
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
2300
1020
880
880
880
2220
880
880
880
880
1020
1020
880
1020
1020
880
2400
2220
2220
1600
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
yes
yes
Yee
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
rm
yes
yea
yes
Yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
rm
rm
1 oadway
Segment
4940
4930
4880
4870
4860
2260
2250
2120
2110
2060
2050
Existing Demand
Existing Vested
Volume Volume
Water
428
428
428
428
428
414
414
875
875
875
875
Total
Segment
Demand
O 428
O 428
O 428
O 428
O 428
O 414
O 414
O 875
O 875
O 875
O 875
Available
Segment
Capacity
452
592
592
592
452
606
606
1525
1345
1345
725
Positive
Project Concurrency
Demand Determination
22 yes
11 yes
11 yeB
11 yes
11 yes
11 yes
11 yes
22 yes
11 yes
11 Pm
11 yes
The site is located within the South County Water Service area. A
review of the water capacity in that area indicates a remaining
capacity of approximately 2.59 million gallons per day. With the
most intense use under the proposed land use designation, the
subject property will have a consumption rate of 14.1 Equivalent
:Residential Units (ERUs), or 3,500 gallons per day. This is based
upon the level of service of 250 gallons per ERU per day. The
applicant has paid the necessary impact fees for the water service
for the subject property and will connect to the South County Water
System at the time of development. This is consistent with Future
Land Use Policy 2.7 which requires development projects to maintain
established levels of service.
Wastewater
A retail commercial use of 68,000 square feet on the subject
property will have a wastewater generation rate of 14.1 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 3,500 gallons per day. This is based
upon the county's adopted level of service standard of 250 gallons
per ERU per day. County wastewater service is not currently
available for the site. Since no ERU's have been reserved as of_
the present time, the applicant has entered into a developer's
agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to
expand county wastewater facilities or pay for the expansion at the
time of the impacts from his development project. With these
conditions, the utility concurrency test has been met for the
subject request,
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Soil waste generation by a 68,000
square foot commercial development on the subject site will be
approximately 948 cubic yards of solid waste per year. This is
based upon the level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards per
capita per year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the
active segment for the county landfill indicates the availability
of more than 900,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the
landfill has a 4 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion
capacity beyond 2010. Based upon staff analysis, it was determined
that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid
waste.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals will have to meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the subject property is located within the R-2 Drainage Basin and
no discharge rate has been set for this basin, any development on
the property will be prohibited from discharging any run-off in
excess of the pre -development rate.
JUN 18X991
129
BOD
8 1991
BUOY(
a
C
In this case, the floodplain storage and minimum floor elevation
level of service standards do not apply, since the property is not
-within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge
standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the
maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be
approximately 141,900 square feet. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon the amount of impervious surface, will be 124,515 cubic
feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service,
the applicant will be required to retain 111,757 cubic feet of run-
off on-site. It is estimated that the pre -development run-off rate
is 15 cubic feet per second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 15 cubic feet per second and requiring
retention of the 111,757 cubic feet of run-off for the most
intensive use of the property.
Recreation
Concurrency for recreation is not applicable for this request as
the request is for commercial development, and recreation levels of
service apply only to residential development.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area and Potential Impact on
Environmental Quality
Compatibility with surrounding land uses is an important issue with
respect to this property. The subject property, as well as the
property directly north of the subject property, both contain
single-family homes; these are conforming uses is in the R-10
zoning district. The properties to the west and south of the
subject property are characterized by existing intense commercial
land uses. If the subject property were changed to a commercial
land use designation, the single family homes would be affected;
however, commercial development of the subject property would not -
adversely affect the adjacent commercial land uses.
While two single-family homes would be impacted by commercial
development of the subject property, one house is on the property,
itself, and would likely be removed is part of any development
project. As to the other house, any impact that would occur will
be lessened by the county's new buffering requirements. Since a
commercial/residential interface must occur somewhere in this area,
compatibility will be enhanced if it occurs at the north of the
subject property with the subject property accommodating a buffer
consistent with existing county requirements.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
A review of this land use amendment and rezoning with the future
land use element and its policies does not reveal any major
inconsistencies. Although the Future Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan indicates that the county's availability of
commercially designated land already exceeds that which will be
needed from the present through the year 2010, that fact should not
prevent property more suited for commercial use from being so
designated. In fact, besides having surplus commercial land
available for development, the county also has excess residential
acreage; approval of this request would reduce the residential over
-allocation.
Policy 13.3
In reviewing this request, one of the most important policies to
consider is Future Land Use policy 13.3 That policy requires that -
one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use
amendment. These criteria are:
* an oversight in the approval plan
• a mistake in the approved plan
* a substantial change in circumstances
affecting the subject property
In this case, policy 13.3 is met because there was an oversight
during the plan preparation process. At that time the property was
not sufficiently studied to determine that intense non-residential
uses existed on two sides of the subject property, thereby
restricting residential development.
Other Plan Policies
Several other comprehensive plan policies have applicability to
this amendment request. These include policies 9.5, 1.21, and
1.23, all of the Future Land Use element.
Policy 9.5 relates to this proposed amendment, because it requires
buffers between incompatible land uses. While this policy has been
incorporated into the county's adopted land development regulations
and is usually considered only at the time of site development, it
does have special applicability to this request. In this case, the
properties to the south and west of the subject property were
developed prior to the county's current buffering requirements
being adopted. As such, those sites have buffering less than
required by existing regulations. Consequently, if the subject
property were developed residentially, it would need to install
buffering usually accommodated on the commercial site.
County land development regulations require that commercial sites
reduce their impacts on adjacent residential properties by
installing buffering on the commercial property. In this case, the
subject property can provide such a buffer meeting existing county
criteria when developed commercially. Without a change in land use
designation, the subject property will need to provide the buffer
not adequately provided by the adjacent commercial sites, thereby
bearing heavier burden- than similarly situated residential
properties.
Like policy 9.5, Future Land Use policy 1.21 has applicability to
the proposed amendment. That policy's intent is to discourage
strip commercial development; therefore, all commercial land use
redesignation requests should be reviewed for consistency with that
policy. This policy amendment is consistent with policy 1.21,
because it would fill-in rather than strip out. With commercial on
two sides and a major roadway on another, designation of the
subject property as commercial would have a square -off, in -fill
effect and would not produce a strip pattern.
Finally, policy 1:23 must be considered. This policy limits node
expansion when a node is less than seventy percent developed.
While this policy is an important consideration in node expansion
requests, it does not apply in this case. Since it has been
established that the subject property was designated as residential
because of an oversight during the plan preparation process, that
indicates that the property should have been designated commercial
at that time. For that reason the proposed request should not be
subject to policy 1.23 criteria.
Even though the plan preparation oversight makes policy 1.23 non -
applicable in consideration of this amendment request, staff
conducted an analysis of the City of Vero Beach to South Relief
Canal Commercial/Industrial area to determine the level of
development of this node. In conducting this analysis, staff
identified each parcel in the node, used property appraiser records
to determine parcel size, used aerial photos with field
verification to identify developed parcels, and compiled the
results. The survey showed that 301± acres of the total 365± acres
in the node are developed. Since this results in a developed
JUN 18 1991
131
BOOK 83 FgIti
E
JUN 18TBi
ROOK 83 FA.GE 722
percentage of 82%, the analysis indicates that the subject
amendment request is consistent with policy 1.23.
DCA Objections
-As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff report, DCA had several substantive objections to this
request. It is staff's position that these have been adequately
addressed in this report. Both the buffering issue and the node
expansion concern have been addressed, and adequate justification
has been provided. In addition, staff has revised the public
facility capacity analysis to consider the most intense use allowed
by the proposed land use designation and to address adopted level
of service standards. Based upon these changes, staff feels that
DCA's objections have been resolved.
CONCLUSION
Public facility concurrency requirements are important factors in
evaluating any land use amendment or rezoning request. Concurrency
requirements, however, are not the only criteria. Unlike other
comprehensive plan policies, though, concurrency requirements by
themselves can be a reason for denial of a request. Even if all
other comprehensive plan policies are satisfied by a request, a
lack of concurrency would be a reason for denial.
In this case concurrency for drainage, solid waste and potable
water can be satisfied with the proposed amendment. Although
capacity for wastewater services is not presently in place, the
applicant's execution of a developer's agreement to ensure that
these facilities will be provided would meet the concurrency test.
With a positive concurrency finding and a finding of consistency
with other plan policies, the proposed amendment may be approved.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners _increase the size of the City of Vero Beach to -
South Relief Canal Commercial/Industrial Node by 6.8 acres, change
the land use designation of the subject property from M-2 to
commercial, and rezone the property from RM -6 to OCR.
1
N
'-- ZONING BOUNDARIES
WWV LAND USE BOUNDARIES
m SUBJECT PROPERTY
M-2
RS -1
RM -10
i•
RS -6
.
Of
At„c!„ e 1
MIN
•
Director Keating noted that this item was controversial when
it came before the Board previously. The subject property is
just north of WalMart with Indian River Boulevard as its western
boundary, and the eastern boundary is the Kennedy Packing House.
This is a request to change from M-2 to commercial node and
rezone it. Initially the request was to rezone from RM -10 to CG,
but Attorney Warren Dill representing the applicant says there is
a mistake in the staff memo where it says the applicant agreed to
reduce the proposed zoning from CG to OCR to provide a use
transition. Mr. Dill recalled that during the transmittal
hearing, he and the applicant went into the hall to confer
together, and they came back and changed their request from CG to
CL. Director Keating agreed that there was a mistake in the
memo.
Commissioner Eggert asked if he was sure about that because
she knew she voted against the WalMart parking lot, and OCR she
would have voted for, but CL she would have problems with.
Asst. County Attorney Collins advised the reason this memo
is OCR is that the DCA was concerned about transition and he
thought it had been amended to OCR. When he called Mr. Dill to
check on this, Mr. Dill was not sure, but in checking the Minutes
of the transmittal hearing, it was determined the CG was amended
at the request of the Commission to CL.
Chairman Bird asked what staff is recommending - CL or OCR?
Director Keating stated that staff would recommend OCR. It
would provide more of a buffer and less of an impact on any uses
to the north. He continued that the DCA did have some strong
comments on this - particularly our 70% developed node expansion
policy, and we did meet that requirement, the node being over 80%
developed. Given that we have worked with the DCA on this and
they have agreed all of the changes we have made are acceptable,
staff would recommend approval of the proposed change in the Comp
Plan and the rezoning.
Commissioner Eggert asked if staff worked with the DCA on
OCR or CL, and Director Keating believed we told them it was OCR.
Attorney Warren Dill came before the Board representing the
applicant. He advised that the only concern they have at the
moment is the OCR versus CL. He stressed that the OCR did not
surface until last Thursday or Friday when he was talking to Mr.
Collins over the phone, at which time neither of them were sure
just what it was, and he didn't know that would be carried over
to this meeting. Mr. Dill believed the Minutes of the previous
Board meeting show very clearly that they went to CL. If
something else has been communicated to DCA, that was only since
Thursday or Friday of this week because this OCR has just
JUN 181991
133
BOOK
[ea. %,+i
JUN . 8 1991
POOK 8 3 FRSE 724
appeared. Mr. Dill noted that to give his client the OCR would
severely reduce the results they were looking for, especially
since they were asking for GC to start with and only agreed to
the CL based on discussions with the Commission.
Chairman Bird noted that the question before the house
appears to be OCR or CL as, other than that, we have a positive
recommendation from staff. He personally did not have any
problems with the CL.
Commissioner Eggert stated that she has a problem with this
whole thing. She did not have any problem with PRO, but she does
have a problem with commercial.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard.
Mrs. Kleinman, Vista Gardens Trail, wondered if, in review-
ing this situation, staff has taken into consideration a private
road that leads to Tropic Square. Traffic is horrendous in
Tropic Square during the season; you have cars lined up to go to
the Post Office; and if the Board allows any commercial to go in
the subject area and leaves that private road as it is, you will
have a tremendous traffic problem. Mrs. Kleinman clarified that
she is referring to the road on the McRae property that leads
into 6th Avenue.
County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that is a site plan
consideration.
Mrs. Kleinman further stressed that when Indian River Boule-
vard was discussed originally, it was described as a residential
boulevard leading to the hospital easing U.S.I. and other main
arteries, and if the Commission continues to allow commercial
property on the Boulevard, it will no longer serve that purpose.
Commissioner Eggert wished to clarify that while the Minutes
of the transmittal hearing show a 5/0 vote to transmit the CL,
the vote on the CL itself was 4/1. She voted against the CL, but
when she saw how the Board voted, she then made the vote for
transmittal unanimous.
Chairman Bird did not feel there is a great deal of
difference between OCR and CL, at least not when you are at the
back door of WalMart.
Attorney Dill referred back to the private road mentioned by
Mrs. Kleinman, noting that it is an easement road; it is private
to his clients; and if that property were ever sold, it would be
removed anyway. He argued that staff's report is based on the
highest and most intense commercial use of that property, which
is CG, and staff says that even at CG, it still would provide
adequate buffering as a transition. If staff can support CG, he
did not see how CL use could not be supported. Mr. Dill
continued to stress that they did amend their request to CL at
134
the previous meeting and they have been relying on the Board's
previous approval of the CL. He, therefore, requrested that the
Board follow through on this.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she simply would continue
to be consistent with her vote starting back with the WalMart
parking lot.
Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that the purpose of having
a public hearing is to continue to get public input, and he felt
there is no point in having a public hearing if you can't ever
change your mind.
Chairman Bird asked what action Board members wished to
take, and no one offered a Motion.
MOTION WAS OFFERED by Chairman Bird to approve the
subject request to amend the Comp Plan and rezone
to CL. THE MOTION died for lack of a second.
Chairman Bird noted that we have to do something with this
item, and Commissioner Eggert asked if OCR would seem better to
him than PRO.
Director Keating advised that PRO wouldn't even necessitate
the Comp Plan amendment and also it is limited to 5 acres.
Asst. County Attorney Collins advised that when he and
Director Keating talked with the DCA about the subject property,
they did have concern about transition to the north, and he
remembered that at that meeting, he did say OCR, but really did
not think they know the difference between OCR and CL. He was
not sure that he knew the difference either without looking it
up, but he did know the DCA is expecting something that gives a
good transition.
Chairman Bird felt if Attorney Collins does not really
understand the difference, he certainly doubted that someone in
Tallahassee does. CL is what the property owner wants, and he
has to believe it is a reasonable transition between the packing
house and WalMart and the multi -family to the north. Unless it
is really harmful, why not support what the property owner wants?
Commissioner Scurlock commented that at the earlier meeting,
he had wished to be assured that CL is considered a transitional
usage between residential and commercial, and now staff is saying
that OCR is a better transition.
Director Keating felt that in the heirarchy of intensity of
non-residential zoning districts, OCR is the least intense where
CH would be the most intense, and the degree of buffering from a
use standpoint would be enhanced with the lower intensity.
JUN 18 1991
135BOOK 83 F vL 74,
E001( 83 FAIL I L 6
Attorney Dill felt we are starting to get into just degrees
and continued to argue for CL. He believed this whole thing is
an inadvertent error, and it seems there has been no great
dialogue with the state about this.
Chairman Bird advised that he has been informed by the
County Attorney that since there are only 3 Commission members
present, it takes 3 affirmative votes to carry a Motion.
Commissioner Eggert preferred PRO but suggested that we
approve the OCR as a compromise.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, Commissioners Bowman and Wheeler
being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted
Ordinance 91-33 amending the Comp Plan to increase
the node and change the Land Use designation from
M-1 to C/I as requested by the applicant and adopted
Ordinance 91-34 rezoning the subject property to OCR.
ORDINANCE NO. 91-33
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
ACCOMPANYING FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY
#1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR (VERO SOUTH CITY LIMITS TO
SOUTH RELIEF CANAL) FROM 365± ACRES TO 371.8± ACRES AND
AMENDING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the County received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1990 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended denial of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Boardof County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
report pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held the Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public
Hearing on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan is
hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted
to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
0 The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
Parcel 1: From the NW corner of the SE a of the NE of
Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, run Easterly a
distance of 720 feet to a point; thence run Southerly and
parallel to the quarter section line a distance of 165 feet to
a point; thence run East a distance of 300 feet to a point;
thence run North and parallel to the quarter section line a
distance of 165 feet to a point; thence run west a distance of
300 feet to a Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2: From the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter
of the Northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, run Easterly
along the North boundary line of the Southeast quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 720 feet;
thence on a deflection angle of 89 degrees 51 minutes to the
137 BOOK 83 Fnv'C . I i
JUN 181991
ElOOK 83 FA::,E 72d
right, run Southerly a distance of 165 feet to the True Point
of Beginning. From said Point of Beginning, on a deflection
angle of 89 degrees 51 minutes to the left run Easterly a
distance of 200 feet; thence on a deflection angle of 89
degrees 51 minutes to the right run Southerly a distance of
165 feet; thence on a deflection angle of 90 degrees 09
minutes to the right, run Westerly a distance of 300 feet,
thence on a deflection angle of 89 degrees 51 minutes to the
right, run Northerly a distance of 165 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Parcel 3: The North 1 of the following described property:
From the NW corner of the SE 4 of the NE 4 run Easterly 275
feet to the Point of Beginning: thence run Easterly along the
same line 330 feet; thence run Southerly and parallel to the
4 section line 330 feet thence run Westerly 330 feet; thence
run Northerly along said 4 section line 330 feet to the Point
of Beginning, lying and being in Section 13, Township 33
South, Range 39 East, LESS AND EXCEPT the West 5 feet thereof
and the East 25 feet therefore.
Parcel 4: The East 2.29 acres of the North one-half of the
North one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northeast
one-quarter of Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, together with a perpetual easement for
ingress and egress over the following property: From the
Northwest corner of -the Southeast 4 of the North 4 of Section
13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, run South 15 feet,
thence run East 1,020, feet, thence run North 15 feet, thence.
run West 1,020 feet to Point of Beginning; LESS AND EXCEPT
that portion taken for Indian River Boulevard in O.R. Book
733, Page 839.
Parcel 5: The East 25 feet of the South of the following
described property: From the NW corner of the SE 4 of the NE
4 run Easterly along the same line 330 feet; thence run
Southerly and parallel to the 4 section line 330 feet; thence
run Westerly 330 feet; thence run Northerly along said 4
section line 330 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND
EXCEPT the West 5 feet thereof, lying and being in Section 13,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East.
Parcel 6: The East 5 feet of the West 280 feet and the East
115 feet of the West 720 feet of the North 330 feet of the NW
4 of the SE 4 of the NE 4, Section 13, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East.
Parcel 7: The East 25 feet of the North i of the following
described property: from the NW corner of the SE 4 of the
North 4 run Easterly 275 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence run Easterly along the same line 330 feet: thence run
Southerly and Parallel to the 4 section line 330 feet; thence
run Westerly 330 feet; thence run Northerly along said 4
section line 330 feet to the Point of Beginning; LESS AND
EXCEPT the West 5 feet thereof.
Parcel 8: From the NW corner of the SE 4 of the NE 4 run
Easterly 275 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence run
Easterly along the same line 330 feet; thence run Southerly
and parallel to the 4 section line 330 feet; thence run
Westerly 330 feet; thence run Northerly along said 4 section
line 330 feet to the Point of Beginning, lying in Section 13,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East, LESS AND EXCEPT the West 5
feet thereof and the East 25 feet thereof.
Is changed from M-2, Medium Density Residential (up to 10
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node;
138
a The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
0 Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
enlarge the U.S. Highway #1 Commercial/Industrial
Corridor (Vero South City Limits to South Relief Canal)
by 6.83± acres.
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. Al special acts of the legislature
applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian River County
and which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby
repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of June ,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th day of June , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Absent
Aye
Absent
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
JUN 181991
139
3 is , C
800K F; ur 6 s r
JUN i899'
ORDINANCE NO. 91-34
BOOK 83 PAGE 7301
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE .
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -10 TO
OCR, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, JUST NORTH OF THE 4TH STREET AND U.S.
HIGHWAY #1 INTERSECTION, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING
FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
Parcel 1: From the NW corner of the SE 4 of the NE 4 of
Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, run Easterly a
distance of 720 feet to a point; thence run Southerly and
parallel to the quarter section line a distance of 165 feet to
a point; thence run East a distance of 300 feet to a point;
thence run North and parallel to the quarter section line a
distance of 165 feet to a point; thence run west a distance of
300 feet to a Point of Beginning.
Parcel 2: From the Northwest corner of the Southeast quarter
of the Northeast quarter of Section 13, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, run Easterly
along the North boundary line of the Southeast quarter of the
Northeast quarter of said Section 13, a distance of 720 feet;
thence on a deflection angle of 89 degrees 51 minutes to the
right, run Southerly a distance of 165 feet to the True Point
of Beginning. From said Point of Beginning, on a deflection
angle of 89 degrees 51 minutes to the left run Easterly a
distance of 200 feet; thence on a deflection angle of 89
degrees 51 minutes to the right run Southerly a distance of
165 feet; thence on a deflection angle of 90 degrees 09
minutes to the right, run Westerly a distance of 300 feet,
thence on a deflection angle of 89 degrees 51 minutes to the
right, run Northerly a distance of 165 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
Parcel 3: The North of the following described property:
From the NW corner of the SE of the NE a run Easterly 275
feet to the Point of Beginning: thence run Easterly along the
same line 330 feet; thence run Southerly and parallel to the
a section line 330 feet thence run Westerly 330 feet; thence
run Northerly along said a section line 330 feet to the Point
of Beginning, lying and being in Section 13, Township 33
South, Range 39 East, LESS AND EXCEPT the West 5 feet thereof
and the East 25 feet therefore.
Parcel 4: The East 2.29 acres of the North one-half of the
North one-half of the Southeast one-quarter of the Northeast
one-quarter of Section 13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County, together with a perpetual easement for
ingress and egress over the following property: From the
Northwest corner of the Southeast k of the North If of Section
13, Township 33 South, Range 39 East, run South 15 feet,
thence run East 1,020, feet, thence run North 15 feet, thence
run West 1,020 feet to Point of Beginning; LESS AND EXCEPT
that portion taken for Indian River Boulevard in O.R. Book
733, Page 839.
Parcel 5: The East 25 feet of the South i of the following
described property: From the NW corner of the SE a of the NE
k run Easterly along the same line 330 feet; thence run
Southerly and parallel to the section line 330 feet; thence
run Westerly 330 feet; thence run Northerly along said $
section line 330 feet to the Point of Beginning. LESS AND
EXCEPT the West 5 feet thereof, lying and being in Section 13,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East.
Parcel 6: The East 5 feet of the West 280 feet and the East
115 feet of the West 720 feet of the North 330 feet of the NW
I of the SE 4 of the NE /, Section 13, Township 33 South,
Range 39 East.
Parcel 7: The East 25 feet of the North i of the following
described property: from the NW corner of the SE of the
North run Easterly 275 feet to the Point of Beginning;
thence run Easterly along the same line 330 feet: thence run
Southerly and Parallel to the a section line 330 feet; thence
run Westerly 330 feet; thence run Northerly along said I
section line 330 feet to the Point of Beginning; LESS AND
EXCEPT the West 5 feet thereof.
Parcel 8: From the NW corner of the SE a of the NE I run
Easterly 275 feet to the Point of Beginning; thence run
Easterly along the same line 330 feet; thence run Southerly
and parallel to the a section line 330 feet; thence run
Westerly 330 feet; thence run Northerly along said I section
line 330 feet to the Point of Beginning, lying in Section 13,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East, LESS AND EXCEPT the West 5
feet thereof and the East 25 feet thereof.
Be changed from RM -10 to OCR.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18thday of June , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 28th day of May , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
141
JUFJ 1 B i�?9i
Roc'K
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
gni s'
POOK c,;;3 FAE 9 •j
Aye
Absent
Aye
Absent
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
DEAN VEGOSEN (OSLO PLAZA ASSOC.) REQUEST TO AMEND COMP PLAN AND
REZONE 4.83 ACRES
Director Keating reviewed the following:
-TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
obert M. Keatin , A
Community Developmen irector
THRU: Sasan Rohani S.%L.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
CeP
FROM: Cheri B. Fitzgerald
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 29, 1991
RE: DEAN VEGOSEN TRUSTEE FOR OSLO PLAZA ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE 4.83 ACRES
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of June 18, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is located on the north side of
Oslo Road just west of the 27th Avenue/Oslo Road intersection and
is presently owned by Marie Simmons, Trustee. The request includes
4.83 acres of a 10.68 acre parcel.
The request includes changing the existing land use from L-2, Low -
Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to Commercial Node, and
rezoning the property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District (6 units/1 acre) to CG, General Commercial District. This
request is an adjustment to the boundaries of the Oslo Road/27th
Avenue Commercial Node; it is not considered an expansion of the
node. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land
use designation and zoning for future development of a retail
shopping center.
On November 15, 1990, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny
transmittal of the request to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
On December 11, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit this request to the Department of Community Affairs
(DCA), for their review and comment. Planning staff received DCA's
Objections, Recommendations,, and Comments (ORC) Report on April 22,
1991.
The DCA's objections to this proposed amendment focused on three
areas. These were inconsistencies with Chapter 9J-5 (FAC)/Chapter
163 (F.S.); inconsistencies with the state comprehensive plan; and
indonsistencies with the comprehensive regional policy plan.
Although there appear to be a significant number of objections to
this amendment, that is not the case. Essentially, DCA's
objections fall in two categories; objections to the public
facility demand analysis and objections to land use impacts of the
amendment.
Regarding the former, it was DCA's position that the public
facility analysis did not consider the most intense use of the
property under the proposed land use designation and did not
consider adopted level of service standards. Regarding the latter,
it was DCA's position that the proposed amendment would result in
strip commercial development and would conflict with the county's
policies on node separation and node expansion. These issues are
addressed in the Analysis section of this staff report.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential
District and is currently undeveloped. The property directly east
of the subject property is zoned CL, Limited Commercial, and is
currently undeveloped. The property west of the subject property
.is zoned RM -6. South of the subject property the land is also
zoned RM -6 and. contains_ single-family residential uses and
undeveloped property. North of the subject property the land is
zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District, and is currently
mostly undeveloped.
'Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated L-2, Low -Density, on the
county's future land use map. The L-2 designation permits
residential densities up to 6 units/acre. All property to the *
west, north a'nd south is also designated L-2.Property to the east
is designated part of the Oslo Road/27th Avenue Commercial Node,
which permits commercial zoning designations.
-Environment
JUN
The property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan, nor is it
within a floodplain as identified by the Flood Insurance Rating
Maps (FIRM).
Utilities And Services --
The site is within the urban service area of the county, and county
water lines extend to the site; however, sewer lines do not extend
to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts Oslo Road to the south. Oslo Road is classified
as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Oslo Road is a two lane
143
ROOK.
, fl
3 WJE
I jiut 1'6 J91
PCIOK. 83 FAL 734
paved road with approximately 60 feet of existing public road
right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
* concurrency of public facilities
* compatibility with surrounding areas and potential impact
on environmental quality
* consistency with the comprehensive plan
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area (USA), an
area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive
plan establishes standards for Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation. The adequate
provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued
quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan
also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
-maintained.
As per Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations,
conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
comprehensive plan amendments and non -PD (Planned Development)
rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the
concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the
subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land
use designation. For commercial comprehensive plan amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the county's LDR's) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: 4.83 acres
2. Existing Zoning Classification: RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre)
Existing Land Use Classification: L-2, Low -Density
Residential (up to 6
units/acre)
4. Proposed Zoning Classification: CG, General Commercial
District
5. Proposed Land Use Classification: Commercial Node
6. Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 48,300 sq. ft.
of Retail Commercial
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed
_ development of the property indicates that the existing level of
J
144
service "D" or better would not be lowered. With the proposed
zoning and land use designation, the most- intense use of the
property would be 48,300 square feet of retail (shopping center)
commercial use, generating approximately 246 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips, based on the Institute of
Transportation Engineers (ITE) trip generation rates. The traffic
capacity of Oslo Road (9th Street S.W.), is 630 trips (peak
hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Service "D".
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that Oslo Road and
other roadways impacted by the project can accommodate the
additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of
service. Impacted roadways are defined in the county's Land
Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive five
percent (5%) or more of daily project traffic or fifty (50) or more
daily project trips, whichever is less.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in that
table, there is sufficient available capacity on each of the
impacted segments to accommodate project traffic and maintain the
adopted Level of Service "D".
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
2540 Oslo Road
2550 Oslo Road
2560 Oslo Road
2570 Oslo Road
2580 Oslo Road
3005 58th Avenue
3010 58th Avenue
1305 U.B. Highway 41
1310 U.S. Highway 41
1315 U.S. Highway 41
1320 U.S. Highway 41
1325 U.S. Highway 41
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
So.Co.Line
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
Existing Demand
Roadway Existing Vested
Segment Volume Volume
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 41
4th St.
8th St.
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St..
12th St.
So.V.B.City Lmts
Total Available
Segment Segment
Demand Capacity
2540
2550
2560
2570
2580
3005
• 3010
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
- Water
273
275
386
386
386
136
136
1079
1370
'1266
1266
1266
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
273 357
277 355
386 284
386 - 444
386 174
136 494
136 494
1080 811
1370 390
1266 164
1266 164
1266 454
Project
Demand
59
106
146
110
110
25
15
45
50
40
35
20
630
630
670
830
560
630
630
1890
1760
1430
1430
1720
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
yes
yes
yes
yea
yes
yes
yes
yes
yes
Yee
Yee
Yes
The site is located within the South County Water Service area. A
review of the water .capacity in that area indicates a remaining -
capacity of approximately 2.59 million gallons per day. With the
most intense use under the proposed land use designation, the
subject property will have a water consumption rate of 10.16
Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or 2,540 gallons per day.
This is based upon the level of service of 250 gallons per ERU per
day. Since no ERUs for water have been reserved as of the present
time, the applicant has entered into a developer's agreement with
the county which states that the developer agrees to purchase
JUN 18 199
145 PUOK 83 FA ,E 7 5
!JUN 1$ !4�
ROOK 83 F'„u[ I �.
ERU's, if available at the time that his project's impacts occur,
or expand county facilities or pay for their expansion to meet the
needs of his development, if capacity is no longer available when
the impacts of his -project occur. With this condition, the utility
concurrency test for potable water has been met for the subject
request.
- Wastewater
Wastewater service is not currently available to the subject
property by county wastewater systems. Based upon the site
development parameters referenced above, wastewater generation for
the site after development consistent with the proposed amendment
will be approximately 10.16 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU's),
or 2,540 gallons per day. This is based upon the county's adopted
level of service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. Since no
ERU's for wastewater have been reserved as of the present time, the
applicant has entered into a developer's agreement with the county
which states that the developer agrees to expand county facilities
or pay for their expansion to meet the needs of the development.
With this condition, the utility concurrency test for wastewater
service has been met for the subject request.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by gross
floor area of retail/commercial development on the subject property
-will be approximately 1,065 cubic yards of solid waste per year.
This is based upon the county's adopted level of service standard
of 2.37 cubic yard per capita per year. A review of the solid
waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill
indicates the availability of more than 900,000 cubic yards. The
active segment of the landfill has a 4 year capacity, and the
landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
- Drainage
All development is reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of flood
plain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition,
development proposals will have to meet the discharge requirements
of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the subject
property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and no discharge
rate has been set for this basin, any development on the property
will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the
pre -development rate.
In this case the floodplain storage and minimum floor elevation
level of service standards do not apply, since the property is not
within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge
standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the
maximum amount of impervious surface for the proposed request will
be approximately 159,390 square feet. The maximum run-off volume,
based upon the amount of impervious surface, will be approximately
139,862 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted
level of service, the applicant will be required to retain
approximately 125,531 cubic feet of run-off on-site. It is
estimated that the pre -development run-off rate is 5.00 cubic feet
per second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to its
estimated pre -development rate of 5.00 cubic feet per second and
requiring retention of approximately 125,531 cubic feet of run-off
for the most intense use of the property.
Recreation
Concurrency for recre
the request is for corn
service apply only to
tion is not applicable for this request as
ercial development, and recreation levels of
residential development.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas and Potential Impact on
Environmental Quality
Compatibility with sur ounding land uses is an important issue with
respect to this prope ty. The adjacent properties to the west and
north are vacant properties and designated for residential
development. The property across Oslo Road, southwest of the
property, contains some single-family homes; however, it is zoned
for RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential, up to 6 units/acre and is
separated from the subject property by Oslo Road.
Even though the land on two sides of the subject property is
designated residentiai, that does not result in incompatibility.
Recognizing that a commercial\residential interface must occur at
some point, the subject property provides a good point of
transition. With the adjacent residential property undeveloped,
these sites can accomodate multi -family uses, uses which are not.
incompatible with c mmercial development. Since commercial
development undergoe site plan review, specific buffering and
compatibility will be addressed at that time and provide additional
compatibility..
As indicated in the description and conditions section of. this
-staff report, the subject property has no environmentally sensitive
characteristics. iven the county's adopted environmental
protection regulations, the property could be developed as either
commercial or residential without significant adverse impacts.
Based upon the analysis performed on the subject property, staff
feels that the requested commercial land. use designation would be
compatible with the surrounding area.
Consistency with the
omprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per Section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177 (2)F.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the verall designation of land uses as depicted
on the Future Lan Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land use and their 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 the actions which the county
will take in order to direct the community's development.
Specifically, policies are the courses of action or ways in which
programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal
or objective. While all comprehensive plan policies are important,
some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan
amendment requests.
- Policy 13.3 -
One of the most important policies of the plan in relation to plan
amendment requests is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. Policy
13.3 allows the approval of plan amendments only upon a showing
that one of the following criteria has been met:
JUN 18 1P` 1
147
PGGK �J FAH l�� 6
JiJI18199
BOOK 83 PACE r7338
O The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the
approved plan
o The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the
approved plan
c The proposed amendment is warranted based on a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property
In this case staff feels that there has been both an oversight and
a change in circumstances. The oversight involved two aspects of
node creation. First, the Oslo Road/27th Avenue node was
configured four acres less than the size established in the plan;
second, the node configuration failed to account for 2.28 acres of
additional right-of-way needed to accommodate Oslo Road and 27th
Avenue. The change in circumstances has been the applicant's
recent conveyance of 2.28 acres of commercially designated property
already in the node to the county for right-of-way. For these
reasons, staff feels that Policy 13.3 has been met.
- Policy 1.23
Besides 13.3, another important policy to consider when addressing
node acreage is Future Land Use Policy 1.23. That policy states
that no node should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the
land area (less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for
development. In this case, the applicant has dedicated
approximately 2.28 acres of right-of-way needed to bring Oslo Road
and 27th Avenue up to standard. Since the 2.28 acres dedicated was
located in the node, the removal of this property reduced the.land
within the node by 2.28 acres. Besides the 2.28 acre reduction,
the staff found that the node boundary as currently depicted on the
land use map is approximately 56 acres, an amount which is 4 acres
less than the designated node size of 60 acres as referenced in
Table 2.30, in the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan.
Given the 60 acre node size with only 56 acres allocated, a total
of 6.28 acres is available in the node boundary area after right-
of-way subtraction. Such right-of-way exclusion is consistent with
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element which states that node
acreages are "less right-of-way". Therefore, the applicant's 4.83
acre redesignation request can be accommodated without expanding
the node. Consequently, the 70% criterion and Policy 1.23 will not
be applicable in this case, since the node acreage will not be
expanded.
Policy 1.21
Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries are designated to provide
for efficient land uses and maximum use of transportation and
public facilities while eliminating sprawl and strip development.
This amendment will meet the intent of that policy. Since the
property proposed for redesignation will be combined with a parcel
already .n the node, the two tracts can be developed as one
project, maximizing the internal capture of vehicle trips and
minimizing traffic impacts.
- Policy 1.22
Another policy that is applicable to node modification is Policy
1.22. This policy states that nodes shall not be created or
expanded to within lz miles of an existing node. In this case,
however, that policy is not applicable, since the subject request -
does not involve a node expansion. Because this request consists
141m
only of a node reconfiguration and primarily replacing node area
dedicated for right-of-way, Policy 1.22 does not apply.
DCA Objections
As referenced in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff analysis, DCA's objections to this amendment related to the
public facility demand analysis in the plan amendment transmittal
staff report and to land use concerns associated with the proposed
amendment. It is staff's position that the concurrency analysis
incorporated in this staff report adequately addresses DCA's
objections by specifically noting that the analysis is based upon
the most intense use of the property and by indicating that adopted
levels of service were considered and will be maintained.
As to DCA's land use objections, staff feels that DCA did not
understand that the amendment, as transmitted, was not an expansion
of a node. It is staff's position that this report adequately
addresses the issues of strip development, local node expansion
policies, and separation distances. With the referenced analysis,
staff feels that DCA's objections have been adequately addressed.
CONCLUSION
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major
incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses.
Since no major environmental issues have been identified relating
to the site,commercial development of the property will not have
any significant environmental impacts. It has been established
that the concurrency test for drainage, roads, solid waste and
potable water has been met with the proposed zoning. Analysis also
shows that the proposed request will be consistent with other plan
policies.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve this request to amend the land use map
from L-2 to Commercial and rezone the subject property to CG.
J U N' 1§ 199`�
x
vt
"
x
a x
.R
"'RS -3""
L-2
CL
Proposed .
-Subject Property
— Zoning boundary
xx Land Use boundary
149
-t •
BOOK 6:
JUN 1819S1
POOK U;, FADE 740
Director Keating advised that this is not considered an
expansion of the node at Oslo & 27th Ave; this is a redesignation
of residential property that is adjacent to the node and a
reflection of the fact that right before the transmittal hearing,
the applicant sold to the County R/W the County needed on Oslo
Road and 27th Avenue, and, therefore, this essentially is moving
the boundaries of the node further west to reflect the commercial
property the applicant previously had and has since sold to the
County. He believed we now have addressed all the DCA's
objections and staff recommends approval.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There were none, and he thereupon closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, Commissioners Bowman and Wheeler
being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted
Ordinance 91-35 amending the Comp Plan reconfiguring
the Oslo/27th Ave. node and changing the Land Use
designation from L-2 to C/I and adopted Ordinance
91-36 rezoning the subject property to CG as re-
quested by the applicant
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 35
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE
ACCOMPANYING FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY RECONFIGURING THE OSLO
ROAD/27TH AVENUE COMMERCIAL NODE AND AMENDING THE LAND USE
DESIGNATION FROM L-2 TO C/I, AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION,
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the County received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 1990 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on November 15, 1990,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended denial of this
comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners,
and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 11, 1990,
150
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 19, 1990, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on April 22, 1991, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
report pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held its Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public
Hearing on June 18, 1991, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
This amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be
transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs.
JUN 18 1991
SECTION 2. Amendment to the Comprehensive Plan
0 The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
The North 601.36 feet of the South 731.36 feet of the West
10.68 acres of Tract 16, Section 22, Township 33 South, Range
39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the
Indian River Farms Company Subdivision filed in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida,
in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said lands now lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida. 'A
EOOK FAuL i
151
juN 1 8 1s911
IA 00K 83 F'AGE 142
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre)
to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node; and:
0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are 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 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S.163.3194.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this18th day of June ,1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 10th dayofJune , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the t day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Aye
Ahspnt
AyP
Ahsent
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
152
ORDINANCE NO. 91- 36
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO
CG, FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON -THE NORTH SIDE OF
OSLO ROAD JUST WEST OF THE 27TH AVENUE/OSLO ROAD INTERSECTION,
AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this• rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The North 601.36 feet of the South 731.36 feet of the West
10.68 acres of Tract 16, Section 22, Towhship 33 South, Range
39 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the
Indian River Farms Company Subdivision filed in the Office of
the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida,
in Plat Book 2, Page 25, said lands now lying and being in
Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -6 to CG.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of June , 1991.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal_
on the 28th day of May , 1991 for a public hearing to be
held on the 18th day of June , 1991 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by
Commissioner Scurlock , and adopted by the following
vote: -
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Ave
Absent
Aye
Absent
Ave
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
JUN 181991
,1„.0w€2.-J9
Ric ei
nd N. Bird, Chairman
153
BOOK
fr!UC
,�E 140
J u14 18 1991
BOOK
POSSIBLE EXPANSION OF FAIRGROUNDS
Administrator Chandler reviewed the following:
83 FAE 74 $ti
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 10, 1991
TI-tRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
ciy
FILE:
POSSIBLE EXPANSION
SUBJECT: OF FAIRGROUNDS
FROM: Randy Dowling
Asst. to County AdministratoREFERENCES:
•
BACKGROUND
During the April 4, 1991 Parks and Recreation Committee meeting, Chairman
Bird discussed the possible acquisition of additional property for future
fairground expansion. The committee unanimously voted to recommend that
the County consider purchasing a piece of property that was brought to the
committee's attention by a local realtor. During a recent Commission meeting
Chairman Bird requested staff to look into this matter further.
CURRENT
The property in question is a 38.5+/- acre, RS -3 zoned tract located on 77th
Street adjacent to the current fairgrounds and is currently being used as
grazing land. This improved pasture type of property was considered for
possible acquisition by the County's Land Acquisition Advisory Committee
(LAAC) but it was eliminated from their list during the LAAC's May 29, 1991
meeting because the property did not meet the committee's objective which is
to acquire property that has environmental significance. The asking price for
the subject property is $462,000 or $12,000 per acre. Recent 1990 appraisals -
on nearby and adjacent properties indicate that per acre values range from
$14,000 to $20,500.
RECOMMENDATION
As indicated in the Budget Director's memo dated June 12•, 1991, no funding
exists in the current year's budget for this land acquisition. An alternative
would be to fund the acquisition in the 1991/92 MSTU budget or the General
Fund budget that are currently being developed with roll -back in mind. In
essence, two options exist:
1) Allocate $462,000 in the 1991/92 MSTU budget or the General Fund
Budget and purchase the property for fairgrounds expansion.
2) Use the funds that the County will reimburse the MSTU for the purchase
of the land to expand the golf course when the bonds are issued in
August or September, 1991 ($482.,000).
L
73.
(85m
JANE
CHAPIN
a
HELEN
BARR
GROVE INC
16.2
GR
8R
►1
3.7
37
NYALL
GROVES
INC.
uI
JOIN III
r INT11fAP
_1 • SUBJECT PROPER
INDIAN RIVER CO.
TI
IN
CI
26.5
CAIW 7.S
HE LSE
HOMAS
DAVIS •
19'
LILL
HE
TR
INDIAN \�
RIVEN
CORP \'
..fir ,.•_� I ..
THOMAS
-' CNEw 1505 DAMS
.ROVES 43.7
•N.
:yLITE ROJ
EATRICE R
JE 18.9
4ENDC:A
J BR
¢ PRICE
0No10
i ►.
0
SAN
stilt. EY
29 7
BERNARD
B
ROBERT EGAN
CIBA GEIGY
CORP
80
78.3
40 6
CIBA
GEIGY
CORP
/�40 2
INDI{
R
G
IN
RI
3
Chairman Bird knew there is some motivation for the property
owner to sell the property which is in an estate and wondered if
we were to delay this a few weeks and give staff a little more
opportunity to work with the sellers if we couldn't develop
another alternative or two.
Commissioner Eggert noted that she fought for a year with
our upland policy, and she is torn between the need for this land
and what she feels is a greater need for some of our land acqui-
sition items. She did not have any problem with this being
brought back, but felt that should be taken into consideration,
and as to getting that money back from the golf course purchase -
where does that money go?
Administrator Chandler advised that came from the MSTU and
it would go back to the MSTU. He confirmed that there has been
some discussion on possibly using that as one of the sources of
funding for our land acquisition items.
JUN 1g1991
155
81991
BOOK 83 ma 74
Commissioner Scurlock reported that the LAAC looked at this.
property but it did not meet their criteria, and at that meeting
it was suggested it might of interest to the county for something
else. Also at the LAAC meeting, they decided to do a referendum
in November of 1992, and the serious concern was that we don't
have any money in our current budget or proposed in next year's
budget to attempt to secure some of the properties on our list
that do meet the Comp Plan requirements and that may be under
threat of development. The Committee chose not to ask the County
Commission to put money in the budget in that they knew it was a
tight year. Commissioner Scurlock further noted that when he
looks in terms of the actual inventory we did on park land and
recreation, actually we exceed all standards on acreage per
capita, and that is where he has a real concern. It is nice to
have this, but how much acreage is enough, especially sincewe are
going to be faced with coming up with money for lands that bring
us into compliance with our Comp Plan. Although the subject
property is a nice piece of property, and it is adjacent to the
Fairgrounds, he believed this $400,000 could be better used to
bring us in compliance.
Chairman Bird noted that looking at this from his standpoint
as Chairman of the Parks & Recreation Committee, he believed the
property is valuable, but looking at it as a County Commissioner,
he agreed it is a matter of priorities.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that we just don't have the
money this year, and Commissioner Scurlock felt in fairness to
the seller, they may be better off marketing the property else-
where than waiting for the county.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (3-0)
agreed not to follow staff recommendation and not
to pursue either option to acquire the subject
property.
OSLO ROAD PROPERTY PURCHASE
Administrator Chandler made the staff presentation, as
follows:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 11, 1991 FILE:
THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM. Randy Dowling EFERENCES:
Asst. to County Administrator`
SUBJECT: OSLOPURCHASE ROAD PROPERTY
y.
BACKGROUND
During the previous year, staff has been directed to review the feasibility of
acquiring the 298 +/- acres of environmentally significant land on Oslo Road
adjacent to the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory. The St. Johns River
Water Management District (SJRWMD) has agreed to a joint 50-50 purchase of
this property. During the September 25, 1990 Commission meeting, the Board
approved obtaining two certified appraisals of the property with the County
paying 50% and SJRWMD paying the other 50%. The two appraisals cost a
total of $6,400 of which the County paid $3,200. The appraisals were
received by SJRWMD during January 1991 and are being kept secret in
accordance with Florida Statutes.
This property was discussed at the March 27, 1991 Land Acquisition Advisory
Committee (LAAC) meeting and the committee directed staff to consider it as
an emergency acquisition under the draft Land Acquisition Guidelines and
take necessary action. During the LAAC's April 24, 1991 meeting, the
committee unanimously voted to recommend to the Board that it support the
50-50 cost share acquisition of the Oslo Road property with SJRWMD and also -
recommended that funding alternatives be reviewed. Thus far, staff has
preliminarily ranked the Oslo property number 2 out of a possible 13 for
LAAC purposes.
The Board, during its May 7, 1991 regular meeting, unanimously voted to
purchase the Oslo Road property under a 50-50 cost share agreement with
SJRWMD.
This piece of environmentally significant property supports a pristine, mature
coastal/tropical hammock and xeric scrub habitat and includes a large
impounded salt marsh next to the Indian River Lagoon. Furthermore, the
property contains excellent representative upland plant communities including
at least 10 rare or endangered plant species. The combination of coastal
tropical hammock, xeric scrub, and estuarine wetlands adjacent to the Indian
River 'Lagoon (where a lush bed of seagrass exists next to the property) is
uncommon and accounts for the excellent "biodiversity" of the area. Up to 15
rare or endangered wildlife species potentially utilize the overall property.
The purchase of this property would result in the acquisition of approximately
30 acres of xeric scrub,. 35 acres. of coastal/tropical hammock, and 225 acres
of complementary estuarine wetland habitat. As such, the purchase would
contribute substantially toward the County's Comprehensive Plan commitments,
protect a rare association of pristine habitats, protect and provide many
social/economic public values including internationally acclaimed entomology
research, and provide needed protection to the property that could not be
proJided by other means.
JUN 18 1991
157
BOO 83 F E 74
JUN 18 1991
8001( 83 F',u748
CURRENT
Staff has contacted the property owner and negotiated a price. The selling
price was originally $2.3 million dollars and has been negotiated to $1.86
million dollars. The $1.86 million dollars is within the two obtained
appraisals. The SJRWMD is willing to pay 50% of $1.80 million dollars or
$900,000 (48.39%) leaving the County to pay the remainder or $960,000
(51.61%).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the.. Board approve spending $960,000 plus an estimated
$7,000 in associated closing expenses for the joint purchase of the Oslo Road
property and authorize the Board Chairman to sign the purchase contract and
other necessary related documents. As indicated in the Budget Director's
memo dated 6/12/91, funding for this acquisition would come from two
sources:
$817,368 from the Library Construction Fund remaining balance
$149,632 from MSTU Contingencies
• $967,000
Chairman Bird stated that he is all in favor of the proposed
purchase, but he has a couple of questions. When we purchase
jointly with St. Johns, who takes title to the property, or it is
jointly titled, and what strings are attached by virtue of their
participation?
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental Planning, understood
that St. Johns would retain a 50% undivided interest and would
have a say in the development of the management plan, but they
have indicated they would not be involved in the implementation
or on-going maintenance. The Mosquito Control District is in
position to get SWIM funds for managing the impoundment and
integrating it back into the river , and the Entomological Lab
has indicated they would help with the management.
ON MOTION by Commissioner
missioner Scurlock, the Board
approved staff recommendation
of the Oslo Road property and
Chairman to sign the purchase
necessary related documents.
Eggert, SECONDED by Com -
unanimously (3-0)
for the joint purchase
authorized the Board
contract and other
(SAID CONTRACT NOW FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED AND ON FILE IN THE
Or'r'10E OF CLERK TO THE BOARD)
lum
AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DRAW UPON RENEWED LETTER OF CREDIT FOR
COPELANDS LANDING PHASE I SUBDV.
The Board reviewed memo from Staff Planner John McCoy:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM:
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. eat ng,
Community Deve opm
CP
t Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
John W. McCoy A
Staff Planner, Current Development
June 12, 1991
11.
,SUBJECT: REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO DRAW UPON A RECENTLY
RENEWED LETTER OF CREDIT FOR COPELANDS LANDING INC. PHASE
'I SUBDIVISION
▪ It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
:''consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
• meeting of June 18, 1991.
;;.DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
. 1 1•
On December 19, 1989, the Board of County Commissioners approved
the final plat for the Copelands Landing Phase I Subdivision, based
upon the developer "bonding -out" for required improvements.
Pursuant to county requirements, the developer submitted a contract
for required improvements (expiration date: July 5, 1990) and a
letter of credit (expiration date: October 5, 1990) to guarantee
the construction of the required improvements. On July 5, 1990,
the initial construction deadline passed, and the developer was in
breach of his contract. A second (renewed) contract for required
improvements was then executed by the developer (new expiration
date February 27, 1991), and a reduced ($72,000) setter of credit
expiring June 3, 1991 was posted to guarantee construction of the
remaining required improvements. Pursuant to county requirements
and policy, the Board of County Commissioners approved this new
contract and accepted the new letter of credit at its December 4,
1990 meeting.
At its May 23, 1991 meeting, the Board gave the Copeland's Landing
Phase. I developer additional time to complete all required
subdivision improvements and final certifications, with the
condition that a renewed letter of credit be submitted to
guarantee that the required work and certifications were to be
completed to county satisfaction as soon as possible. The renewed
Letter of Credit is valid until July.1, 1991. As of the date of
this request the applicant is still operating in breach of the
existing contract to finish all required improvements. .The
Attorney's Office has indicated new authorization and a formal
resolution are required to draw upon the renewed letter of credit.
As of the date of this report the developer has not yet obtained a
certificate of completion, which certifies that all required
improvements have been completed and are acceptable, and has not
yet completed a Bill of Sale acceptable to the Utilities
Department. The staff is hereby requesting that the Board of
/i1311 iS 1991
159
BOOK 83 FACE 749
18- i99,1
BOOK 83 FAGS 750
County Commissioners authorize the chairman to execute the attached
resolution, enabling the staff to draw upon the renewed Letter of.
Credit, if the applicant has not obtained a certificate of
completion, provided an acceptable Bill of Sale and posted security
in the amount of 25% of the cost of constructing the utilities
improvements dedicated to the county prior to June 27, 1991.
ANALYSIS:
If the renewed letter of credit is allowed to expire on July 1,
1991 and work is still incomplete and/or certifications have not
been obtained, there will be no guarantee that the project will be
properly completed. The staff is requesting that the Board adopt
a resolution authorizing the staff to draw down the entire amount
ofjthe letter of credit prior to the July 1, 1991 expiration date,
if no certificate of completion is obtained by the developer or if
no acceptable Bill of Sale and corresponding security is posted in
a manner acceptable to the County Utilities Department, all before
June 27, 1991. The County would use the funds to complete any
necessary improvements and return any overage, after all costs
associated with completing and certifying the project are paid for,
and after the one year Bill of Sale warranty period expires.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the
attached resolution authorizing staff to draw upon the full amount
of the $72,000.00 Letter of Credit for Copeland's Landing Phase I. -
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (3-0)
adopted Resolution 91-69 calling the Letter of
Credit for Copelands Landing Phase I Subdivision
as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 69
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA CERTIFYING THE DEFAULT OF
COPELAND'S LANDING UNDER THE TERMS OF
CONTRACT SD -87-05-06 AND AUTHORIZING DRAFT
ON BARNETT BANK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, N.A.
LETTER OF CREDIT NO. 073690 DATED 12/06/90
WITH AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 DATED 5/29/91.
WHEREAS, County Development Regulations require
subdivision plat improvements to be in place before a plat is recorded;
and
WHEREAS, a plat may be recorded prior to construction of
required subdivision improvements if the developer contracts with the
County to complete those required subdivision improvements within one
year of final plat approval and posts adequate security to guaranty that
contractual agreement; and
WHEREAS, COPELAND LANDING, INC., a Florida corporation,
entered into a contract on behalf of the development known as
Copeland's Landing which contract was numbered SD -87-05-06; and
WHEREAS, the contract was secured by an Irrevocable
Standby Letter of Credit No. 007 -LC -073960 in the amount of
$72,000.00, with issue date of December 6, 1990 naming Indian River
County Board of County Commissioners as beneficiary and Richard
Hebert and/or Copeland's Landing as the applicant,
WHEREAS, COPELAND LANDING, INC. provided Indian River
County with a 1 -month extension of the letter of credit securing
Copeland Landing, Inc.'s obligation to construct required subdivision
improvements in consideration of the County's allowance of one
additional month to complete construction of those required
improvements; and
WHEREAS, COPELAND LANDING, INC. has failed to perform
its obligations under the extended "Contract for Construction of
Required Improvements".
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. The above statements are ratified in their entirety.
2. WE HEREBY CERTIFY THAT COPELAND'S LANDING HAS
DEFAULTED UNDER THE TERMS OF THE COPELAND'S LANDING
SUBDIVISION PHASE I CONTRACT SD -87-05-06 FOR IMPROVEMENTS
BETWEEN COPELAND'S LANDING AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. THE
AMOUNT OF THIS DRAWING, $72,000.00, REPRESENTS THE AMOUNT
REQUIRED BY THE COUNTY TO FULFILL THE PERFORMANCE OF SAID
CONTRACT FOR THE REQUIRED IMPROVEMENTS.
3. Developer, Copelands Landing, Inc. has been notified of
the deficiencies in his performance of Contract SD -87-05-06.
4. The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County is hereby authorized to execute this resolution
certifying default along with any other necessary documents to call the
Irrevocable Standby Letter of Credit of Barnett Bank of Central
Florida, N.A. No. 007 -LC -073960, as amended.
JUN ib 1991
161
BOOK 83 FA.i,E 1'61
jU9181199
EOOK 83 F',GE 152
.5. This draft is drawn under Barnett Bank of Central
Florida, N.A. Letter of Credit No. 073960 dated 12/06/90 with
Amendment Number 1 dated 5/29/91 which original Letter of Credit and
Amendment are attached hereto.
6. The Director of the Indian River County Office of
Management and Budget is hereby directed to submit this resolution and
the original Letter of Credit by draft marked "DRAWN UNDER
BARNETT BANK OF CENTRAL FLORIDA, N.A. LETTER OF CREDIT
NO. 073960 DATED 12/06/90" (AND AMENDMENT NUMBER 1 DATED
5/29/91), to Barnett Bank of Central Florida; N.A., Attention :
International Operations, P. O. Box 675000, Orlando, Florida
32867-5000, U.S.A., arriving at the counters of Barnett Bank of
Central Florida, N.A. prior to June 28, 1991.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and seconded by Commissioner S r_ i i r 1 n r k
to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert
and, being put
Absent
Absent
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 18 t h day of
June , 1991.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By °<td— �'
r
Richard N. Bird, •Chairman
CUT & FILL BALANCE WAIVER (LOT 52, ORCHID ISLE ESTATES)
The Board reviewed memo from Civil Engineer David Cox:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E.
County Engineer
FROM: David B. • Cox, P. E ate --
Civil
.Civil Engineer
DATE: June 4, 1991
SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for
Residence at Lot 52, Orchid Isle Estates Subdivision
'REFERENCE: - Building Permit No. 91050072
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Peterson & Votapka, Inc. on behalf of Ocean Reef Construction Corp.
is requesting a waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement of
Section 930.07(2)(d) of the County Stormwater Management and Flood
Protection Ordinance for a proposed single family residence to be
located at Lot 52, Orchid Isle Estates Subdivision. The area of
the lot exceeds the 1/2 acre threshold requiring a provision of an
on-site cut and•fill balance to mitigate displacement of flood
waters. A waiver -is available for sites located within the 100
year floodplain of the Indian River. An engineer's certification
that all other applicable Stormwater Management Ordinance
requirements will be met is attached. The waiver is the last item
needed to complete a "Type C" Stormwater Management System Permit
application.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria of being
located in an estuarine environment and the project engineer has
stated that all other Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Ordinance requirements will be met. The total volume of the
proposed flood plain displacement is 503 cubic yards.
Alternative No. 1
Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request. Upon approval of _
the waiver, staff would issue the project's Type C Stormwater
Management System Permit.
Alternative No. 2
Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-
site balance of cut and fill.
REdOMMENDATION
Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1.
JUN A 8 1991
163
BOOK
r
f HUC d(,;
j Th 18 t9
BOOK 83 PAGE r754
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (3-0)
approved the cut and fill balance waiver request
for Lot 52, Orchid Isle Estates Subdivision as
recommended by staff.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT W/RIVERSIDE CHURCH ASSEMBLY OF GOD
The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utilities:
"DATE: JUNE 7, 1991
TO:
FROM:
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL
PREPARED H. D. "DUKE" OSTER, P.E.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH
RIVERSIDE CHURCH ASSEMBLY OF GOD
•
BACKGROUND
The Riverside Church Assembly of God is constructing a 1,300 square
:.:foot addition to its existing facility on Roseland Road in Sebastian.
:..The Church is currently on well water and septic tank; water and,
4wastewater collection facilities are not available.
,ANALYSIS ` .
The developer has agreed to provide necessary plant capacities
,:';`(existing), and to abandon said systems when Indian River County
utilities become available; developer agrees to connect to county water
and wastewater collection systems when they become available, and to
pay the current impact fees. The developer further agrees to
participate in applicable assessments and to accept treated effluent.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached
developer's agreement with the Riverside Church Assembly of God.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (3-0)
approved Developer's Agreement with the Riverside
Church Assembly of God as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
16�
WEST/CENTRAL REGION REUSE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
The Board reviewed memo from Utilities Director Pinto:
DATE: MAY 23, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E. Rat
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WEST/CENTRAL REGION REUSE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
BACKGROUND
The present committed capacity of the West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant exceeds the capability to dispose of the reuse water
produced from the plant. The staff is currently involved in ongoing
negotiations with citrus grove owners to receive reuse water for
-grove irrigation. Planning and negotiations with citrus grove
:`.owners could be affected by an unconcluded technical investigation
of using reuse water in citrus groves.
The technical investigation will be concluded by the end of 1993.
We anticipate connections from Heritage Village and Countryside
North Mobile Home Park to the plant within eight months. Therefore,
we face the necessity of additional disposal capabilities. The
Effluent Disposal Master Plan recommends the interconnection between
the West and Central Regions to enable delivering reuse water to the
demand area. The demand areas at this time are the Central/North
Regions, since there are several golf courses in these regions. -
ANALYSIS
The West Regional WWTP will produce 1.2 MGD within eight months.
The capability for disposal at this time is 0.5 MGD to the County's
Sod Farm, with 0.3 MGD additional to the proposed rapid infiltration
basin (RIBs) at I-95 West. Disposal at the County citrus groves is
0.06 to 0.085 MGD per day, Monday through Friday.
Central Regional Reuse Water Demand Area
There are several golf courses in the Central and North Region area
which need reuse water.
Need Permitted Supply
Sandridge Golf Course 2 MGD 1 MGD 0.079
Phase I and II 2 MGD
Bent Pine Golf Course 1.5 MGD 0.75 MGD 0
Hawk's Nest Golf Course 1 MGD 0.35 MGD 0.148 MGD
Grand Harbor Golf Course 1 MGD 0.4 MGD 0.248 MGD
Vista Plantation Golf Course 1 MGD none 0
The problem of disposing of this excess effluent can be remedied by
delivering it to the demand area through this proposed reuse water
main.
The bid for construction should be scheduled in September 1991. To
meet this bid schedule, we must now begin the procedure to obtain an
engineering consultant to design this transmission main.
BM1819 1
165
Econ. 83 Fr1uE 195t2r.
JUN 18 1991
BUM(:. [AL tau
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve advertising a Request for
Proposal for selection of and negotiation with an engineering
consultant for the project immediately.
Commissioner Scurlock did not have any problem with going
out for.RFPs, but he did have some questions about this particu-
lar line and wanted to be very sure that it is compatible and its
timing is right.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (3-0) author-
ized staff to advertise an RFP for selection of and
negotiation with an engineering consultant for the
above described project.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT (CONCURRENCY) W/SEBASTIAN GEN. PARTNERSHIP
The Board reviewed memo from the Department of Utility
Services:
DATE: JUNE 7, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTA'
.DIRECTOR OF UTILIT SERVICES
PREPARED H. D. "DUKE" OSTER, P.
AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
WITH GENERAL PROPERTIES--
;
BACKGROUND
The subject applicant has applied for re -zoning of 4.45 acres from
Heavy Commercial to General Commercial. The property is located" on
U.S. #1, south of Woodmere Road and across from Wal-Mart in Sebastian.
ANALYSIS .
Sewer capacity in the amount of 18 ERU's have been reserved in the
North County Sewer System. Since Indian River County water is not
available to the site, the owner has agreed, by the attached agreement
to abandon the existing water system and tie into the County system
when available. The owner also agrees to participate in any assessment
project that serves his property and pay the current impact fees.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services of Indian River County recommends
approval of the attached developer's agreement for water service.
Attorney Vitunac advised that this is our new concurrency
form that the Board asked be brought back to them on every
occasion.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved
Developer's Agreement for Concurrency Review with
Sebastian General Partnership as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT (R.TALLMAN - SQUIRE VILL. MOBILE HOME PARK)
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Engineer
William McCain:
DATE: JUNE 7, 1991
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc N
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJE4�yt R
BY: DEPARTMENT 0 TY SERVICES
SUBJECT:
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT WITH RICHARD T. TALTMAN
(SQUIRE VILLAGE MOBILE HOME PARK)
BACKGROUND
'•'As part of the terms extended by the Board of County
Commissioners to mobile home parks for financing of impact fees
(prior to the increase of impact fees), Richard T. Tallman, owner of
Squire Village, desires to connect to County water and sewer. The
impact fees he will be paying are $37,526.00 and $41,093.00 for 29
ERUs water and wastewater, respectively. Squire Village is located
approximately one-half mile south of Oslo Road on 27th Avenue. The
Park's connection to the/County water and wastewater system will
eliminate a private water and wastewater supply and is in keeping
with the Utilities Department drive toward regionalization of
utilities. -
ANALYSIS
To connect to our water system, a line must be constructed from
Squire Village north on 27th Avenue to Oslo Road. The Utilities
Department is requiring an oversizing on this line of 6 inches,
which equates to a County contribution in construction of
$31,440.00. Other details of the agreement are covered in the
attached Developer's Agreement and cover both water and wastewater.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached. Developer's
Agreement with Richard T. Tallman.
8 1991
167
BOOK. 83 m,E 1
1991
ROOK 83 P' GE 758
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously (3-0) approved
Developer's Agreement with Richard Tallman for Squire
Village Mobile Home Park as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
BOND RESOLUTION - SANDRIDGE SECOND GOLF COURSE
The Board reviewed memo from the County Attorney:
-TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: June 12, 19911•
RE: BOND RESOLUTION - SANDRIDGE SECOND GOLF COURSE
The attached resolution has been prepared by the Bond Counsel for
Indian River County in connection with the funding of the second golf
course at Sandridge.
REQUEST: The Board authorize the Chairman to execute this
resolution on behalf of the Board.
Charles Sieck, County Bond Counsel, presented the Board with
a revised Bond Resolution, explaining that the only thing that
was changed in this case was the aggregate maximum principal
amount of the bonds where, after discussing it with Hough & Co.
and OMB Director Baird, they have now inserted $6,500,000 instead
of $5,000,000. The second insertion is just the percentage on
Page 3, which is 18%, and that's just a provision which relates
to a contingency if the Sales Tax Bond Resolution is eliminated.
Those are the only changes from the draft given the Board.
OMB Director Baird further explained that we are just saying
we are putting a subordinate lien on the f4 Sales Tax, and if we
pay off the two other bond outstanding under that, that we are
going to guaranty that 18% of the Sales Tax would be sufficient.
Commissioner Eggert understood this but personally felt it
is not set out clearly.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Scurlock, Commissioners Bowman and Wheeler
being absent, the Board unanimously (3-0) adopted
Resolution 91-70 authorizing the issuance of not
161.•
exceeding $6,500,000 Recreational Revenue Bonds for
the expansion of Sandridge Golf Course.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
RESOLUTION NO. 91-i
A RESOLUTION SUPPLEMENTING RESOLUTION NO. 85-78 OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS AMENDED AND
SUPPLEMENTED; AUTHORIZING THE CONSTRUCTION, ACQUISITION,
FURNISHING AND EQUIPPING OF AN EXPANSION OF THE
SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE OF AND IN THE COUNTY; MAKING SAID
EXPANSION A PART OF THE PROJECT, AS DEFINED BY SAID
RESOLUTION; AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE OF NOT EXCEEDING
$6,500,000 RECREATIONAL REVENUE BONDS, SERIES 1991, TO
FINANCE THE COST OF THE EXPANSION, AS ADDITIONAL PARITY'
OBLIGATIONS UNDER SAID RESOLUTION; MAKING CERTAIN
PLEDGES, COVENANTS AND AGREEMENTS IN CONNECTION
THEREWITH; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. AUTHORITY FOR RESOLUTION. This Resolution supplementing
the Master Bond Resolution hereinafter defined is adopted pursuant to Chapters
125, Florida Statutes (1990), as amended, Indian River County Ordinance 77-19,
duly enacted by the Board on August 3, 1977, as amended, and other applicable
provisions of law.
SECTION 2. DEFINITIONS. All terms used herein shall have the
meanings ascribed to them in the Master Bond Resolution, except as otherwise
expressly provided herein. When used in this Resolution the following terms
shall have the following meanings, unless the context clearly requires
otherwise:
A. "County" shall mean Indian River County, Florida.
B. "Master Bond Resolution" shall mean Resolution No. 85-78 of the
County, as amended and supplemented, from time to time, including, to the extent
provided herein, this Resolution.
C. "1991 Construction Fund" shall mean the Recreational Revenue Bonds,
Series 1991, Construction Fund established hereunder.
D. "1991 Project" shall mean the expansion of the Sandridge Golf Course
authorized to be constructed, acquired, furnished and equipped under this
Resolution, including without limitation the aquisition, construction,
furnishing and equipping of an additional eighteen hole public golf course and
an expansion of the clubhouse facilities.
RESOLUTION 91-70 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
IN ITS ENTIRETY.
JUN 18 1991
169
BOOK 83 BFATE i
'JIM 18
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
BOOK
83 F,ALE IOU
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment,
the Board of County Commissioners would reconvene sitting as the
District Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal
District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 2:09 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
Chairman