HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/12/1991BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 12, 1991
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
. 1843 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.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
9:00 A.M.
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE -
Comm. Gary C. Wheeler
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1.
Proclamation - Employ the Veteran Week
2. Resignation and appointment .to Affordable .Houting
Committee
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.
B.
Regular meeting - 10/15/91
Regular meeting - 10/22/91
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of appointments of Deputy Sheriff by
Sheriff Tim Dobeck:
• Melissa A. Stewart
Anthony M. Mongelli
Mark R. Buffington
B. Approval of Tax Sale Certificate Nos.:
No. 1084, in amount of $81.69
No. 1085, in amount of $81.69
No. 1080, in amount of $82.26
No. 3689, in amount of $344.85
No. 1574, in amount of $105.72
No. 1083, in amount of $81.69
ALL IN THE NAME OF SAM HIGH
NOV 12 ii,
L
BooK
NOV 121991
BOOK
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd):
C. Received and placed on file in the office of
Clerk to the Board:
Copy of minutes of the Board of Supervisors,
beginning February 14, 1991 through Sept. 12,
1991 for the Indian River Farms Water Control
District
D. Animal Control Ordinance - Chapter 302
(memorandum dated Nov. 4, 1991)
E. Chapter 207 - Licensing & License Taxes
(memorandum dated Nov. 1, 1991)
F. Final Pay Request from Cathco Construction Co.
& Approval of Change Order No. 1
(memorandum dated Nov. 1, 1991)
G. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF
THE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
PUBLIC HEARINGS._ 1
X28
Comprehensive Plan Amendments
(memorandum dated Nov. 5, 1991)
1. County -initiated Request to Amend the
Future Land Use Element, the Sanitary
Sewer Sub -Element, the Potable Water Sub -
Element & the Capital Improvements Ele-
ment of the Comprehensive Plan
(memorandum dated October 15, 1991)
2. Ames, et. al. Request to Amend the Compre-
hensive Pian to Redesignate +/- Acres from
L-1 to Hospital/Commercial Node and to
Rezone Approximately 29.05 Acres to MED
(memorandum dated Nov. 4, 1991)
3. Kahn Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan to Redesignate +/-888 Acres from AG -2
to AG -1
(memorandum dated Oct. 29, 1991)
4. Feldman Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan to Redesignate Approximately +/-40 Acres
from AG -1 to R, to Expand the Urban Service
Area Boundary to Include an Additional +/-40
Acres, and to Rezone Approximately +/-40
Acres from RFD to RS -1
(memorandum dated Nov. 5, 1991)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Acceptance of Additional Funds from South
Beach Residents to Purchase Capital Equipment
for Enhancing the EMT -D Program
(memorandum dated Nov. 5, 1991)
• GENERAL SERVICES
None -
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. 77th Street F.P. & L. Easements
(memorandum dated Nov. 5, 1991)
. Award of Bid #92-32, CR510 Wabasso Cause-
way Bridge Repairs
(memorandum dated Nov. 4, 1991)
H. UTILITIES
1. Request _ by Mr. Buddy Rowe (customer serviced
by North Beach R.O. Water Plant and Sea Oaks
Wastewater Plant) to Speak Before Board of
County Commissioners
(memorandum dated Oct. 25, 1991)
2. West/Central Region Reuse Water Trans-
mission Main Engineering Consultant Agree-
ment and Work Authorization No. 1
(memorandum dated Oct. 29, 1991)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
License Agreement for Docks on Calcutta Drive -
Redfield
(memorandum dated Nov. 4, 1991)
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
NOV 12199@
BOOK 6 F.;.
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd):
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
. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
BOOK
4 fd
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.
Tuesday, November 12, 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,
November 12, 1991, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Richard N.
Bird, Chairman; Gary C. Wheeler, Vice Chairman; Margaret C.
Bowman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Also present
were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac,
Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Wheeler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird requested the addition under Proclamations
and Presentations of a Proclamation designating Employ the
Veteran Week.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition under her matters
of a resignation and appointment to the Affordable Hlousing
Advisory Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously added
the above items to today's Agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
Chairman Bird read aloud the following proclamation and
presented it to Vince McCann of Veterans Services:
NOV i2
99'
NV 1.2 1991
BOOK 4 PA,E
PROCLAMATION
DESIGNATING November 10 through 16, 1991
AS EMPLOY THE VETERAN WEEK
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
WHEREAS, Florida has the fourth largest population of
American military veterans in the nation; and
WHEREAS, Florida's veteran population is growing more
rapidly than that of any other state; and
WHEREAS, Floridians are proud of the service veterans have
rendered our nation to secure the blessings of liberty for all;
and
WHEREAS, many veterans have been unable to find employment
within the boundaries of Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County supports a Veterans' Bill of
Rights and is committed to ensuring that our veterans are
accorded honor and respect, granted preference in job training
and hiring and assisted in obtaining all benefits and services to
which they are entitled; and
WIIEREAS, the skills, training, knowledge, and maturity of
veterans make them an asset to any enterprise:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the week of
November 10 through November 16, 1991 be designated as
EMPLOY THE VETERAN WEEK
in Indian River County, and all citizens are urged to convey to
our veterans how much we appreciate the sacrifices they have made
for our country, and urge all prospective employers to employ
veterans.
Adopted this 12 day of November, 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN' RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bird Chairman
2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Bird asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of October 15,
1991 and October 22, 1991. There were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the.Regular Meetings of 10/15/91 and
10/22/91, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Approval of Appointments of Deputy Sheriff by Sheriff
Tim Dobeck
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the following appointments of Deputy Sheriffs by
Sheriff Tim Dobeck:
Melissa A. Stewart
Anthony M. Mongelli
Mark R. Buffington
B. Approval of Duplicate Tax Sale Certificates - Sam High
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the following Duplicate Tax Sale Certificates, all in
the name of Sam High:
No. 1084, in amount of $81.69
No. 1085, in amount of $81.69
No. 1080, in amount of $82.26
No. 3689, in amount of $344.85
No. 1574, in amount of $105.72
No. 1083, in amount of $81.69
C. Received and Placed on File in the Office of the Clerk
to the Board
Copy of minutes of the Board of Supervisors
of the Indian River Farms Water Control District,
February 14, 1991 through September 12, 1991.
3
� Nov 12 1991
84
BooK F�l00
my 12
199
D. Animal Control Ordinance - Chapter 302
POOK
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/4/91:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, .Assistant County Attorney
( DATE: November 4. 1991
RE: ANIMAL CONTROL: ORDINANCE - CHAPTER 302
As part ' of the Code rewrite the Animal Control Ordinance has been
revised as a new Chapter 302. A public hearing date of December
17, 1991 is recommended.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously scheduled
a public hearing for December 17, 1991 to consider
the proposed Animal Control Ordinance, as recommended
by staff.
E. Licensing and License Taxes Ordinance - Chapter 207
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/1/91:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: November 1, 1991
RE: CHAPTER 207 LICENSING AND LICENSE TAXES
The subject matter is part of the revision of the Code of Ordinances.
This Chapter is essentially an editorial transfer to the new code.
A public hearing date of December 10, 1991 is recommended.
TPO/sb
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously scheduled
a public hearing for December 10, 1991 to consider the
proposed Licensing and License Taxes Ordinance, as
recommended by staff.
F. Final Pay Request from Cathco Construction Co. for
Construction of 19th Ave. Parking Lot
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/1/91:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
,.H.T. "Sonny" Dean
• General Services Di
,Roger D. Cain, P.E.,
,:County Engineer
SUBJECT: Final Pay Request From Cathco Construction Co.
,and Approval of Charge Order No. 1
November 1, 1991 FILE: parkfac.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The construction of the 19th Avenue Parking Facility has.
been completed by Cathco Construction Co. The, Project :has:'
been accepted by the County Engineer.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
::Staff recommends approval of the final payment in the; amount
'of $22,622.421. which includes the Change „Order No. 1:.' an
,retainage. Funding to be from account 001-220-519-066.39.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
final payment in the amount of $22,622.42 to Cathco
Construction Co. for the construction of the 19th Ave.
parking lot, which includes Change Order No. 1 and
retainage, as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST ARE ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
L
t2 199
5
BOOK
.J FADE I4U�
NOV i2 1991
BOOK 64 FAuE 1 Pi,
G. Resolution accepting the Certificate of the County Canvassing
Board
• 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-171, accepting the Certificate of the
County Canvassing Board.
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 171
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF THE
COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD.
WHEREAS, on November 5, 1991, the County held a referendum of the
qu%lified electors on the question of whether the boundaries of the Indian
River Mosquito Control District should be expanded to include Fellsmere,
the unincorporated area known as Vero Lake Estates, and adjacent
properties; and
WHEREAS, after the ballots were counted, the results were certified by
the. County Canvassing Board, which consisted of County Attorney Charles
P. Vitunac, Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson, and Chairman of the
Board of County Commissioners Richard N. Bird, and the Certificate, which
shows, that the referendum did pass, was turned over to the Board of
County Commissioners,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
' COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board `•'
hereby officially acknowledges receipt of the Certificate of the County T,
Canvassing Board in connection with the above referendum.
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 Aye
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye -
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 12 day of November , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
6
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
We, the undersigned, Chair les P 1/i i i. n , appointed by Chief Judge of
the 19th Judicial Circuit, to serve in place of a county Judge, ANN ROBINSON, Supervisor
of Elections, and RICHARD N. BIRD, Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners,
constituting the Board of County Canvassers in and for said County, do hereby certify that
we met in the 1st floor conference room of the County Administration Building at 10 A.M. on
the 6th day of November, A.D., 1991, and proceeded to publicly canvass the votes for the
Indian River Mosquito Control District mail ballot election held on the 5th day of November,
A.D. 1991, as shown by the returns on file in the Office of the Supervisor of Elections. We
do hereby certify from said returns as follows:
FOR REFERENDUM, TO ENLARGE THE DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, THE WHOLE.
NUMBER OF VOTES CAST WAS 417 OF WHICH NUMBER
FOR received 31 Z VOTES
AGAINST received � VOTES
COUNTY ATTQIIN�
•. .aj, '�., ,.•
.rte.
SUPERVISOR.O . ELE 17NS :;
//✓////yJJJ//r/A �/j�"/}.1 ' ssr/j:'.!� a Sti «
CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF, OUNTY COMMISSIONERS
EXPLANATION OF PUBLIC HEARINGS ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the Deputy Clerk
read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to
wit:
7
NOV 12 1991
BOOK CJ FAd. ij ��
NOV 12 1991
BOOK 64 [„GE
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, November 12, 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 consider authorizing the transmittal of this amendment to the
county's Comprehensive Plan to the State Department of Community Affairs for their
review. 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 FOR +-40 ACRES
FROM AG -1 TO R FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 58th
AVENUE, SOUTH OF 4th STREET; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF •:
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE US #1137th STREET
HOSPITAUCOMMERCIAL NODE FROM +-230 ACRES TO +-250 ACRES,
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR
+-838 ACRES FROM AG -2 TO AG -1 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST
' AND SOUTH OF. THE CITY OF FELLSMERE, SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 512
(FELLSMERE ROAD); AND AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT '
INCLUDING POLICIES, TABLES AND TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT, SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, POTABLE WATER SUB-'
ELEMENT, AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, INCLUDING CODIFI-
CATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. •
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at 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 5:00 p.m. on
weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS
MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS.
1 Anyone who may wish to appeal any
decision which may be made at this meeting
P will need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the proceeding is made which includes the
c testimony and evidence: upon which the
1 appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BY: Richard N. Bird, Chairman •
.. .. i
_ .ole :::.,.:•. •: ••
.. •
let 8L8y' t'
Ate
ro
•
' HOSPITAL
•
."—"
•
L__�/
Su
bject Property
P.O. Box 1268
�•aiAlrtl nr➢t.
Vero Beach. Florid .32W4 562-231
VITO 'otttt%ill •
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 newspaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 31" 9 10.30 per
column in
billedto 1. R. C. Planning Dept.
was published In said newspaper In the issue(s)
10/21/91 on page 7A
of
Sworn to end subscribed before me this
• 25th dayof October AD 1991
(SEAL)
Business Manager
'tf • uetx• State et rbalde
�► C.m.dmh ,r burn Amen. 197a
8
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/91:
TO:
FROM:
DATE:
SUBJECT:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Robert M. Keating, AICP A4
Community Development Director
November 5, 1991
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
t is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 12, 1991. _
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Indian River County's comprehensive plan was adopted on February
13, 1990. Subsequent to a finding of non-compliance by the state
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and then the execution of a
compliance agreement between the county and DCA, the plan was
amended in June, 1991. In August, 1991, the state found .the
county's plan in compliance.
4i y
As per state law, comprehensive plans may be amended no more than
twice in each calendar year. The Indian River County plan
establishes the months of January and July as the windows when plan
amendment requests may be submitted. During the July, 1991 plan
amendment application window, four amendment requests were
submitted.
The four submitted application requests were:
Location
r. Comprehensive Plan Text:
N/A
LUDA-91-08-0177
LUDA-91-07-0126
LURA -91-07-0175
600 block of 37th
Street
Applicant , Request
,Indian River County Amend the text of
the Comprehensive Plan
Ames, et.al (Darrell From: L-1 Low -Density
McQueen, agent) Residential (up
to 3 units/acre)
To: Hospital/Commercial
Node
West side of 58th Avenue, David and Princess
,south of 4th Street Feldman
From: AG -1, Agricultural -1
(up to 1 unit/5 acres)
To: R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre)
South of the City of Fells- Albert Rahn, Trustee From: AG -2, Agricultural -2
(Bruce Barkett, agent) (up to 1 unit/10 acres)
To: Aa -1, Agricultural -1
(up to 1 unit/5 acres)
mere, South of County Road
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Each of the plan amendment requests has been processed consistent
with the attached comprehensive plan amendment flow chart. Each
amendment request was considered by the planning and zoning
commission at its September 26, 1991 meeting. Based upon the
planning and zoning commission's recommendation, the board must now
determine whether or not to transmit each amendment request to the
DCA for its 90 day review.
NOV 12199
9
NUUK.FAuE %e.ilj
Ir-
NOV 12199•
BOOK 64 F,1.GE /40
Subsequent to consideration of the amendments, the board must adopt
a transmittal resolution, identifying each amendment request to be
transmitted to DCA for their review. The board must also announce
its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the
adoption stage of the plan amendments.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review all
of the plan amendment requests, and then approve the attached
resolution, transmitting the proposed amendments to DCA for their
review.
Robert Keating, Director of Community Development, noted
that after the Board has considered the four proposed changes in
the Comprehensive Plan today, they must adopt a transmittal
resolution identifying each amendment request to be transmitted
to the Dept. of Community Affairs in Tallahassee for their 90 -day
review. The Board must also announce its intention to hold and
advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the
plan amendments.
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE
LAND USE ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, THE POTABLE
WATER SUB -ELEMENT AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/15/91:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
//
Robert M. Keati g
Community Developme
FROM: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: October 15, 1991
P
Director
SUBJECT: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, THE POTABLE
WATER SUB -ELEMENT AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CPTA-91-07-0157)
r-�
10
It is requested that the data herein presented be given -formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 12, 1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan on February 13,
1990. Since that time, the County has initiated only one plan
amendment, that being the remedial actions amendment which was
required by the stipulated settlement agreement (compliance
agreement) with the state. Besides the one county initiated
amendment, several other amendments have been submitted by
individuals and processed by the county.
Although the county has not submitted any non-compliance related
plan amendments, the plan implementation process has shown that of
the more than 700 policies of the plan, there are several which
need clarification and/or adjustment. Also, the plan, itself,
requires annual amendment of certain elements. For example, the
Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the plan needs annual
amendment as required both by Plan policy and state regulations.
For those reasons the county has initiated this amendment.
At this time, the County is initiating a comprehensive plan
amendment which involves several elements of the plan. The
affected elements are: the Future Land Use element, the Sanitary
Sewer and Potable Water sub -elements, and the Capital Improvements
Element.
On September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission sitting
as the Local Planning Agency voted 6-0 to recommend transmittal of -
the proposed county initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the
DCA.
DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT
In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will
be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of
the plan needing amendment and to present the justification for the
amendment requests. The proposed amendments and additions to the
plan are shown on Attachment "A".
Future Land Use Element
At this time, the County is proposing plan amendments to four (4)
existing policies of the Future Land Use Element. These are
policies 1.23, 1.19, 2.4, and 4.3. The County is also proposing
the addition of two new policies to the Future Land Use Element.
These are policies 1.35 and 1.36.
Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element provides criteria for
node expansion. This 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, or otherwise
warranted by the proposed development
This policy is applicable to all nodes designated on the Future
Land Use Map. Since there are more than 5,000 acres of land within
all the nodes throughout the county, policy 1.23 will be applicable
to 5,000 plus acres of land.
The purpose of this policy is:
11
NOV 12 1991
BOOK
N v 121991
BOOK 84 PAGE 74E
To control node expansion and the amount of land
designated as commercial or industrial within the County.
Specifically, this policy ensures that the amount of
commercial/industrial land in the county corresponds to
the projected need.
To provide criteria for node expansion. The county has
designated certain land area for commercial and
industrial uses and will allow additional commercial/
industrial land if certain criteria are met. The intent
of this policy is to set forth these conditions which
justify node expansion. -
To relate node expansion to the needs of the market area
of the node. As with any comprehensive plan change, node
expansion must be supported by adequate data and
analysis. In node expansion cases, that data and
analysis relates to the supply and demand of
commercial/industrial land in specific areas_ of the
County. If 70% of a node is built, this is an indicator
of need for additional commercial and industrial land in
the node.
Through implementation of policy 1.23, several problems and/or
issues have arisen. Some of these were identified by DCA during
their review of previously submitted plan amendment requests, while
others have -become evident through staff's work with the
comprehensive plan and staff's interaction with applicants.
As adopted, policy 1.23 does not specify a methodology to be used
for node acreage determination. Consequently, staff and applicants
for node expansion have applied different methodologies to
determine node acreage and have obtained different results. While
the County staff has made its node acreage determinations utilizing
the property appraiser's tax map, node expansion applicants have
employed other methods such as the use of aerial photos, -
planimeters or surveys. The result has been slightly different
acreage figures with each method.
Since the major purpose of the policy is to ensure that a node is
sufficiently developed to warrant expansion, then what constitutes
the developed portion of a node becomes important. As written, the
policy does not provide sufficient guidance for determination of
the developed percentage of a node. This, like the node size
issue, has led to problems. Finally, policy 1.23, does not specify
what circumstances would justify a node expansion request to be
"otherwise warranted".
Policies 1.19 and 4.3
Policy 1.19 indicates that commercial and industrial land uses are
designated as nodes or corridors. Policy 4.3 also refers to nodes
and corridors. In reality, there is no distinction between a node
and a corridor, and the same criteria apply to both. It is
confusing to utilize different terminology for the same concept.
Policy 2.4
This policy of the Future Land Use Element states that Urban
Service Area (USA) designations are shown as an overlay on the land
use map. In reality the USA is not shown as an overlay; instead,
it is designated "on" the future land use map.
12
New Policy 1.35 (Minor Node Boundary Adjustment)
While preparing the Comprehensive Plan, the County. analyzed each
commercial/industrial node and its general market area; the county
then established each node's size based upon the amount of existing
development and potential growth in the market area projected
through the year 2010. However, this node acreage determination
was general, and staff did not have adequate time to examine each
node in sufficient detail.
Consequently, there are instances in which it is not clear exactly
which parcels are included in a node; in other cases, the node
boundary splits small properties. At present, the County plan has
no policy addressing node boundary adjustment. When the County
encounters one of these minor problems, there is noestablished
mechanism, other than through the comprehensive plan amendment
process, to provide for a node boundary adjustment.
New Policy 1.36 (Agricultural/Residential Buffers)
During therecent plan amendment process when the county adopted
alternative "A" to the county/DCA stipulated settlement agreement,
the staff had extensive consultations with DCA. At that time, DCA
made the point that the County's plan had inadequate policies to
buffer proposed residential development in agricultural areas from
active agricultural operations. While staff noted that the
county's adopted land development regulations do contain buffering
and separation requirements applicable to new residential
developments proposed adjacent to active agricultural operations,
DCA correctly stated that such regulation should be based on a
comparable comprehensive plan policy. Therefore, DCA strongly
recommended that the county include such a buffering policy in its
next set of plan amendments.
Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
Besides the Future Land Use Element amendments, the county is also
proposing plan amendments.to the water and sewer connection matrix
and policies 5.9 and 6.1 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water
Sub -Elements.
Water and Sewer Connection Matrix
Table 3.A.16 of the Sanitary Sub -Element and table 3.B.19 of the
Potable Water Sub -Element constitute the water and sewer connection
matrix. Since adoption of the plan, the County staff, Professional
Services Advisory Committee and applicants have identified some
shortcomings with this matrix.
Because the water and sewer connection matrix applies to all
development within the unincorporated portion of the County, the
matrix has a major effect on land development. As structured, the
matrix contains different criteria for residential developments
versus non-residential developments and considers the density and
intensity of developments.
The water and sewer connection matrix's purpose is to serve.as a
growth management tool and guide growth and development in the
County; to discourage urban sprawl and encourage infill development
by limiting developments where centralized water and sewer are not
available; and to encourage the expansion of centralized utility
_services by requiring connection to a centralized water and sewer
system.
13 BOOK 84 EA.;E /4J
NOV 12 1991
IF -
M®\ i219'
BOOK 64 PAGE /44
Centralized utility service expansion is important for the County,
since more than 95% of County soils are unsuitable for septic
tanks. With increasing development, septic tanks can be a source
of potential health hazards. Currently, the matrix provides
connection criteria for single-family developments, subdivisions,
PD's, commercial establishments, and industrial establishments.
Required connection to a centralized system is based upon a
project's distance from the system as well as the density or
intensity of the use.
Since adoption of the plan and application of the matrix, a number
of problems and concerns have arisen. While some of these are
procedural, others are substantive. In conjunction with the
county's Professional Services Advisory Committee (PSAC), staff has
identified the major problems with the matrix.
The matrix, as it is, is hard to understand. The matrix addresses
different types of uses, different densities and intensities of
uses, different locational criteria, and different connection
standards. Combined, these factors make the matrix difficult to
understand.
In addition, the matrix uses square footage as an indicator of
water and sewer demand and the determinant of whether a project
needs to connect to the county system. As required by the matrix,
all proposed non-residential projects having more than 5000 sq. ft.
of floor area must connect to a centralized utility system. In
applying the matrix, however, the county has found that square
footage is not a good indicator of water usage or sewer generation.
Some of the reasons why square footage is not a good indicator of
waterand sewer demand are that:
Square footage cannot capture all high utility
users. For example, a 4,000 square foot
restaurant, car wash, or laundry is not required to
connect to the centralized system if it is located
more than a mile from the system. However, these
types of uses consume substantial amounts of water
and generate substantial sewage.
* A square footage requirement puts a costly
requirement on low utility users. For example, a
5,500 square foot warehouse or contractor's trade
building does not use much water and does not
generate much sewage, but it is required to connect
to the centralized system regardless of its
location and distance from the system.
Policy 5.9 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
Policy -5.9 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
provides criteria for use of centralized water and sewer services.
This policy limits utilization of centralized utility services to
those areas within the Urban Service Area (USA) of the county.
At the time of comprehensive plan adoption, this policy was
adequate. However, when the County amended its plan based on the
stipulated settlement agreement, various policies were established
to require clustering of residential developments within
agricultural and conservation districts. To effectively implement
these clustering policies, there needs to be an ability to provide
centralized utility services outside of the USA.
111
Policy 6.1 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
Policy 6.1 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
provides criteria for the use of on-site water and wastewater
treatment plants within the USA. As discussed above, the County
must have the opportunity to allow use of on-site water and
wastewater treatment plants to effectively implement the clustering
provisions of various comprehensive plan policies.
Capital_ Improvements Element
•''part of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the
,comprehensive plan,__ the _County, adopted its 5 year Capital
Improvements Program (CIP). This CIP was prepared for 1990-1995.
Since it is already 1991, the County must revise its. five year CIP
Tto reflect the appropriate five year period.
Some of the improvements identified and budgeted in the 5 year CIP
have already been accomplished, while other improvements need to be
re-evaluated in terms of costs, revenues, and prioritization. At
the time of plan adoption, it was known that the CIP would become
.outdated each year; therefore, one of the policies of the CIE
,`.:..(policy 1.1), as adopted, requires annual evaluation and -update of
the 5 year CIP. Also, state regulations mandate that the CIE be
amended if, conditions change to warrant it.
The 5 year CIP Is an important part of the Capital Improvements
',Element.Since the 5 -year CIP incorporates improvements reflected
in other plan elements, and estimates and projections reflected in
other portions of the Capital Improvements Element, revisions to
the CIP require amendment to the CIE as a whole. The Capital
Improvement Element, as proposed for revision, is attached.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
n this section, an analysis of the proposed changes by element
will ::be provided. Consistency of the amendments with the
comprehensive plan and alternatives to the proposed changes will
also be addressed.
Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.23
As identified in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff report, several problems have been identified with respect to
policy 1.23. Mostly, these problems relate to a lack of
specificity with the policy, particularly a lack of any defined
methodology to estimate node size, node development percentage, and
other components of the policy. Also, the policy fails to identify
circumstances that would make a node expansion "otherwise
warranted."
In analyzing Policy 1.23, staff has found that the Policy's
substantive criteria appear to be adequate to accomplish the
-
objective of allowing node expansion only when a need for that
expansion has been justified. The lack of specified methodology,
however, detracts from implementation of this policy by changing
the focus of node expansion requests from substantive to procedural
issues.
In node expansion amendment requests addressed by staff since plan
adoption, considerable time, effort, and expense have been expended
to estimate node size and developed acreage. This has occurred
because different sources of information and different assumptions
15
110\112'991
BOOK 84 PAGE
Pr -
`0 ®\i i2 199
BOOK
84 F?uE 4 1
have been used by applicants and staff. The result has been an
emphasis on methodology disagreements, instead of an analysis of
substantive criteria based on accepted data, information and
calculations.
To rectify this problem, staff has revised policy 1.23 to
incorporate a methodology to be used to asses node expansion
requests. As reflected in the revised policy, the changes involve
specification of information sources (current node boundary map,
and property appraiser's map) and identification of.a development
area determination methodology. With these changes, policy 1.23
will be more easily understood and applied by the planning and
zoning commission, board of county commissioners, staff, and
applicants:
While policy 1.23 has a specific 70 percent node expansion
criterion, the policy also has the "otherwise warranted" catch-all
phrase. Although that phrase had been included to provide
flexibility, it has not served that purpose. Instead, DCA has
reviewed node expansion requests strictly - using the 70 percent
factor and generally discounting the unless "otherwise warranted"
phrase because of its lack of specificity. Consequently, DCA had
suggested that the policy be revised to delete the phrase or to
more specifically define it.
Since staff has addressed several node expansion requests, various
circumstances warranting expansion without a 70 percent or more
buildout have been identified. These include: a need to
accommodate a use where no suitable sites for expansion exist in.,
existing nodes; a need to compensate for planned right-of-way.
acquisition; a need to address changes in circumstances making land
outside of a node unsuitable for residential development; and a
need to accommodate existing non -conforming uses. By incorporating
these criteria as a further definition of otherwise warranted,
policy 1.23 will be more specific, yet provide the flexibility.
necessary to accommodate node expansion in certain cases.
In summary, revised policy 1.23 will provide clarity, consistent
results, and uniform methodology. As a result, node expansion
decisions can be made based on substantive criteria supported by
adequate data and analysis.
There are several alternatives available to the county_in._relation
to policy 1.23. Generally, these are to keep the existing policy
1.23, recognizing that there will be problems and ambiguities for
each node expansion request; to delete policy 1.23 and have no node
expansion criteria; to approve policy 1.23, as revised, for
transmittal to the DCA; or to approve policy 1.23, with additional`
revisions and transmit it to DCA.
New Policy 1.35 for Minor Node Boundary Adjustment
On its Future Land Use Map, the County assigned
commercial/industrial land use designations to various parcels.
All of these parcels were then included within
commercial/industrial node boundaries. During the comprehensive
plan preparation process, however, staff did not have adequate time
to examine each node in sufficient detail to make certain that all
node boundaries corresponded to property boundaries. Consequently,
there are instances in which node boundaries split small properticc
or, due to the scale of the future land use map, the node boundary
does not clearly identify which parcels are included in a node and
which are not. When a node boundary divides small parcels of land,
the portion of the parcel within the node has a non-residential
designation and the portion of the parcel outside of the node has
a residential designation. In these cases, development of such a
parcel becomes impossible. Also, undefined node boundaries create
many problems for both applicants and staff.
16
In cases of imprecise node boundaries or split parcels, the node
boundary should be adjusted or clarified. At present, the county
has only one option to make minor node boundary adjustments. This
is to take each node adjustment through the standard comprehensive
plan amendment process. This procedure results in a long process
with substantial delays to applicants desiring to develop their
property. Since node boundary adjustments are minor, involving
only portions of parcels, streamlining the process would benefit
both applicants and the county.
•To accomplish this change, staff has drafted a proposed amendment
that would allow minor administrative adjustments of node
boundaries in conjunction with the rezoning of affected parcels.
The minor node boundary adjustment would beapplicable when the
total acreage of designated commercial/industrial land is not
'�;:increased....As part of this new policy, the County would notify the
DCA of any node boundary adjustment through an annual report.
There are several alternatives available to the county with respect
to this issue. One is to take no action and not transmit new
policy 1.35. to the DCA for their review. Anther option is to
approve proposed policy 1.35 and transmit it to the DCA. A third
option would be to amend proposed policy 1.35 and transmit the
revised policy to DCA.
Buffer
New Policy1.36 Agricultural/Residential
N
During Compliance Agreement negotiations with DCA regarding the
alternative 1 (Poppel) amendment to the comprehensive plan, DCA
expressed concern . that the .county's plan had no
agricultural/residential buffering requirement. To address DCA's
concerns, the staff assured DCA that the county would consider a
-uffer amendment at its next plan amendment submittal window.
The county through its land development regulations has already
addressed the issue of requiring new residential developments to
provide buffers from active agricultural operations. When the
LDR's were prepared, this issue was addressed in detail, and
.:adequate criteria were developed. The proposed new policy would
essentially just incorporate those criteria within the
comprehensive plan.
P.:
There are several alternatives available to the county.. First, the
county can opt to take no action and not transmit this new policy
1.36 to the DCA. The second is to approve this policyand transmit
itto the DCA. Finally, the county can revise the policy and
transmit the revised policy to DCA.
Policies 1.19 and 4.3
As referenced -in policies 1.19 and 4.3, the County has designated
commercial/industrial land uses within nodes on its comprehensive
plan. In assigning allcommercial/industrial land to nodes, the
county eliminated the MXD (mixed use) designation that was used in
the earlier county plan. When the new plan was created, the former
MXD areas were referred to as corridors. In reality, there is no
difference between nodes and corridors, and the corridor
designation has been a source of confusion. In order to eliminate
this confusion, it is staff's recommendation to utilize the term
iiode and to remove the wuid CULLIUUL £roa puiicitS 1.19 and 4.3 of
the Future Land Use Element.
The County's alternatives with reference to these proposed changes
are to approve as recommended and transmit to DCA, revise and
transmit to DCA, or not to transmit and retain the existing
wording.
Policy. 2.4
Policy 2.4, as worded, has incorrect terminology. This policy
17
NOV 121'91
BOOK [AL,_
H oV '12 10
EkcoK 8 4 PAGE / 4
indicates that the Urban Service Area (USA) is shown as an overlay
on the Future Land Use Map. That, however, is not the case;
instead, the USA is part of the Future Land Use Map, not overlaid
on it. Revision of this policy would add clarity and reduce
confusion.
With this policy change, the county has the options of transmitting
as recommended, as revised, or not transmitting.
Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
Water and Sewer Connection Matrix
Several problems associated with Lhe water and sewer connection
matrix were described in the description section of this report.
As indicated in that section, the matrix is difficult to understand
and confusing. This lack of clarification has required staff
interpretation and specific decisions in applying the matrix to
different situations.
Besides the clarification problem, various substantive issues have
arisen with respect to the matrix. The matrix, as it is, will not
capture all uses generating significant amounts of sewage and using
significant amounts of water. Therefore, the matrix is not
effective in achieving its principal purposes of preventing health
problems,eliminating urban sprawl, controlling growth, encouraging
infill development, and providing for the logical extension of
utility services.
To address this issue, the Professional Service Advisory Committee
(PSAC) reviewed the connection matrix and considered the matrix's:
objectives. As a result of its analysis, the PSAC determined that
a flow threshold of 20.00 gallons per day instead of a building area
threshold of 5000 square feet would be more logical and rational..
The new threshold is based on technical criteria for use of
centralized and on-site systems. It is the position of the PSAC
that a flow threshold will better identify those uses which should
connect to a centralized system by recognizing use characteristics,
as opposed to a strict square footage measure which does not
address water and sewer consumption/generation.
The County has several alternatives regarding the matrix. One is
to take no action on this proposed change and not transmit the ,_
revised connection matrix to the DCA. Another is to approve this
revised connection matrix and transmit it to the DCA. A third is
to revise the matrix further and transmit the revised matrix to
DCA.
Policies 5.9 and 6.1 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -
Elements
Policies 5.9 and 6.1 limit the use of centralized water and sewer
systems to the urban service areas of the county. When the County
adopted these two policies, the intent was to limit the utilization
of centralized water and sewer systems to areas within the USA,
since the area outside of the USA is characterized by very low
density development. However, as part of the compliance agreement
with DCA, the County adopted policies which require clustering of
residential development within Agricultural Districts,
Conservation- Districts, and Mixed Use Districts. While this -
clustering of residential development will have a significant
benefit in protection of agricultural lands and preservation of
environmentally sensitive lands, its usefulness will be restricted
without the use of centralized water and sewer systems. Not only
will such systems allow for more clustering (higher densities in
smaller areas of a site), but such systems will also have a
beneficial environmental effect on ground and surface water bodies.
The County has initiated amendments to these two policies that
provide the opportunity to use centralized utilities outside of the
18
USA, if used for cluster development as required by policies of the
Future Land Use Element.
The County has several alternatives. One is to take no action on
this proposed change and not transmit the revised policies 5..9 and
6.1 to the DCA. Another is to approve revised policies 5.9 and 6.1
and transmit them to the DCA. A third is to revise policies 5.9
and 6.1 further and transmit them to DCA.
Capital Improvements Element
As discussed in the description section of this report, the Capital
Improvements Element must be revised annually to take into
"consideration changing circumstances, to consider new priorities,
and to adjust for changes in expenditures, costs, and revenues.
Not only is this revision mandated by policy 1.1 of the Capital
Improvements Element, but state growth management rules also
require that the CIE be amended to reflect changed circumstances.
In revising the Capital Improvements Element, the staff used much
the same methodology as it employed in preparing the original
element. This involved coordinating with the. budget and finance
departments to obtain data on past revenues and expenditures as
well as projected future revenue and expenditure amounts. Then,
each county department was contacted to determine the status of its
5 year CIP. For each department, information on completed
projects, proposed projects, costs, revenues, prioritization, and
other factors was collected. Based upon these data, planning staff
revised the various tables and the text of the CIE. The result is
an accurate and up-to-date CIP for the next 5 year period with
revisions having. been made in the CIE generally to demonstrate
internal consistency and financial feasibility.
As per policy 1.1 of the Capital Improvements Element, the county
must revise the CIP. In updating the CIP, revisions must be made
to other portions of the CIE. The county does not have an
alternative. However, changes may be made to.the-revisions:as
proposed.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plan 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 be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to section 163.3177(2)F.S.".
The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify 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.
Future Land Use Policy 13.3
In evaivatiny any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most
important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in
order to approve an amendment request. These criteria are:
* a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property.
19
WO 121991
116,
BOOK tjFACE
-140\9•12 1991
P4OOF 84 FALL /30
The following table shows how these comprehensive plan amendments
are related to Future Land Use Policy 13.3.
Correct Correct an
Mistake Oversight
L.U. Policy:
1.23 X
Change in
Circumstance
1.35 X
1.36 X
1.19 X
2.4 X
4.3 X
S.S. & P.W:
Connection Matrix X
X
Policies 5.9 & 6.1
CIE:
5 -Year CIP & other
X
portions of the CIE
*****************************************************************
S.S.: Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
P.W.: Potable Water Sub -Element
L.U.: Land Use Element
CIE: Capital Improvements
Element
Essentially, all of the proposed amendments, except for the CIE
update, involve correcting an oversight. In fact, the Department
of Community Affairs actually recommended that several of these
policies be amended. As described above, many of these changes are
not substantive in nature, but rather add clarity, .reduce
ambiguity, or eliminate confusion. In these cases, the intent is
to strengthen the plan by revising these policies.
Revisions to the 5 -year CIP and the CIE are necessary to reflect
changes in circumstances since plan adoption. - In that period since.
plan adoption, capital improvements have been completed; others
have been added; revenue projections have changed, and priorities
have been modified. These circumstances warrant the amendment.
Consistency with Other Policies of the Plan
The table below lists those policies of the plan which are.
consistent with each of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments.
Other Plan Policies
Consistent with Proposed Amendments
L.U. Policies:
1.23
- 1.35
1.-36
L.U. 1.19, 1.20, 1.25
L.U. 1.19, 1.20, 1.21 1.22, 1.23, 1.25
1.19
2.4
4.3
S.S.&P.W.:
Connection Matrix
Policies 5.9&6.1
CIE:
L.U. 1.7, 1.8, u.2, 6.3
L.U. 1.20, 1.21, 1.22 1.23, 1.25
L.U. 1.20, 1.21, 1.22 1.23, 1.25
L.U. 1.20, 1.21, 1.22, 1.23 1.25
S.S. & P.W. 6.7, 6.9; L.U. 2.1, 2.2, 2.3
S.S. & P.W. 6.2, 6.6, 6.9
CIE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12
As proposed, all of the amendments will retain the plan's internal
consistency.
20
CONCLUSION
It is staff's position that these proposed amendments to'the
County's comprehensive plan will enhance the plan by adding
specificity, eliminating confusion, and reducing ambiguity. Also,
it has been demonstrated that these amendments maintain the plan's
internal consistency. For those reasons, staff feels that the
proposed amendments should be adopted.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
these amendments for transmittal to the DCA for their review.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that today the Board is
only approving the transmittal of these amendments to Tallahassee
for a 90 -day review before they come back to the Board for final
adoption, and Director Keating confirmed that process.
Referring to node expansion, Commissioner Bowman felt we are
leaning over backwards to accommodate owners of industrial/
commercial property in the area because this will become a red
flag not to build within shouting distance of a node because the
node could be expanded to back right up to your.backyard.
Director Keating advised that just because these criteria
are included in the "otherwise warranted" does not mean that they
have to be approved. Approval still would be at the discretion
of the Board. Further, staff looks quite closely at
compatibility and buffering when considering node expansion. In
setting specificity for the "otherwise warranted", staff looked
at some of the items that have come up in the past which, in
their opinion, would have justified node expansion.
Director Keating admitted that while it seems that we are
leaving the door open quite a bit, staff feels these are
appropriate criteria.
Commissioner Bowman maintained that this could force
long-time residents right out of their homes, but Director
Keating didn't feel these provisions would be used just as an
opportunity to expand any node.
Commissioner Scurlock felt staff was looking for the
flexibility, where it is appropriate, to expand the node. When
you look at the appropriateness, you would look at the
surrounding land use, and if it were single-family residential,
the appropriateness probably would be deemed not to exist.
Commissioner Bowman recalled that we already did it once up
in Roseland, where residential was real close to the area where
the node was enlarged.
21
0�
12199'
drr / 51
�ntrt
BOOK U F:':ur l�e✓�fi�
Director Keating advised that particular node amendment is
coming to the Board next week for final adoption.
Chairman Bird found it difficult sometimes to go through
these various changes and determine exactly what the financial
impact could be on property owners of potential future
development on various property, and he really felt that we have
an excellent, very tough Comp Plan and a tough group of LDRs to
put teeth in the Comp Plan and ordinances to back that up. He
hoped, especially in these economic times, that staff and the
Board will continue to consider the financial impact of further
changes in the ordinances and LDRs and the Comp Plan that affects
the potential development of property in the County.
Director Keating felt everyone of these amendments provides
a little more flexibility rather than imposing additional
regulation.
On the other hand, Commissioner Scurlock noted that good
planning is good planning, and just because we get into tough
economic times is no reason to change our planning; it should
have been cost effective and proper in the first place. If we
were to liberalize our planning every time we get into a tough
economic climate, we would be stuck with• it when good times
return.
Chairman Bird stated that it wasn't his intent that we
should lower our standards. He just meant that during bad times
or good, we need to look at our changes and see if they are
reasonable from a financial, economic view.
In answer to Commissioner Bowman's question regarding the
difference between package plants and centralized water and sewer
systems, Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained that the intent
was that centralized water and sewer originally meant connection
to the public system. A centralized system is one that connects
into a public or private system that serves more than several
customers.
Commissioner Scurlock further explained that a package
system actually can be a initial system at the front end of a
project, but when we talk about package systems, we usually are
referring to a pre -fab type of facility.
Commissioner Bowman felt the cluster provision is saying
that if you cluster, you can have a sanitary sewer system, which
to her is just another package plant.
Director Pinto explained that it could end up being part of
the County's regional system. .River's Edge water treatment plant
could be considered a package plant, but that development is on a
centralized system.
22
Director Keating advised that additional policies in the
plan would require any such system to get a franchise from the
County Utilities Department, which would provide additional
control.
Director Pinto pointed out that the true control is with the
requirement to eliminate the package system when a larger central
system comes into existence.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard regarding the proposed changes as presented.
There being none, he closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the transmittal of the above -listed proposed amendments
to the DCA for their 90 -day review.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMES' REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE ±20 ACRES FROM L-1 TO HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE AND TO
REZONE APPROXIMATELY 29.05 ACRES TO MED
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/4/91:
James Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ON HEAD CONCURRENCE
obert M. Ke in
Sasan Rohani • R- -
Chief, Long -Range P anning
Cheryl A. Tworek
Senior Planner, ong-R.-nge Planning
DATE: November 4, 1991
SUBJECT:
Ames, et. al. Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate ±20 Acres from L-1 to Hospital/Commercial
Node and to Rezone Approximately 29.05 Acres to MED
(LUDA-91-07-0177) (CPA-123/ZC-311)
It is requested that the data herein. presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 12, 1991.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment -Procedures and Timetable
,The timetable for comprehensive _plan_., amendment requests differs
from rezoning requests. Accorcpng`to Chapter 800 of the Indian
River County Land Development Regulations, requests for
'comprehensive plan amendments may be submitted only during the
months of January and July each calendar year. The subject request
was submitted with other requests received by the county in July,
1991.
NOV 12 '99'
23
BOOK Off' ''
dov 12 `d 99
BOOP. N t- F4F
x54
As per section 902.05 of the Land Development Regulations, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether a proposed
__comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the overall growth
management goals and objectives of the county. Based upon its
review and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding the requested plan amendment and rezoning. The Board
shall then hold a public hearing to decide on the transmittal of
the proposed land use amendments to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA).
On September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission sitting
as the Local Planning Agency voted 6-0 to recommend transmittal of
the proposed land use amendment request.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone
property. At this time, the Board of County .Commissioners will
consider only the proposed land use amendment, specifically whether
to transmit the proposed amendment to the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA). The proposed rezoning will be considered at the
final public hearing and only if the land use amendment is
approved.
The subject property is located on the 600 block of 37th Street and
is presently owned by Ames, et. al., as Trustees. The land
includes a total of ±29.05 acres; ±20 acres of the property are
currently located outside the Hospital/Commercial Node boundary.
The request involves changing the land use designation for ±20
acres from L-1, Low -Density Residential (up to 3 units per acre) to
Hospital/Commercial Node, and rezoning ±29.05 acres from RS -3,
Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units per acre) and RM -
3, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 3 units per acre) to
MED, Medical District. This request is considered an expansion of
the U.S. #1 and 37th Street Hospital/Commercial Node. The purpose
of the request is to develop the property with medical uses.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property falls within two zoning categories;
approximately 10± acres of the subject property, located
immediately south of 37th Street, are zoned RM -3, Multiple -Family
Residential; the southern 19± acres are zoned RS -3, Single -Family
Residential. The entire parcel consists of vacant land.
Based•
upon a review of the subject property, the environmental
planning staff have indicated that a significant portion of the,
property may be jurisdictional estuarine wetlands. In accordance
with county comprehensive plan policy 1.31 and county land
development regulations, properties identified by an environmental
survey (at time of development) as jurisdictional estuarine
wetlands will have a C-2, Conservation, land use designation, and
a comparable Con -2, Conservation, zoning designation (1 unit per 40
acres/1 unit per acre TDR).
The property to the west of the subject property is zoned MED,
Medical District, and contains the Indian River Medical Center and
the Indian River Memorial Hospital. Land to the south contains the
Vero Beach Country Club Golf Course and is zoned RS -3. To the
north lies 37th Street and vacant land zoned RM -8, Multiple -Family
Residential District. Land to the east lies within the City of
Vero Beach jurisdiction. The northeast corner of the subject
property will be a part of the right-of-way for phase III of Indian
River Boulevard, now under construction.,
24
>' Future Land Use Pattern
The east 20 acres of the subject property are designated L-1, Low
Density, on the County's Future Land Use map. The L-1 designation
permits residential densities up to 3 units per acre. .Properties
to the south also share the L-1 designation. Properties to the
north have an M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre)designation. The western ±9 acres of the subject
property and adjacent property to the west are designated part of
the hospital/commercial node area, which permits commercial and
medical zoning designations. Property to the east lies within the
City of Vero Beach.
Transportation
The property abuts 37th Street to the north. This two lane, paved
segment of 37th Street is classified as a collector roadway on the
future roadway thoroughfare plan map, and has approximately 110
feet of public road right-of-way. To the east lies the future site
of the extension of Indian River Boulevard. Indian River Boulevard
is classified as an urban principal arterial, and this segment of
the boulevard will be a four lane divided paved road with
approximately 225 feet of public road right-of-way.
Environment
Vossinbury Creek, which meanders and flows from near U.S. Highway
#1 to the Indian River Lagoon, skirts the southern border of the
property. As previously mentioned, environmental planning staff
have indicated that a significant portion of the property may be
jurisdictional estuarine wetlands, based on a preliminary review of
soils, vegetation, and site hydrological characteristics. However,
a final determination has not been made at this time.
The predominant groundcover on the property appears to be a
combination of saltgrass (Distichlis spicata) and coastal dropseed
(Sporobolus virginicus), intermixed with saltwort (Salicornia spp.)
and glasswort (Batis spp.). Also on site are sea -oxeye (Borrichia
spp.), white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa), and sea .blite
(Suaeda spp.), among other plant species. These plant species are
commonly associated with brackish wetland systems. An oak hammock
exists on the western most portion of the property, approximately
2 to 3 acres in size. Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius)
exists in pockets on site, as well.
The Indian River County Soil Survey (1987) depicts the eastern most
portion of the property as "Kesson muck", identified by Soil and
Water Conservation District staff as being a hydric soil. The
remainder of the property is depicted as consisting largely of
"Boca fine sand", which is not generally listed as a hydric soil.
A recent inspection of the property by environmental planning staff
and Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) staff indicates that Vossinbury
Creek provides at least some hydrologic connection of the property
to the Indian River Lagoon, the extent of which has_not been fully
determined.
Review of past aerials of the property reveals that the central
portion was converted at one time (more than 20 years ago) for
agricultural production. However, the altered area has reverted to
a natural vegetative state, with some disturbance associated with
unimprovedvehicularaccess remaining.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the urban service area of the county; water
lines extend to the site from the South County Water Plant, and
wastewater lines extend to the site from the Central County
Wastewater Plant (Gifford).
25
MOV 12199'
BOOK 64
MOV t21991
tlor# 84
ALTERNATIVES AND 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
O Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
O Potential impact on environmental quality
o Compatibility with the surrounding area
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 (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). 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.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
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 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
hospital/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: ±29 acres
of Area to be Rezoned: ±29 acres
of Area to be Redesignated: ±20 acres
Classification:
RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential
District, (up to 3 units/4cre)
RS -3, Single -Family Residential District,
(up to 3 units/acre)
3• Existing Zoning
a.. ±10 acres:
b.
±19 acres:
4. Existing Land Use Designation:
a. ... ±20 acres: M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre)
b. ±9 acres: Hospital/Commercial Node
. Proposed Zoning Classification: MED, Medical District
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: Hospital/Commercial Node
(for the ±20 acres)
. Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 290,000 sq.ft. of
Retail Commercial
26
-Transportation
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. The site information
used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
Retail Commercial Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
For Structures 200,000 to 300,000 square feet (based upon the
ITE Gross Leasable Floor Area category):
la. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 46.81/1000 gross
sq.ft.
b. 5-6 P.M. Peak Hour Exiting Trips: 9.5% outbound
c. 5-6 P.M. Peak Hour Entering Trips: 8.3% inbound
. Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season
Exiting Trips):
Total Square Footage X Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends
X Percentage P.M. Exiting Trips X Percentage.. New Trips
(Trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) r
5. New Trips: 75% or 967 peak hour/peak season Exiting Trips
based on the ITE Manual
Directional Split:
Roadway Segment % Actual Trips
1. West on 37th St. 30 290
2. South on I.R. Blvd: 50 483
3. North on I.R. Blvd.* 20 193
* Not a peak direction
6. Traffic Capacity on 37th Street at a Level of Service "D":
980 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
Existing Traffic Volume on 37th Street:
700 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
:.Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
..concurrency analysis only addresses project traffic occurring in
the peak hour and affecting the -direction.._
roadways. In this case, the site will aak ccesstwo thoroughfareacted plan
roadways; these are 37th Street and Indian River Boulevard. Both
of these roadways have more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in
;,the a.m. peak hour,. so the p.m. peak hour was used for the
transportation concurrency analysis. According to recent count
data, the peak direction during the p.m. peak hour is west for 37th
Street and south for Indian River Boulevard.
Given those conditions, the number of new p.m. exiting trips
associated with this request was determined by taking the 290,000
square feet of Shopping Center use (most intense use), applying
ITE's 46.81 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends/.1000 gross square
feet to the 290,000 square feet to get total daily trips, applying
the ITE Shopping. Center use p.m. peak hour exiting factor (9.5%)
and multiplying that number by 75% to ensure that only new trips
are counted. The total p.m. peak hour exiting trips for the
proposed use was calculated to be 967. To get the projected west
bound (peak direction) peak hour volume of trips from the site on
37th Street, the total number of peak hour exiting trips was
multiplied by 30%; to get the projected south bound (peak
direction) peak hour volume of trips from the site on Indian River
Boulevard, the total number of peak hour exiting trips was
multiplied by 50%. Based upon this analysis, 290 trips were
assigned to 37th Street, and 483 trips were assigned to south bound
Indian River Boulevard. Using a modified gravity model and a hand
assignment, these trips were then assigned to roadways on the
network.
27
NOV 12` 91
ROOK
NOV 1 2 1991
LOOK 84 WJE %b8
A similar methodology was used to project PM entering trips.
Instead of the 9.5% factor used for exiting trips, however, an 8.3%
factor was used to estimate PM peak hour entering trips. Using the
same methodology referenced above, the entering trips were then
assigned to segments on the network. _
The result of this analysis was two sets of project peak hour
volumes for each segment on the network. One set of volumes
represents trips going to the site, while the other represents
trips traveling from the site. These constitute the peak hour
volumes for each direction for each segment. The capacity analysis
for each segment was then done by taking the projected project
trips for the segment's peak direction and assessing whether or not
this volume was less than the segment's available. capacity.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
I methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Level of Service (LOS) Manual. Available
capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that while the other
impacted roadways serving the project can accommodate the
additional trips without decreasing the existing level of service,
37th Street does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the
new trips generated by the proposed land use amendment. Impacted
roadways are defined in the County's Land Development Regulations
as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more daily,
project traffic or fifty (50) or more daily project trips,
whichever is less.
To address the project's impact on 37th Street, the applicant has
entered into a developer's agreement with the county which states
that the applicant will widen 37th Street to provide the additional
capacity necessary for the roadway prior to development occurring
on-site. With this condition, the transportation concurrency test
has been met for the subject request.
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 except
37th Street to accommodate the proposed request.
28
Roadway
Segment Road
1010
1060
1090
1110
- 1120
1140
.1150
.1160
4170
1210
• 1220
230
• 1305
'771310
1330
p1340
• 1345
*?1355
1375
1390
1395
1400
i04410
1610
• 1720
1730
1740
• 1750
1810
1820
1830
1840
1905
1910
1915
1920
1930
1925
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2230
2240
2250
2260
2310
2315
2320
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
• So. Co. Line
Fred Tuerk Rd.
C.R. 510
4th St.
12th St.
S.V.B. City Lmts
17th St.
21st St.
S.R. 60
S. V.B. City Lmts
Old Winter Beach Rd.
No. Co. Line
12th St.
S.V.B. City Lmts
17th St.
21st St.
S.R. 60
W.V.B. City Lmts
, I.R. Blvd W.V.B. City Lmts U.S. #1 @53rd St.
• 1-95 N. Co. Line C.R. 512
1-95 C.R. 512 S.R. 60
1-95 S.R. 60 Oslo Rd.
U.S. #1 So. Co. Line , Oslo Rd.
,• , U.S. #1 Oslo Rd. 4th St.
• U.S. #1 S.V.B. City Lmts 17th St.
• U.S. #1 S.R. 60 Royal Palm P1.
U.S. #1 Royal Palm P1. Atlantic Blvd
• U.S. #1 N.V.B. City Lmts Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. #1 49th St. 65th St.
U.S. #1 Old Dixie Hwy. Schumann Dr.
, U.S. #1 Schumann Dr. C.R. 512
-,. U.S. #1 C.R. 512 N. Seb: City Lmts
U.S. #1 Roseland Rd. '- N.C. Line
Roseland Rd C.R. 512 4.* N. Seb. City Lmts
.. - C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510
C.R. 512 C.R. 510 . W. Seb. City Lmts
C.R. 512 W. Seb. City Lmts Roseland Rd
C.R. 512 Roseland Rd. U.S. #1
C.R. 510 C.R. 512 66th Ave.
• C.R. 510 66th Ave. 58th Ave.
C.R. 510 58th Ave. U.S. #1
C.R. 510 U.S. #1 S.R. A1A
S.R. 60 W. Co. Line C.R. 512
S.R. 60 C.R. 512 1-95
S.R. 60 1-95 82nd Ave.
S.R. 60 82nd Ave. 66th Ave.
S.R. 60 58th Ave. 43rd Ave.
S.R. 60 66th Ave. 58th Ave.
S.R. 60 43rd Ave. 27th Ave.
S.R. 60 27th Ave. 20th Ave.
S.R. 60 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy.
S.R. 60 Old Dixie Hwy. 10th Ave.
S.R. 60 10th Ave. U.S. #1
S.R. 60 U.S. #1 I.R. Blvd
S.R. 60 •I.R. Blvd ICWW
16th St. 58th Ave. 43rd Ave.
16th St. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave.
16th St. 27th Ave. 20th Ave.
16th St. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy.
16th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. #1
12th St. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave.
12th St. 27th Ave. 20th Ave.
12th St. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy.
12th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. #1
O.Dixie Hwy.Oslo Rd. 4th St.
O.Dixie Hwy.4th St. 8th St.
O.Dixie Hwy.8th St. 12th St.
29
NOV 1.2 199i
1320
1310
1340
1760
1760
1760
1760
1760
1760
1760
3530
3530
3530
2300
2220
2270
2300
2300
2300
2650
2370
2370
2300
2320
630
•630
-- 630
630
630
630
630
630
630
540
540
1680
1760
2650
1760
2650
2600
1638
1638
1638
1638
1760
630
830
830
970
970
830
830
830
830
830
830
830.
DooK O E -17f.,2f)
r
. NOV 12 1991
Roadway
Segment Road
2325
2330
2335
2345
2350
2355
2360
2365
2430
2440
2450
2460
2470
2480
2510
2810
2820
2830
2840
2850
2860
2870
2905
2910
2915
2920
2925
2930
2940
2945
2950
3005
3010
3015 -
3020
3025
3030
3035
3040
3045
3050
3055
3120
3130
3140
3150
3160
3170
4220
4230
4240
4250
4320
4330
4340
4350
4420
4430
4440
4450
4460
4720
4730
4740
4750
4830
4840
4850
4860
4870
4930
4940
4950
4960
4970
From
To
EOOK FA( L
0.Dixie
O.Dixie
O.Dixie
O.Dixie
0.Dixie
0.Dixie
0.Dixie
O.Dixie
27th
27th
27th
27th
27th
27th
-27th
20th
20th
20th
20th
20th
20th
20th
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
66th
66th
66th
66th
66th
66th
49th
49th
49th
49th
Hwy.l2th St.
Hwy.S. V.B. Cty.Lmts
Hwy.l6th St.
Hwy.41st St.
Hwy.45th St.
Hwy.49th St.
Hwy.65th St.
Hwy.69th St.
Ave. 4th St.
Ave. 8th St.
Ave. 12th St.
Ave. S. V.B. Cty
Ave. 16th St.
Ave S.R. 60
Ave. : Atlantic Blvd.
Ave. Oslo. Rd.
Ave. 4th St.
Ave. 8th St.
Ave 12th St.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.-
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
Ave.
St.
St.
St.
St.
Lmts
45th St.
45th St.
45th St.
45th St.
41st St.
41st St.
41st St.
41st St.
37th St.
26th St.
26th St.
26th St.
26th St.
8th St.
8th St.
8th St.
8th St.
8th St.
4th St.
4th St.
4th St.
4th St.
4th St.
S. V.B. Cty Lmts
16th
S.R. 60
So. Co. Line
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
16th St.
26th St.
41st St.
45th St.
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th
16th
S.R.
41st
45th
49th
65th
69th
S.R.
26th
41st
45th
St-...
St.
60
St.
St.
St.
St.
St.
60
St.
St.
St.
65th St.
69th St.
66th Ave.
58th Ave."
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Aviation Blvd
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
S. V.B. City Lmts
16th St.
S.R. 60
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
C.R. 510
8th St.
12th St.
S. V.B. City Limits
16th St.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd
Aviation Blvd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
S. V.B. City Lmts.
16th St.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
16th St.
S.R. 60
41st St.
45th St.
49th St.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
16th St.
S.R. 60
41st St.
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
C.R. 510
26th St.
41st St.
45th St.
65th St.
69th St.
C.R. 510
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
I.R. Blvd
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
I.R. Blvd
I.R. Blvd
58th Ave
43rd Ave
Aviation Blvd
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
co
00
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
830
.830
830
630
630
630
630
630
830
830
830
830
830
830
830
630
630
630
1760
1760
1760
1760
630
630
630
630
830
830
630 ;
630
'630
630
630 ..
630'-
630
.830
830
630
630
630
630.
630
630
630
630`.
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
980
_630
630
630
630
630
630
630
830
830
630
630
630
630
630
30
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1010 665 50 715 605 24 Y
1060 320 54 374 936 34 Y
1090 275 10 285 1055 9 Y
1110 801 59 860 900 96 Y
1120 801 60 861 899 145 Y
1130 801 63 864 896 145 Y
1140 612 46 658 1102 145 Y
1150 - 612 54 666 1094 145 Y
1160 90 65 155 1605 160 Y
1170 0 83 83 1677 483 Y
1210 1030 40 1070 2460 48 Y
,1220 1030 5 1035 2495 48 Y -
1230 1120 0 1120 2410 24 Y
1305 .1102 95 1197 1103 24 Y
1310 1526 115 1641 579 96 Y
1330 1341 10 1351 919 73 Y
*1340 1143 18 1161 1139 48 Y
1345 1143 51 1194 1106 96 Y
1355 1309 132 1441 859 48 Y
1375 747 90 837 1813 96 Y
1390 815 61 836 1494 7.3 Y
1395 950 39 989 1381 . 34 Y
:1400 945 16 961 1339 9 Y
1410 887 5 892 1428 5 Y
1610 207 2 209 421 10 Y
1720 310 7 7317 313 48 Y
1730 288 0 288 ..342 18 Y
1740 355 `0 355 275 18 Y
1750 418 2 420 210 18 Y
'1810 162 •_20 182 448 36 :Y
1820 162 29 191 439 48 Y
:1830 360 -30 390 240 24 Y
.1840 346 28 . 374 256 12 Y
`1905 292° 1 293 247 12 Y
-1910 d ;. 292 14 _: 306 234 24 Y
1915 734 37 • '.771 909 48 . Y
1920 Y 950 67 1017 743 48
1925 972 93 1065 695 48
1930 972 39 1011 1639 54
1935 612 34 646 2004 73
1940 878 24 902 1698 73
1945 747 3 750 .888 73
1950 747 • 10 757 881 73
1955 , ,'_,. 747 8 755 ::883 73
1960 ry 509 4 513 1125 48
1965 846 43 889 871 48
2020121 1 122 708 • 5
:2030 �' 337 0 337 493 5 Y
2040 463 0 463 367 8 Y
2050 851 0 851 119 10 Y
2060 851 9 860 110 12 Y
2230 225 7 232 598 24 Y
2240 400 1 401 429 24 Y
2250 400 5 405 425 48 Y
2260 527 29 556 274 48 Y
2310 427 15 442 .388 5 Y
2315 432- 0 432 398 5 Y
2320 504 1 505 325 12 Y
2325 441 17 458 372 12 Y
2330 441 17 458 372 12 Y
2335 139 20 159 671 24 Y
2345 139 0 139 491 24 Y
2350 139 0 139 491 24 Y
2355 76 0 76 554 24 Y
2360 76 0 76 554 24 Y
2365 76 0 76 554 7 Y
2430 405 0 405 425 2 -Y
2440 405 0 405 425 4 Y
2450 369 5 374 456 6 Y
2460 369 6 375 455 7 Y
2470 369 2 371 459 12 Y
2480 369 10 379 451 24 Y
2510 319 0 319 511 12 Y
2810 144 0 144 486 2 Y
2820 274 0 274 356 4 Y
31
NOV 1_2 1991
BOOK'°
4OV 12199
BOOK 84Ft Gt I�
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
2830
2840
2850
2860
2870
2905
2910
2915
2920
2925
2930
2940
2945
2950
3005
3010
3015
3020
3025
3030
3035
' 3040
3045
3050
3055
3120
3130
3140
3150
3160
3170
4220
4230
4240
` 4250
4320
4330
4340
'4350
4420
4430
4440
- 4450
4460
4720
4730
4740
4750
-4830
4840
4850
4860
4870
4930
- 4940
4950
4960
4970
-Water
310 • 0 310 320 6 - Y
297. 2 299 1461 7 Y
297 2 299 1461 12 Y
265 5 270 1490 17 Y
265 18 283 1477 24 Y
135 1 136 494 3 Y
225 2 227 403 5 Y
360 0 360 270 7 Y
454 0 454 176 12 Y
454 1 455 375 12 Y
373 1 374 456 12 Y
283 9 292 338 24 Y
166 1 167 463 18 Y
166 1 167 463 12 Y
144 9 153 477 -- 3 Y
144 6 150 480 5 Y
144 6 150 480 6 Y
144 21 165 465 8 Y
400 20 420 410 9 Y
414 29 443 387 24 Y
414 9 423 207 24 Y
414 9 423 207 12 Y
202 8 210 420 12 Y
175 6 ..181 449 8 Y
189 0 189 441 8 Y
180 4 184 446 12 Y
180 1 181 449 18 Y
180 2 182 448 24 Y
126 0 126 504 24 Y
126 0 126 504 8 Y
139 0 139 491 6 Y
153 4 157 473 8 Y
153 2 155 475 12 Y
153 2 - 155 475 24 Y
153 . 4 157 473 24 Y
130 0 130 500 12 `_. Y
130 1 131 499 15 Y
256 13 269 361 24 Y
256 44 300 330 48 Y
117 9 126 504 24 Y
117 31 148 482 - 24 Y
184 38 222 408 24 Y
184 39 223 407 48 Y
700 0 700 180 290 N
117 0 117 513 6 Y
117 2 119 511 12 Y
117 4 121 509 18 Y
117 8 125 505 24 Y.
99 9 108 522 12 Y
193 2 195 435 24 Y
342 0 342 488 24 Y
342 4 346 484 36 Y
351 3 354 476 36 Y
103 7 110 520 12 Y
216 5 221 409 24 Y
315' 8 323 307 36 Y
315 6 321 309 36 Y
450 1 451 179 36 Y
The site is located within the North County Water Service Area.
Since the North County Water Plant has not been built yet, this
area is served by the South Couaty Water Plant. A review of the
water capacity in that plant indicates a remaining capacity of
approximately 4 million gallons per day. With the most intense use
under the proposed land use designation, the subject property will
have a consumption rate of 116.96 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERUs), or 29,240 gallons per day. This is based upon the level of
service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. Since no ERUs
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 pay his impact fees and connect to the
county system at the time of development or to expand county water
32
facilities or pay for the expansion if capacity is not available at
the time of site 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 290,000 square feet on the subject
property will have a wastewater generation rate of 116.96
Equivalent Residential Units (ERUs), or 29,240 gallons per day.
This is based on the county's adopted level of service standard of
250 gallons per ERU per day. County wastewater service is
available to the site from the Central Wastewater Plant (Gifford).
The Central Wastewater Plant has an available capacity of 565,000
gallons per day. Since no ERUs 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
pay his impact fees and connect to the county system if capacity is
available at the time of development or to expand county wastewater
facilities or pay for the expansion if capacity is not available at
the time of site development. 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. Solid waste generation by a
290,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site will
be approximately 731 waste generation units (WGUs), or 2,165 cubic
yards of solid waste per year. This is based upon the 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. Based upon
staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can
accommodate the additional solid waste.
-Drainage 0.
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention 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-4
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.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards also apply, since a portion of the property is within a
floodplain. Consistent with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new
buildings shall have the lowest habitable floor elevation no lower
than the elevation of the 100 year flood elevation as shown on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM, or as defined in a more
detailed study report." Since the subject property lies within
Floud Zone AE, which ib a ,peciai flood ha4ard area located within
the 100 -year floodplain, any development on this property must have
a minimum finished floor elevation of no less than seven (7) feet
above mean sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge level of service standards also apply to this request.
With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of
impervious surface for the proposed request will be approximately
884,000 square feet. The maximum run-off volume, based upon that
amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm,
33
NOV 1 2 1991
Root 84 fg,E
rr-
NOV
i21991
goo 84 Ft,I,E /64
will be 865,000 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's
adopted level of service, the applicant will be required to retain
384,155 cubic feet of run-off on-site. It is estimated that the
pre -development run-off rate is 8.0 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 8.0 cubic feet per second, requiring on-site
retention of 384,155 cubic feet of run-off for the most intensive
use of the property, and requiring that all finished floor
elevations exceed seven feet above mean sea level.
-Recreation
Concurrency for recreation is not applicable to this request, as
the request is for hospital/commercial development, and recreation
levels of service apply only to residential development.
With the execution of the developer's agreements as referenced
above in the transportation, water and wastewater sections, the
concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.
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
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, recreation, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses 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 statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions - including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies.
-Future Land Use Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment •request, the most important
consideration -is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to
approve a land use amendment request.- These criteria are:
* a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan
* an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property
Based upurt' sLaii dote mivaLiuii, this land use amendment does meet
one of the three criteria as stated above.
The first two criteria allow the county to approve a request to
amend the land use map only if a mistake or oversight was made
regarding the property during preparation of the comprehensive
plan. While preparing the comprehensive plan, the county analyzed
each commercial node and its market area and determined node size
based'upon the amount of existing development and potential growth
projected through the year 2010 within the general market area of
the node. From this research, the county then established each
34
node boundary and specified each node's size. The 20 acres of
subject property that are the subject of this amendment request
were considered at that time and were not included in the U.S. #1
and 37th Street Hospital/Commercial Node. Therefore, there was no
mistake nor oversight made in relation to the subject property -when
preparing the comprehensive plan.
The third criterion of Policy 13.3 allows the county to amend the
land use map if changes in circumstances affecting the subject
property have occurred since the 1990 adoption of the comprehensive
plan. Such a change could relate to the property itself, such as
an unforeseen adjacent incompatible use being established or a
significant change in adjacent development patterns having
occurred.
•
In this case, the subject property will be significantly affected
by the future construction of Indian River Boulevard on the site's
eastern boundary. The construction of the Boulevard will change
the development pattern in this area, as it will isolate the
subject property by creating -a barrier to the east. By isolating
the subject property, the boulevard will separate_ the site from
comparably designated land to the east. As a result, the property
will become unsuitable for residential development by having
intense medical office uses contiguous to the west and a programmed
four (4) and ultimately six (6) lane roadway abutting to the east.
Staff feels that the construction of the boulevard constitutes a
change in circumstances, making the proposal consistent with policy
13.3.
-Future Land Use Policy 1.20
`
uture Land Use Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a
,designated size based- on the intended use classification and
service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand
characteristics. A review of this policy 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 ±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. While a change in the land use
designation of the subject property from multi -family to commercial
will affect these totals, other considerations must be made.
First, it must be noted that hospital/commercial nodes are
specialized areas with substantially different uses than other
types of nodes. Therefore, a comparison of this node with all
other nodes in terms of excess commercial acreage must consider
this fact. Secondly, the characteristics of the subject property,
particularly its physical separation from non -node land to the east
by the construction of Indian River Boulevard, affect its potential
use. This is a case where the property's inclusion in the node
would be warranted based upon its unsuitability for residential
development rather than a market need to expand the node.
-Future Land Use Policy 1..23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area
(less rights-of-way) is developed, approved for development, or
otherwise warranted by the proposed development. The intent of
Policy 1.23 is to establish specific criteria for node expansion.
Without such criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and
inconsistent. The 70% standard then is a measure of whether a node
needs to be expanded. For that reason, calculating the developed
percent of a node involves determining the acreage characterized by
existing development and approved commercial site plans and then
dividing that amount by the total node acreage.
35
NOV 121991
EOOK,4
PM L i ��
NOV 42 1999
BOOK 8 PAGE 766
When the subject request was submitted, staff needed to determine
whether or not the request met the 70% development criterion to
qualify for node expansion. Staff undertook this analysis by
compiling a list of all parcels in the node, obtaining the acreage
of each parcel from the Property Appraiser's tax maps, and
aggregating these acreage amounts. By using this method, staff
calculated the node's size to be approximately 230 acres.
Once the total node acreage was established, it was necessary for
the staff to determine the percent developed. Again, the staff
used the Property Appraiser's information to do this. Based upon
tax and use codes, the staff determined which parcels were
developed and then calculated the acreage of the developed parcels.
Based upon field inspections, the staff compiled an accurate list
of developed parcels in the node.
For purposes of this analysis, parcels were considered developed if
they contained commercial/medical development. The total developed
percentage of the node was determined to be ±112 acres, which
constitutes only 49% of the node acreage. Since the developed
percentage is much less than 70%, this amendment request would be
inconsistent with Policy 1.23.
However, while the developed percentage of the node is well under
the 70% required, Policy 1.23 states a node may be expanded if
expansion is otherwise warranted by the proposed development. In
this case, the subject property and the node as a whole are being
substantially affected by the future construction of Indian River
Boulevard. Since the boulevard will effectively isolate the
subject property from similar land to the east and make the site
unsuitable for residential development, staff feels that node
expansion is otherwise warranted and therefore consistent with
Policy 1.23.
-Economic Development Policy 1.10
Economic Development Policy 1.10 can also be applied to the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment request. Policy 1.10 states
that, "The county shall utilize existing industries as a magnet to
attract new development, including support businesses for
industries located in Indian River and surrounding counties."
Generally, institutional industries such as hospitals will attract
support services (clinics, pharmacies, florists, bookstores, etc)
to their proximity. Indian River Memorial Hospital is no
exception. In the past, the 37th Street/U.S.. #1
Hospital/Commercial node has attracted surgery centers, dentist
offices, rehabilitation centers and other related offices and
clinics. The applicant proposes medical development of the
property as well. The subject property is located in proximity to
the hospital and shares the •same collector roadway, and is
therefore consistent with Policy 1.10.
-Future Land Use Policy 1.21
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 must be reviewed for consistency with that policy. This
plan amendment - is consistent with policy 1.21, because it would
produce in -fill development to the land -locked portion of the
subject property. With the Indian River Medical Center abutting
the western boundary of the subject property and the future Indian
River Boulevard abutting the eastern boundary of the property,
designation of the subject property as hospital/commercial would
have a square -off, in -fill effect and would not produce a strip
pattern.
36
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
In contemplating the proposed land use designation amendment, the
presence of estuarine wetlands on the subject property is an
important factor to consider. Conservation element policy 5_.4 of
the comprehensive plan provides that all estuarine wetlands are
deemed environmentally sensitive, and shall have a 1 unit per 40
acre development density, with a development density transfer
credit of 1 unit per acre (being a C-2 conservation designation).
For purposes of identifying the areal extent of wetlands on a site,
policy 5.1. oftheconservation element provides that wetland
delineation "shall be consistent with federal, state, and regional
jurisdictional regulatory agencies". Additionally, LDR Chapter
928, Wetlands and Deepwater Habitat Protection, states that the
landward extent of wetlands shall be determined "based on the
broadest jurisdictional line of reviewing regulatory state and
federal agencies" (Section 928.06(1)(a)).
It is important to distinguish between the regulatory agencies'
"broadest jurisdictional line" and permitting requirements or
exemptions. A wetland that satisfies an agency's criteria for
wetland delineation but falls short of the agency's permitting
threshold is still deemed an environmentally sensitive wetland for
county land use and zoning designation purposes.
Future land use element policy 1.31 explains that the exact
boundaries of the C-2 conservation district shall be determined by
environmental survey. From the standpoint of timing, there are two
alternatives regarding site specific determination of C-2
designation boundaries. The first approach would be to require the
applicant to conduct an environmental survey (verified by staff)
prior to land use amendment approval.
The second approach would be to generally approve the land use
amendment, with the exact boundaries of the C-2 district determined
by an environmental survey prior to site development (as required
by coastal management policy 1.4 of the comprehensive plan). The
portion of the property then determined to be federal or state
jurisdictional wetlands shall retain a C-2 conservation
designation, with the remainder of the property having the "non -
sensitive" upland designation. Environmental planning staff find
the second approach acceptable, which is consistent withpast
county implementation policies.
Conservation policy 6.12 of the comprehensive plan provides that
15% of upland native plant community existing on site shall be
preserved _(reducible to 10% if preserved in one contiguous
"clump"). This policy is implemented via LDR Chapter 929, Upland
Habitat Protection, at the time of site development.
LDR Chapter 929 also implements the policies of conservation
objective 7 of the comprehensive plan, by requiring the developer
to conduct an environmental survey of the property prior to
development, and by requiring coordination with local, state, and
federal agencies to ensure that impacts to listed rare species are
avoided or minimized, as applicable.
Compatibility with -the Surrounding Area
Compatibility is not a major concern for this property. Although
the proposed request is for an expansion of the hospital/commercial
land use designation, it is anticipated that medical development on
the subject- site will maintain compatibility with the surrounding
areas. The area is predominately vacant land, with the boulevard
to be constructed on the eastern boundary of the site. Medical
development exists to the west, which is consistent with the type
of land use and zoning proposed for the subject site. The Vero
Beach Country Club Golf Course lies directly south of the site,
NOV
21 9r
37
BOJ . LiL FAia I b 6
Nov 2199'
EOO 4 PAGE lb8
creating a buffer between the medical area and residential uses to
the south. In addition, the site will be adequately buffered on
two sides by 37th Street and the future extension of Indian River
Boulevard, which provide physical barriers between the
residentially and medically zoned areas.
Another means of ensuring compatibility will be through landscaping
and buffering. At the time of development review, this site will
be required to meet the county's landscaping requirements and to
provide adequate buffering between any commercial/medical
development and adjacent residentially designated properties.
Based upon the analysis performed on the subject property, staff
feels that the requested commercial/medical zoning would be.
compatible with the surrounding area.
ALTERNATIVES
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found that the
site is compatible with the surrounding area and that the amendment
request is consistent with applicable comprehensive plan policies.
Staff, however, do have environmental concerns relating to the
development of the site. Staff have therefore identified
alternatives available to the applicant, and alternatives for the
Board of County Commissioners.
Alternatives for the Applicant
Based -upon staff review, the applicant has two alternatives for the
subject property. These are as follows:
Develop the portion of the subject property which is not
environmentally sensitive with the current residential land
use designation, transferring density from the wetlands to the
uplands portion of the site.
Pursue the land use plan amendment to redesignate the subject
property for medical uses.
As indicated above, the staff has concerns regarding the
environmental impacts of developing the site. These potential
environment impacts, however, may preclude development of the site
with either the existing or proposed land use designation. Since
environmental planning staff have determined that the site contains
a significant wetlands area, the applicant must prior to any land
development activity provide an environmental survey and written
verification from the Florida Department of Environmental
Regulation and the Army Corps of Engineers stating that this land
does not contain jurisdictional wetlands. Should the site be
determined to contain jurisdictional wetlands, the C-2,
Conservation designation will be applied to the wetlands areas, and
no medical development nor residential development other than one
single-family dwelling unit will be allowed in these wetlands
areas. If, however, it is determined that no jurisdictional
wetlands exist on-site, staff feels that medical development could
proceed on the property with fill and proper mitigation as required
in the county's land development regulations.
- Alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners
There are two alternatives for the county to take concerning the
requested land use amendment:
1. Approve the transmittal of this request to the Department of
Community Affairs; or
2. Deny the transmittal of this request to the Department of
Community Affairs.
38
Conclusion
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no
incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses. In
addition, as previously discussed, the future extension of Indian
River Boulevard has provided a change in circumstances affecting
the subject property which would allow an amendment to the
comprehensive plan based upon Future Land Use Policy 13.3.
Despite
pthese positive findings, staff has identified major
environmental issues which have not been addressed at this time.
These issues relate to the location of estuarine wetlands on the
subject property. Since the comprehensive plan addresses estuarine
wetlands through the assignment of an overlay district (the C-2
district with a low one unit per 40 acre development density) to
those areas determined by environmental survey to be estuarine
wetlands, the redesignation of the subject property to
Hospital/Commercial node is not incompatible with the potential
wetlands characteristics of the subject property. In fact, because
the entire property is not a wetlands, the proposed redesignation
would provide a viable use for uplands on the site, while the C-2
overlay will protect wetlands.
Staff supports the proposed land use amendment, recognizing that
the exact boundaries of the C-2 district will be determined at the
time of site development. The portion then determined to be
jurisdictional wetlands shall be subject to the C-2 conservation
designation and associated development restrictions.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon the analysis performed and the comprehensive plan
requirement• that estuarine wetlands delineated on the overall site
(prior to site development) shall have a C-2 conservation land use
designation, :'.staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners transmit the subject request to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA).
Chairman Bird felt the node boundaries should be expanded to
stretch to the right-of-way of Indian River Boulevard so that it
doesn't leave a little sliver of land in between.
Director Keating advised that in reviewing the
transportation concurrency requirements, staff found that we had
an inaccuracy in the way we calculated trip generations. Their
trip generation is less than what we had identified here. As a
matter of fact, even though we said in this item that this
proposed request would reduce the level of service on one of
those segments, one of our recalculations showed that will not be
the case. All of the segments have available capacity. Director
Keating asked the Board for authorization to make some minor
adjustments to this and the other items today before they are
sent to the DCA. Based on staff's traffic analysis, each of the
segments will be able to accommodate the proposed development and
there will not be a need for the applicant to enter into a
developer's agreement.
NOV 121991
39
FOOK 64 PAGE
IFF"-
NOV
BOOK 84 Pair '77 a
Director Keating explained the change in circumstances
provided for under Conclusion. He pointed out that although this
node is not 70o expanded, this is a circumstance where "otherwise
warranted" comes into play due to the northerly extension of
Indian River Boulevard being built on the east end of the site.
The Boulevard will constitute a barrier and actually separate
this property from other property to the east and essentially
squeeze this property between existing medical uses to the west.
With Barber Avenue to the north and the Boulevard to the east,
staff feels this is a circumstance which constitutes "otherwise
warranted." After looking at the other policies, staff feels
there is justification for expanding the node. The major issue
here is the environmental characteristics of the property. There
are definitely uplands on the property and staff feels the Comp
Plan's current requirements provide protection for the wetlands,
because even if this is redesignated to be part of the node, the
particular Comp Plan policies will prohibit development in any of
the areas that are deemed to be jurisdictional wetlands and the
only development that will be allowed in those areas is single-
family residential at a density of one unit per 40 acres. Staff
feels that since there are uplands on the property, it would not
be appropriate for single-family residential to be put in there
adjacent to the medical uses to the west and the Boulevard to the
east.
Summing up, Director Keating stated that staff is
recommending transmittal of the request to the DCA because they
feel the County's current environmental wetland policies provide
adequate protection, that the Boulevard is a change in
circumstance that isolates the property, and that the request is
consistent with various Comp Plan policies.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard on this matter. There being none, he closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the transmittal of the proposed land use amendment to
the DCA for their 90 -day review; approval includes the
minor changes to the trip generation rate in this item
and in the other items today, as requested by Director
Keating, and the inclusion in the node boundaries of
the sliver of land extending to the right-of-way of
Indian River Boulevard.
40
KAHN REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE ±888
ACRES FROM AG -2 TO AG -1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/29/91:
TO:
James Chandler
County Administrator
;;,DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
THROUGH:
FROM:
DATE: October 29, 1991
Saran Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
Cheryl A. Twore
Senior Planner, Long Range Planning
SUBJECT: Kahn Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate #888 Acres From AG -2 To AG -1
(LUDA-91-07-0175)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 12, 1991.
Comprehensive Plan Amendment Procedures and Timetable
The timetable for comprehensive plan amendment requests differs
from rezoning requests. According to Chapter 800 of the Indian
River County Land Development Regulations, requests for
'comprehensive plan amendments may be submitted only during the
"months of January and July each calendar year. The subject request
:was submitted with other requests received by the county in July,'°.
1991.
,As per Section 902.05 of the Land Development Regulations, the
Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider whether a proposed
comprehensive plan amendment is consistent with the overall growth
management goals and objectives of the county. Based upon its
review and consideration, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall
make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners
regarding 14e requested plan amendment. The Board shall then hold
a public hearing to decide on the transmittal of the proposed land
use amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) .
On September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission sitting
as the local planning agency voted 6-0 to recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve transmittal of the proposed land
use amendment request to the State Department of Community Affairs.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan. The subject
property is located west and south of the City of Fellsmere, south
of County Road 512 (Fellsmere Road), and is owned by Albert Kahn,
s Trustee. The land includes approximately 888 acres, all of
a4 r1
which is within the AG -2 land use designation. Other than
approximately five 10 acre tracts, the entire 888 acres are owned
by Mr. Kahn. Since authorization has been obtained from the owners
of the referenced 10 -acre tracts, the entire 888 acre property is
the subject of this request. The request involves changing the land
use designation for ±888 acres from AG -2, Agricultural -2 (up to 1
unit per 10 acres) to AG -1 Agricultural -1, (up to 1 unit per 5
acres). The applicant intends to develop the property with rural
residential uses.
41
L KU 12 Ng
BOOK 84 PAGE 771
IMP 12 199,1
NooK 84 FAGE _. 1
Besides the subject request, the applicant had originally submitted
a request for an additional 83 acres of property to be redesignated
from AG -1 to R, Rural, (up to 1 unit/acre). After review of that
request, staff recommended denial. Subsequently, the applicant
withdrew the 83 acre request, but opted to continue with the 888
acre plan amendment submittal.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property lies within the A-1, Agricultural -1 zoning
district, and consists of mostly vacant, undeveloped, 10 -acre
tracts of land within the plat of the Fellsmere Farms Subdivision.
The Fellsmere Farms Subdivision is an old plat of reclamation filed
by the Fellsmere Water Control District long before the county had
its present subdivision and platting requirements which ensure the
provision of basic infrastructure. Consequently, the Fellsmere
Farms Subdivision plat includes a series of ditches and adjacent
ditch right-of-way, none of which are dedicated to the public. The
ditch roads are located partially within the ditch right-of-way and
partially on the private 10 -acre tracts. While these unpaved roads
provide ingress and egress for the platted 10 -acre tracts, the
ditch roads are not publicly owned or maintained.
Properties to the north of the western portion of the property are
in the unincorporated county and have the same A-1 zoning
designation as the subject property; this area consists mostly of
undeveloped tracts of land, containing a few scattered single-
family residences. To the north of the eastern portion of the
subject property lies land within the unincorporated county.
Platted as the Homewood Subdivision, this land consists primarily`
of undeveloped tracts zoned A--1. Additional vacant tracts within,
the Plat of the Fellsmere Farms Subdivision lie to the east, and
these tracts have an A-1 zoning designation. Southern and western
properties are also zoned A-1 and contain larger tracts of
undeveloped and agricultural lands.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject ±888 acres and the properties to the south and west are:
included in the new AG -2 land use designation on the Future Land
Use Map. The redesignation of this land to AG -2 occurred on June,
18, 1991, when the Board of County Commissioners adopted plan
amendments to implement the Indian River County/DCA compliance
agreement. The AG -2, Agriculture -2, designation permits
agricultural uses and residential development at a density of one
unit per 10 acres.
Land to the east has an AG -1 land use designation, allowing up to
1 unit/5 acres. Located to the northeast of the subject property,
the Homewood Subdivision currently has an L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 -(up to 3 units/acre) land use designation. North of
the subject property, the land is designated AG -1, Agriculture -1,
and L-1, Low -Density Residential - 1 (up to 3 units/acre), on the
County's Future Land Use Map. The AG -1 designation permits
residential uses at a density of 1 unit per 5 acres.
Transportation
The subject property will have access to C.R. 512 (Fellsmere Road).
This two lane, paved segment of Fellsmere Road is classified as a
rural minor arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map; in this area, C.R. 512 has approximately two hundred
(200) feet of public road right-of-way.
Environment
The site consists largely of dry prairie, intermixed with pinelands
and 'isolated freshwater wetlands of various sizes. These
vegetative communities are relatively undisturbed, with the
exception of dirt access trails. Property appraiser blueprint
42
)
aerials (1988) and field inspections indicate that only a small
portion of the overall site has been converted to agricultural or
residential use. An environmental survey of flora and fauna
species has not been conducted.
Utilities and Services
This site lies outside of the urban service area and is not
serviced by county water or wastewater.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis
application will be presented.
description of:
Concurrency of public facilities
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
o Potential impact on environmental quality
o Compatibility with -the surrounding area
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
io
of the reasonableness of the
The analysis will include a
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is not located within the County Urban Service Area
(USA); therefore, this area is not deemed suited for urban scale
development. Future Land Use Policy 3.2 states that "no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system in the Capital Improvements Element".
Thus, all proposed development must be reviewed for impacts on
public services and facilities. The comprehensive plan establishes
standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid
Waste, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). 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 is required for comprehensive plan
amendments and rezoning requests. Conditional concurrency review
examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a
proposed project. Since comprehensive plan amendments and 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 residential comprehensive plan amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the county's LDR's) is
the maximum number of 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 the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: ±888 acres
2. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±888 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural
(up to 1 unit/5 acres)
4. Existing Land Use Designation: AG -2,
1 unit/10 acres)
5. Proposed Land Use Classification: AG -1
1 unit/5 acres)
6. Maximum Number of Units for Proposed
Units
121991
43
DistrieL,
Agricultural -2, (up to
, Agricultural -1 (up to
Plan Amendment: #178
ROOK 84 F Gt1173
P 12 1991
aOOK 84 FA [ jl
-Transportation
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. The site information
used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Detached Housing
2. For Single -Family Dwelling Units in ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 10.062/1 dwelling
units
b. P.M. Peak Hour Rate: 1.012/1 dwelling units
C. Outbound P.M. Peak Hour Split: 35%
d.,> Inbound P.M. Peak Hour Split: 65%
Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction:
Number of Single -Family Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X
Inbound P.M. percentage
(Trip distribution is based on a Modified Gravity Model)
a. `: P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction of Adjacent Roadway (CR
512): East
Total peak hour/peak season/peak direction Trips: 117
Traffic Capacity on this segment of C.R. 512 at a Level of
Service "C":
5.40 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
Existing Traffic Volume on this segment of C.R. 512:
307 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
Since the county's transportation level of service'is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis only addresses project traffic occurring in
the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted
roadways. In this case, C.R. 512 has more volume in the p.m. peak
hour than in the a.m. peak hour, so the p.m. peak hour was used for
the transportation concurrency analysis. According to recent count
data on C.R. 512, the peak direction during the p.m. peak hour is
east.
Given those conditions, the number of trips associated with this
request was determined by taking the total number of residential
units (178) allowed under the proposed land use, applying ITE's
1.012 p.m. peak hour trips per residential unit factor to get total
peak hour trips, and applying the ITE residential use p.m. peak
hour inbound factor of 65% to the total p.m. peak hour trips for
the use to get the east bound (peak direction) peak hour volume of
trips for the site. The same methodology was used to obtain the
site p.m. peak hour exiting volume; however, a 35% outbound factor
was used instead of the 65% inbound factor. Using a modified
gravity model and a hand assignment, these trips were then assigned
to roadways on the network.
As a result of this assignment, two volumes were obtained for each
impacted roadway segment. These volumes represent the p.m. peak
hour volume for each direction of the roadway. Using the volume
assigned to the peak direction of each roadway, a capacity
determination was made for each segment. This capacity
determination involved comparing the assigned volume to the
segment's available capacity.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
I methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
44
1
Transportation (FDOT) Level of Service (LOS) Manual. Available
capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic
volumes; this is updated daily, based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that C.R. 512 and the
other impacted 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 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 to
accommodate the most intense use allowed by the proposed amendment.
Roadway
Segment Road
1010
:.1020
1030
1040
1050
Y1060
1080
.1090
1335
1340
1610
1620
1710
1720
1730
1740
1750
1810
1820
1830
1840
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
1965
2335
2345
2350
2355
2360
2365
2410
2420
2430
2440
2450
2460
2470
2480
2510
2905
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
S.R. A1A
U.S. #1
U.S. #1
Roseland Rd.
Roseland Rd.
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 510
C.R. 510
C.R. 510
C.R. 510
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. -60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60 ..
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
O. Dixie
O. Dixie
O. Dixie
U. Dixie
O. Dixie
O. Dixie
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
L NOV 12 19..91
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy
So. Co. Line
So. V.B. City Lmts
17th St.
S.R. 60
N. V.B. City Lmts
Fred Tuerk Rd.
O. Winter Beach Rd.
N. I.R.S. Line
C.R. 510
17th St.
S.R. 60
C.R. 512
N. Seb. City Lmts
S.R. 60
I-95
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City Lmts
Roseland Rd.
C.R. 512
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
U.S. #1
W. Co. Line
C.R. 512
I-95
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
U.S. #1 -
I.R. Blvd.
16th St.
41st St.
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
So. Co. Line
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
S. V.B. City Lmts
16th St.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd
S. Co. Line
45
S. V.B. City Lmts
17th St.
S.R. 60
N. V.B. City Lmts
Fred Tuerk Rd.
O. Winter Beach Rd.
N. I.R.S. Line
C.R. 510
N. Co. Line
S.R. 60
Royal Palm Place
N. Seb. City Lmts
U.S. #1
I-95
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City
Roseland Rd.
U.S. #1
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
U.S. #1
S.R. A1A
C.R. 512
I-95
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
U.S. #1
I.R. Blvd.
ICWW
S.R. 60
45th St.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
C.R. 510
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
8th St.
12th St.
S. V.B. City Lmts
16th St.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
Aviation Blvd..
Oslo Rd.
1320
1320
1060
1120
1240 :.
1310
1310
1310
1340
2270
2300
630
630
540*
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
630
540*
540*
1680
1760
1760
2650
2650
2600
1638
1638
1638
1638
1760
830
630
630
630
630
630
630
830
830
830
830
830
830
830
830
630
E OOK 84 PAGE 11
0V _21
Roadway
Segment Road From To
2910 43rd Ave. Oslo Rd.
2915 43rd Ave. 4th St.
2920 43rd Ave. 8th St.
2925 43rd Ave. 12th St.
2930 43rd Ave. 16th St.
2935 43rd Ave. S.R. 60
2940 43rd Ave. 26th St.
2945 43rd Ave. 41st St.
2950 43rd Ave. 45th St.
3005 58th Ave. Oslo Rd.
3010 58th Ave. 4th St.
3015 58th Ave. 8th St.
3020 58th Ave. 12th St.
3025 58th Ave. 16th St.
3030 58th Ave. S.R. 60
3035 58th Ave. 41st St.
3040 58th Ave. 45th St.
3045 58th Ave. 49th St.
3050 58th Ave.65th St.
3055 58th Ave. 69th St.
3120 66th Ave. S.R. 60
3130 66th Ave .26th St.
3140 66th Ave. 41st St.
3150 66th Ave. 45th St.
3160 66th Ave. 65th St.
3170 66th Ave 69th St.
oaK F„ c[ 7 I
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
4th St. 630
8th St. 630
12th St. 630
16th St. 830
S.R. 60 830
26th St. 830
41st St. 630
45th St. 630
49th St. 630
4th St. 630
8th St. 630
12th St. 630
16th st. 630
S.R. 60 830
41st St. 830
45th St. 630
49th St. 630
65th St. 630
69th St. 630
C.R. 510 630
26th St. _ 630
41st St. 630
45th St. 630
65th St. 630
69th St. 630
C.R. 510 630
* Rural Arterial at Level of Service "C"
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1010
1020
1030
1040
1050
1060
1070
1080
1090
1335
1340.
1610
1620
1710
1720
1730
1740
1750
1810
1820
1830
1840
1905
1910
1915
1920
1925
1930
1935
1940
1945
1950
1955
1360
1965
2335
2345
2350
2355
2360
2365
2410
2420
2430
2440
2450
665 50 715 605 1 Y
655 39 704 '616 1
805 28 833 227 1
890 31 921 199 1
760 38 798 442 1• Y
320 54 374 936 2 Y
320 54 374 936 2 Y
320 5 325 985 2 Y:
275 10 285 1055 2 Y
1341 3 1344 926 7 Y
1143 18 1161 1139 7 Y
207 2 209 421 7 Y
342 3 345 285 73 Y
297 10 307 233 117 _ Y
310 7 317 313 26 Y
288 0 288 342 20 Y
355 0 355 275 20 Y
418 2 420 210 7 Y
162 20 182 448 7 Y
162 29 191 439 7 Y
360 30 390 240 7 Y
346 28 374 256 2 Y
292,. 1 293 247 13 Y
292 14 306 234 20 Y
734 37 771 909 26 Y
950 67 1017 743 26 Y
972 93 1065 695 26 Y
972 39 1011 1639 26 Y
612 34 646 2004 20 Y
878 24 902 1698 20 Y
747 3 750 888 20 Y
747 10 757 881 20 Y
747 8 755 883 20 Y
509 4 513 1125 7 Y
846 43 889 871 2 Y
139 20• 159 671 2 Y
139 0 139 491 2 Y
139 0 139 491 2 Y
76 0 76 554 2 Y
76 0 76 554 2 Y
76 0 76 554 2 Y
319 11 330 300 3 Y
391 5 396 434 3 Y
405 0 405 425 3 Y
405 0 405 425 3 Y
369 5 374 456 3 Y
46
Existing Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
2460 369 6 375 455 3 Y
2470 369 2 371 459 3 •Y
2480 369 10 379 451 2 Y
2510 319 0 319 511 2
2905 135 1 136 494 2 Y
2910 225 2 227 403 2 Y
2915 360 0 360 270 2 Y
2920 454 0 454 176 2 Y
2925 454 1 455 375 2 Y
2930 .373 1 374 456 2 Y
2935 __ 373 9 382 448 2 Y
2940 283 9 292 338 2 Y
2945 166 1 167 463 2 Y
2950 166 1 167 463 2 Y
3005 144 9 153 477 3 Y
3010 144 6 150 480 3 Y
3015 144 6 150 480 3 Y
3020 144 21 165 465 3 Y
'3025 400 20 420 410 7 Y
3030 414 29 443 387 7 Y
3035 414 9 423 207 4_ Y
3040 414 9 423 207 4 Y
3045 202 8 210 420 4 Y
3050 175 6 181 449 3 Y
3055 189 0 189 441 3 Y
3120 180 4 184 446 3 Y
3130 180 1 181 449 3 Y
;.3140 180 2 182 448 3 Y
''3150 a" .' 126 . 0 126 504 3 Y
3160 126 0 126 504 3 Y
-3170 139 0 139 491 3 Y
-Water
As stated previously, the subject property is located outside of
the urban service area; therefore, county water service is not
currently available for this site. Since developed lots forthe
site will be at least five (5) acres in size and located outside of
the USA, individual wells can be used on each lot, consistent with
the Department of Environmental Health's requirements. This is
consistent with Potable Water Policy 1.6, which allows the use of
private wells for single family units in rural areas, where
approved by regulatory agencies. With these conditions, the
potable water concurrency test has been met for the subject
request.
-Wastewater
As with centralized water service, county wastewater service is not
currently available for this site, since the property is located
outside of the county's urban service area. Because developed lots
for the site will be at least five (5) acres in size and located
outside of the•USA, individual septic tanks may be used on each lot
consistent with the requirements of the Department of Environmental
Health. This is consistent with Sanitary Sewer policy 1.6 which
allows septic tanks for single family units in rural areas, where
approved by regulatory agencies. With these conditions, the
wastewater 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. Solid waste generation by 178
units on the subject site will be approximately 284 Waste
Generation Units (WGUs), or 841 cubic yards per year. This is
based upon the level of service standard of 2.3.7 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 900,00 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
47
NOV ' 2 1991
y'
BOOK 84 PAUL 777
Pr"
NOV 121991
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 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-5
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.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do apply, since portions of the property are located
within a floodplain. As per Drainage Objective 1, as well as
Drainage Policy 1.1, "New development requiring major site plan
approval or subdivision platting shall construct a complete
drainage system to mitigate the impacts of a 25 year/24 hour design
rainfall using the Soil Conservation Service. Type 2 Modified
Rainfall curves. Post development runoff shall not exceed pre -
development runoff unless a maximum discharge rate has been adopted
for the applicable drainage basin and the discharge does not exceed
that rate." Consistent with Drainage Policy 1.2, "All new
buildings shall have the lowest habitable floor elevation no lower
than the elevation of the 100 year flood elevation as shown on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FIRM) or as defined in a more
detailed study report."
Parts of the site, especially along the ditches, are located within
Flood Zone A, which is a special flood hazard area located within
the 100 -year floodplain. No minimum elevation standard is
specified for the A flood zone on the Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
this portion of the county. The remainder of the property is
located in Flood Zone X, which is located outside the 500 -year
floodplain and is classified a minimal flood zone area.
Both the on-site retention and discharge standards of the drainage
sub -element also apply to this request. With the most intense use
of this site, the maximum impervious surface area for the proposed
request will be 890,000 square feet. The maximum run-off volume
for the design storm, based upon the amount of impervious surface,
will be 5,000 cubic feet for each unit or 890,000 cubic feet for
the total 178 units. In order to maintain the county's adopted
level of service, the applicant will be required to retain 74,000
cubic feet of run-off in swales. It is estimated that the pre -
development run-off rate is 24.25 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 24.25 cubic feet per second and requiring
retention of the 74,000 cubic feet of run-off for the most
intensive use of the property. Since no minimum floor elevation
has been established in this area on the FIRM maps, the level of
service standards for minimum floor elevation will be met at the
time of building permit approval. At that time the lowest
habitable floor elevation, consistent with Drainage Policy 1.2,
will be determined by the design engineer and approved by_ the
building department.
Because of the drainage characteristics existing in this area, the
county engineer has indicated that special drainage conditions
should be applied to any single family residential building permit
approval in this area. These conditions which will be applied to
each lot at the time of the single family concurrency review will
specify that the applicant shall use shallow swales to collect and
store''runoff from the site for attenuation and .treatment purposes
prior to direction to the canal system. so as to eliminate standing
nuisance water in inappropriate areas. With these conditions,
48
concurrency for drainage will be met.
-Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed land use designation
indicates that adopted levels of service would be maintained. The
table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with
the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus
acreage by park type. This indicates that the level of service
would be maintained.
L.O.S. Project
(acres per Demand
Park Type 1000 population) (acres)
Urban District 5.0 .83
Community (North) 3.0- .50
Beach 1.5 .25
River 1.5 .25
Surplus
Acreage
195
24
69
30
As shown above, a positive concurrency determination has been made
for all components of the county Concurrency Management System.
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
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, recreation, 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 statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county 'land
development related decisions - including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies.
-Future Land Use Policy 13.3
In evaluating- a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
* a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan
* an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property
Based upon staff determination, the subject land use amendment
request to redesignate 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1 does meet one of
the three criteria as stated above.
The first two criteria allow the county to approve a request to
amend the land use map only if a mistake or oversight was made
during plan preparation, adoption, or amendment. The third
criterion of Policy 13.3 allows the county to amend the land use
map if changes in circumstances affecting the subject property have
219
49 84 P4E 77L%
Pr-
gQVV 1_2 199
r{OCK
occurred since the 1990 adoption of the comprehensive plan. Such
changes could relate to the property itself, such as an unforeseen
adjacent incompatible use being established or a significant change
in adjacent development patterns occurring.
Regarding the 888 acre request, staff is of the opinion that this
land use amendment request to AG -1 is warranted based on an
oversight which occurred when the county adopted the compliance
agreement to the comprehensive plan on June 18, 1991. The subject
property's land use designation was AG, Agricultural (up to 1
unit/5 acres), prior to implementation of the compliance agreement.
In June of 1991, the county changed the land use of the property to
its current land use designation of AG -2, which will allow half the
AG -1 density.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in February, 1990, there
was only one agricultural land use designation; this was AG, which
allowed a density of one (1) unit per five (5) acres. As part of
its compliance agreement with DCA, the county reduced its
residential allocation ratio by several means. One way in which
this ratio was reduced involved redesignating_ the county's
agriculturally designated land into three land use categories: AG -
1, (1 unit/5 acres); AG -2, (1 unit/10 acres); and AG -3, (1
unit/20 acres). At that time, staff was aware that a transition
was needed between the higher density areas within the City of
Fellsmere and the Plat of Homewood, and the adjacent AG -2,
Agricultural -2, land use designation. As a result, a transitional
density of the AG -1 land use was applied to a portion of the land
surrounding the Fellsmere and Homewood areas to the east, north and
northwest. An oversight, however, was made regarding the
establishment of a transitional area for the portion of land to the
southwest and south of the Fellsmere and Homewood areas. Based on
its more -detailed analysis, it is staff's opinion that a
transitional land use designation should be established in the
areas southwest and south of the Fellsmere and Homewood areas.
Any proposed land use amendment that would increase density must be
evaluated to determine the effect of additional dwelling units on.
the county residential allocation ratio. This ratio is the <,'
relationship between the number of residential units allowed by the_
plan and the number needed within the plan's 20 year time horizon:
based on population projections. In its compliance agreement with
DCA, the county established a residential allocation ratio_of 4.48.
This 4.48 ratio was based on the following formula:
Projected # of Units (119739) -Existing Units (26000
Additional Units Needed Between 1991-2010 (20887)
While the proposed land use plan amendment would increase the
number of units that could be built on the subject property from 88
to 178, this would have no effect on the residential allocation
ratio. No change in the ratio would occur because both the
existing land use designation and the proposed designation are non-
urban categories, and the county's residential allocation ratio
considered only those units which could be built within the urban
service area.
It is staff's position that the proposed land use change would not
provide justification for adjacent property owners to the west and
south to request a higher residential land use designai.ien. i iit
surrounding area is predominantly agricultural in use, and it is
projected that the agricultural use will remain as such for the
next twenty years.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.8
Future Land Use Policy 1.8 states that the agricultural land use
designation is intended for uses such as agricultural uses,
recreation uses and residential uses. Since the subject property
is located outside the urban service area and the applicant
50
proposes to develop the property
at one (1) unit per five (5)
consistent with policy 1.8
designation policy.
with rural residential development
acres, the proposed request is
and the agricultural land use
Potential Impacts on Environmental Quality
Under either the present AG -2 land use designation or the proposed
AG -1 designation, the property could be developed for bonafide
agricultural uses, with the result being a loss of the site's
natural resources. In that agriculture is exempt from the county's
native upland preservation set-aside requirement, the agricultural
development scenario affords little local control for native upland
protection.
Residential development, however, would be subject to county upland
protection regulations, under either the AG -1 or AG -2 designations,
since the upland set-aside requirements apply to any development on
parcels five (5) acres or larger in size.
The iprovisions of LDR Chapter 928 implement the policies of
conservation objective 5 of the comprehensive plan, pertaining to
wetland and deepwater habitat protection. Such regulations apply
to agricultural uses and .residential development, as well.
Therefore, wetland impacts will be subject to local regulatory
control at the time of site development, regardless of the
development type, and the proposed land use designation change
would have no effect on wetland protection.
The policies of conservation objective 7 of the comprehensive plan
address the protection of wildlife habitat, particularly "critical"
,habitat of state or federally listed rare flora and fauna species.
As previously mentioned, an environmental survey of the overall
property has not been conducted as of this time. However, the
provisions of LDR Chapter 929, Upland Habitat Protection, require
a developer to conduct an environmental survey prior to site
development, to identify any rare species occurring on site.
Moreover, Chapter 929 requires a developer to coordinate with state
;and federal wildlife agencies to protect listed rare species to the
extent feasible, as applicable.
It should be noted that the environmental survey provisions o
Chapter 929 (and associated species/habitat protection
requirements) do not apply to bonafide agricultural uses. However,
conservation policy 7.1 of the comprehensive plan commits the
county to conducting (in the near future) a county -wide rare
species survey, which will alert applicable regulatory agencies to
potential development/critical habitat protection conflicts. In
comparing the existing land use designation to the proposed revised
designation, this matter is not an effective issue, in that
potential land uses under either designation are equally exempt or
controlled.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Areas
In assessing land use compatibility for the subject request, it is
staff's position that even though -there is a difference in the
magnitude of change between the existing AG -2 and the proposed AG -
1, the potential adverse effects in terms of land use compatibility
with adjacent properties are not substantially different. The
principal difference involves residential development densities.
The difference between AG -2 and AG -1 is not easily perceived in the
field, since both 5 -acre tracts and 10 -acre tracts are large,
houses are dispersed, and compatibility problems are minimal. Of
more concern with respect to this request is the potential for more
redesignation requests for AG -2 property. While no major
compatibility problems occur between AG -2 and AG -1 properties, the
AG -2 designation does provide benefits in terms of sprawl reduction
51
NOV 12 1991
/04
�oo�. F,,[E 03
Pr -
WO\; 2
BOOK 84 FAcE 782
and agricultural preservation. This occurs because the low AG -2
density reduces the number of dwelling units allowed and provides
for large minimum parcel sizes that can accommodate productive
agricultural operations.
Regarding compatibility then, it is staff's position that the
proposed AG -2 to AG -1 change would not create significant
compatibility problems.
Infrastructure
Although the concurrency rule provides a mechanism to ensure that
off-site infrastructure will be adequate to support a proposed
development, this requirement does not address on-site facilities.
Since the county has strict site plan and subdivision controls
within its land development regulations, on-site infrastructure
provision is seldom a problem. In this case, however, the proposed
redesignation of 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1 does present a
problem.
Since the entire property was divided into 10 -acre tracts by the
Fellsmere Farms plat of reclamation, each of these tracts is
considered a lot of record. As a separate lot, each 10 -acre tract
could be split one time without the need to comply with county
subdivision regulations - if the land use designation for the
property were changed from AG -2 to AG -1. The result would be a
doubling of the number of lots (and people) in this area without
any provision for necessary facilities.
As referenced in the descriptions section of this report, the plat
of reclamation which created the 10 -acre tracts on the subject
property did not provide for adequate roads or drainage. Roadways
in this area are ditch roads and are either in ditch (Fellsmere
Water Control District) rights-of-way or.on private property. In
either case, all property owners do not have legal rights to use
these roads.
Approval of the proposed AG -2 to AG -1 amendment would double the
potential impact on those ditch roads. Based upon recent events,
it can be expected that residents in these areas will demand that
the county maintain and eventually pave these roadways.
A similar situation exists with respect to drainage in this area.
Although a 1 unit/5 acre density is extremely low, no coordinated
drainage system of swales and easements exists in this area to
accommodate runoff from the potential 5 -acre lots and channel it to
the canals.
Because the owner of the subject property could double the density
of this land without providing even minimal infrastructure
requirements, -the county would risk the creation of an inadequate
situation. Based upon county regulations, the staff would be.
obligated to issue building permits to the split -created 5 -acre
tracts without adequate facilities if this redesignation were
approved.
Alternatives
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found a number of
concerns regarding the 888 acres. In the following sections, -
alternatives available to the applicant and alternatives available
to Board of County Commissioners are identified.
- Alternatives to the Applicant
Based upon its review, it is staff's position that the applicant
has two alternatives for development of the subject property.
These' are as follows:
1. The applicant can develop the subject property with the
52
current 1 unit per 10 acre, AG -2, agricultural land use
designation; or
2. The applicant can continue to pursue the land use amendment.
- Alternatives for the County
There are two alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners
concerning the applicant's request for a comprehensive plan
amendment:
Deny the transmittal of this request to the Department of
Community Affairs;
Approve the transmittal of this request to the Department of
Community Affairs; or
Conclusion
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has found no major
incompatibility between the proposed use and surrounding uses. In
addition, staff has determined that no negative impacts will occur
as a result of the requested land use change. Finally, the
requested amendment has a positive concurrency determination and is
consistent with the comprehensive plan. It is staff's position
that the analysis of the applicant's request to redesignate 888
acres from AG -2 to AG -1 supports approval of this request. Despite
those positive findings, the staff has concerns regarding the
development impacts of the subject property on infrastructure.
As previously stated, the property is a part of a larger plat of
record. As such, the existing tracts can be split one time each
without having to provide infrastructure such as roads and •
drainage. While staff acknowledges that there is no immediate
concern since there is minimal development in the area, the concern
will increase as development increases without the adequate
provision of infrastructure.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners transmit to DCA the amendment to change the land use
designation of the 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1.
Attachment
1. Land Use Amendment Application
2. Rezoning Application
3. Location Map
4. Minutes of the September 26, 1991 Planning and Zoning
Commission meeting.
53
NOV 12 199
Approved Agenda Item:
For: //---
By.
/--By
8, FAU 1
poor 84 PAGE 1
Commissioner Wheeler asked how we determine the population
figures, and Director Keating explained that the County has the
ability to do our own count.
Chairman Bird 'asked if staff figures the maximum allowable
when figuring the total buildout. With LD -6, for example, do
they figure that land all at 6 upa or do they factor in the fact
that actuality shows us that in most cases it is developed at 60%
or 70% and very seldom at maximum density.
Commissioner Wheeler pointed out there is a lot of property
in this county at LD -2, and Director Keating advised that we had
a lot of discussions with DCA on this and we were successful in
getting them to comply on this. They did make us consider all
the undeveloped land that we had designated that would be
developed at its maximum density, but we were able to reduce
those densities by 25% to reflect the amount of land allocated
for infrastructure for right-of-ways in other areas. We also
Iessed out any projected park areas and other areas like that.
The position in going through this is that if you don't intend to
develop to the maximum, then you should not allocate it that way.
Chairman Bird hoped that the next time we go through this we
could make a case by demonstrating that the factor is even more
than just taking out for infrastructure, etc. As far as taking
out for actual units being built, we can show them several
subdivisions in the last 5 years that were not built out at
anywhere near the maximum densities.
Director Keating wished to point out that this is one of the
things that the DCA is looking at very closely. During the
negotiation process, the County was able to reduce its ratio to
4.48, which is much higher than what is generally recommended by
the State and much higher than what the State is requiring from
other local governments. In doing that, however, it is a given fact
that they are going to look at any amendment request submitted by
this county,and its effect on this allocation ratio. Because
this is outside of the urban service area, staff doesn't feel
there would be any adverse effect from going from 1 unit per 10
acres to 1 unit per 5 acres. Staff's major concern is that right
now this property is in 10 -acre tracts and the County's LDRs
allow lots of record, essentially tracts such as this to be -
divided once without going through the subdivision process
whereby all the internal improvements and infrastructure would be
required. With a new designation, these 88 tracts could be split
into 176 five -acre lots. Staff is concerned that a problem could
arise when development spurs people to demand county services
that are not in place there now, such as maintenance of private
54
roads. Staff recently met with the Fellsmere Water Control
District and they have a lot of the same concern in that area.
Director Keating stated that staff does support the proposed
amendment request, but the major concern is the infrastructure.
Staff recommends that the Board approve the transmittal of this
request to the State for their review, during which time staff
can consider discussing this with the Professional Services
Advisory Committee and come back to the Board if there is a
mechanism to put into place a requirement for infrastructure
improvements for lot splits in large tracts like this. Again,
the primary concern is not so much having paved roads and
particular urban types of improvements in this area, but at least
delineating maintenance responsibilities and particular
rights-of-way.
Commissioner Wheeler understood that splitting a lot is not
an easy thing to do under our requirements, but Director Keating
advised that while we have a lot of requirements, it is specific
in our land use requirements that lot splits can occur in these
old plats of reclamation.
Attorney Vitunac stated it was understanding that under the
proposed redesignation, these lots could be split just once from
one 10 -acre lot to two 5 -acre lots, and Director Keating
confirmed that essentially there are 88 10 -acre tracts and each
of those can be split once.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Representing the applicant, Attorney Bruce Barkett advised
that for years Mr. Kahn has been able to offer 5 -acre tracts,
but when the new Comp Plan was adopted, this property was redes-
ignated to A-2, one unit per 10 acres. Staff recognizes this as
an oversight, and Mr. Kahn's request is simply that the Board
restore his status quo and maintain his ability to offer 5 and
10 -acre tracts such as he has been doing for 30 or more years.
Mr. Barkett reiterated that the amendment meets requirements for
concurrency, consistency, compatibility with the surrounding land
use, and contains good planning principles to make it consistent
with the areas around Fellsmere. In addition, they have a
positive environmental recommendation because if this property
was developed as agricultural, they would be exempt from the
upland preservation requirement. If the property is developed as
residential at one unit per acre, all the upland requirements
would have to be met. With that report from staff and the
unanimous recommendation for approval by the P&Z, Mr. Barkett
urged the Board to approve the transmittal of their amendment to
the DCA.
55
NOV .21911
KO. 84 FA6-E. I:3tei
CV 12 199u
E OOK.
84 prr
FrwC V
Rodney Tillman of the Fellsmere Water Control District
stated that the District has no problem with Mr. Kahn's request
for 1 unit per 5 acres, but does have some other concerns about
development in that area. He wished to read into the record the
following two letters:
FELLSMEREWATF.R BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
� '
CONTROL DISTRICT
P. O. Box 438
FELLSMERE, FLORIDA 32948
(407) 571-0640
TO:
Indian River County Commissioners
FROM: Fellsmere Water Control District
RE:
RAYMOND E. JOHNS
PATRICK D. LEARY
CLIFFORD D. TYSON
Kahn Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate + 888 areas from AG -2 to AG -1
(LUDA-91-07-0175)
DATE: November 12, 1991
The Fellsmere Water Control does not want to act as a adversary
in the Kahn request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate + 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1. The District would
like to take this opportunity to present to the Commission
and staff certain problems regarding the area in question.
The use of Fellsmere Water Control District right-of-ways for
roads does present problems:
1. 130th Avenue "Willow Street" from the Homewood Subdivision
south only has a 30 foot right-of-way. I believe that Mr.
- Davis is attempting to get additional right-of-way from the
Landowners involved.
2. East of 130th Avenue some of the roads are not on District
right-of-way, but are solely on private property. This is
a result of the first person buying property not wanting to
have to install a culvert, so where possible, the road is on
their side of the sub -lateral canal regardless of the
right-of-way. A good example of this is sub -lateral 18
(89th street) east of Willow Street.
3. If the sub -lateral canal is located in the middle of the
right-of-way there is very little room left on either side
for a road.
4. The majority of roads in the Fellsmere Area are on private
property to some degree.
5. The District has maintained certain of the sub -laterals from
one side or the other and sometimes both. The District
feels that since it has maintained the Ditches for 72 years
on the side or sides it is presently using, that the
District has aquired a prescriptive easement. The
Districts policy in the past and future issto continue to
use these prescriptive easements -and right-of-ways.
56
6. In the area in question sub -laterals 19 (87th Street) & 21
(83rd Street) would go west one half mile and then need a
culvert to change to the other side for the next half mile.
7. The Fellsmere Water Control District is a Florida Statute
Chapter 298 Single Purpose Water Control District and as
such its responsibility is to provide primary drainage and
nothing else. The District has not, does not or will not
build roads since it would be in violation of Chapter 298.
The District reserves unto itself the fee simple title in
and to said right-of-way, together with the right at any
time reserved unto the District to alter or construct
canals, ditches, drains and other drainage facilities
thereon and therein as may be necessary and proper from
time to time to carry out the objectives and purposes of
said District and its Plan of Reclamation.
8. The Landowners east of 130th Avenue already are dissatisfied
about roads in that area. To add to this problem should
really make them happy. The District very frequently_ has
to explain why it is not involved with roads and that it is
not involved with impact fees or ad -valorem taxes to
maintain them.
9. The school system would have to send buses down he new
roads and the postal service mail vehicles. T eseroads
will not be covered by the inter -governmental' that now
exist between the District and County and therefore' will
not be graded by the county.
The District realizes that the tracts can now be sold as 10
acre parcels having 88 possible homes and the problems above
will still exist. There are some very large homes that exist
now that are'in the 100 thousand and above range, as the west
tract develops there will be more homes in this range.
Does the staff and Commission want to take complaints from all
the homeowners in the area and not provide roads and
maintenance.
In conclusion, taking into consideration all of the above, the
-
Fellsmere Water Control District feels the county should create
a special taxing entity to fund building and maintaining these
roads or the property owners a property owners association to do the
same,,taking into consideration the paramount rights of the
District.
NOV 1219911
57
Borj 84 Ha 1 u'
NOV 12 '991
1 CARTER ASSOCIATES, INC.
[300r.84 PAGE. 0)0
CONSUL TING ENGINEERS AND LAND SURVEYORS
17(21 21.51 SII*ET
VER() rwACH. P1.:32((s) 3472
407.:5(12 4101
407.562 7181) WAX)
November 11, 1991
MAI3VIN E: C'AKr1R. It.i.ti.
I IAN:\ 11(T\4\I(I). 1/1,s,
I WAN 1:1.11-711-1.1E. 10.
1:14011 It HANFIEI.I ). 11. 00.
FIt'NK S. CII:(171ESE'_
( )RGE SIM( INS. l'O.
STEVE SNURERGGIt VP -
Mr.,. Rodney Tillman, Superintendent
Fellsmere Water Control District
P.O. Box 438
Fellsmere, Florida 32948
RE: Development of Kahn & Other Properties Within
Fellsmere Water Control District.
Dear Rodney:
With reference to our previous correspondence, conferences,
discussions, and our recent meeting with members of the County
Planing and Zoning, and County Public Works Department (i.e. Mr.
Keating, Mr. Boling, Ms. Cherl Tworek and Mr. Davis), pertaining
to above referenced matter, I am listing below my thoughts and
suggestions, as to the position the Fellsmere Water Control
District should maintain.
1). First and foremost it must be understood that the F.W.C.D.
is a single -purpose District created under Florida State
Chapter 298 for the purpose of providing primary drainage to
landowners and development abutting the District's sub -
lateral and lateral ditches.
2). The existing sub -lateral ditches are inconsistently located
within the platted rights-of-way. The platted right-of-way
widths vary from 40' to 60' in width with a majority being
the smaller width. After years of maintenance the top width
of these ditches average about 30' in width. The varying
location of the sub -lateral ditches located within the
narrow rights-of-way often results in the encroachment of
maintenance berm way and/or existing adjacent roads on
adjoining private property.
XXX.IEC
58
CAIS r\ i,ig Florida
L I SiiIi 0)11
3). Since the District has been maintaining these ditches from
one side or the other for over seventy years it does claim a
prescriptive easement to continue such maintenance over
adjoining private property where such encroachment occurs.
This prescriptive easement does not include the construction
of a roadway for ingress -egress purposes of the general
public since the District has not and does not build or
maintain roadways for use of the general public.
4). Many of the currently maintained (graded) roads within the
District are located along the Districts maintenance berms
and likewise encroach on adjacent private property. It
should be understood by the County and the general public
that the F.W.C.D. does not maintain these roads. In the
case of the subject Kahn property where roadways are not
existing along the maintenance berms it is not the respon-
sibility of the District to build such roadways.
5). As we have discussed the optimum conditionwould be to build
ingress -egress roadways on the tract lines midway between
the existing sub -laterals to eliminate the obvious conflict
of dualpurpose roadways and canal maintenance berms.
6). The District should recommend to the County that future
development or subdivision of large tracts of land within
the District be accomplished in either of the following
methods:
A. Require the formation of a Property Owners Association
to establish conforming or non -conforming rights-of-way or
easements and roadways with provisions for maintenance by
the P.O.A.
B. Require that roadways be platted and constructed to
County specifications and turned over to the County for
maintenance.
Either of these methods would make the buyer or potential buyers
of such tracts aware of who is responsible for roadway construc-
tion and maintenance. This would eliminate many of the dis-
traught calls that you.and Jim Davis receive pertaining to this
matter.
In those cases where such tracts have already been sold, a spe-
cial taxing district may need to be created to accomplish the
desired results.
Trusting this to be of some assistance to you and looking forward
to hearing from you if we may be of further assistance, I remain,
Very truly yours,
in . Carter, R.L.S.
C/crb
cc: Bob Keating
} Jim Davis
59
t9r ' t219 1,
BOOK 6 F.GE
ov9 12 1W
PUCK.
PAGE 790
Chairman Bird asked what staff's reaction would be to the
Fellsmere Water Control District's suggestion that either the
County create a special taxing entity to fund building and
maintenance of these roads or have it done through a property
owners' association, taking into consideration all of the
paramount rights of the District.
Director Keating suggested that the Board approve the
transmittal and direct staff to work with the County Attorney's
Office and Public Works Department to see if we can come up with
an LDR change. We have talked about it, but it is difficult to
come up with the exact wording. Ideally, it would require
certain improvements, particularly the establishment of a
property owners' association which would have maintenance
responsibilities and the requirement of just basic infrastructure
improvements. Paving would not be required because of the low
number of lots, and we would apply this just to owners of
substantial numbers of these tracts. Carter & Associates
currently is working on doing a similar project with properties
on the north side of Fellsmere. Director Keating expected there
would be time to come up with something between now and final
approval, which is usually 5 or 6 months.
Public Works Director Jim Davis explained that we are having
difficulty getting people living along 130th Avenue to donate
right-of-way, which was the subject of discussion at a recent
meeting.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that there is a way to
acquire right-of-way, pay everyone for it, and allocate that cost
back to the assessment and the property owners benefiting from
the project.
Attorney Vitunac advised that we have tried that before and
no one has challenged it successfully. It depends on how many
properties and what the benefit would be to each one. He
confirmed that we could do that, but another alternative is to
form a Municipal Services Taxing Unit (M.S.T.U.) We have the
power to condemn right-of-way and pay for it from taxes collected
through that whole district.
Director Keating cautioned that this can occur only where a
subdivision already has taken place, with plats of reclamation.
Director Davis wasn't quite sure whether we could go into
the incorporated area on an assessment. The City of Fellsmere
would have to be cooperative. Although this is in the unincor-
porated area, some of the rights-of-way that lead to the area run
through the incorporated area.
Albert Kahn, owner of the subject property, stated that he
purchased this property 32 years ago in 1959 and during those
60
years has managed to sell about 15 or 16 acres a year. He
emphasized that he is not a developer, he is a long-time
investor. He has been paying taxes for 32 years and is trying to
survive by selling only 10 or 15 acres a year. He doesn't see a
boom coming to Fellsmere or see people coming in there by the
droves and building on those 5- acre lots. Mr. Kahn urged the
Board to give him back the densities he had before the new Comp
Plan was adopted.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Board
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the transmittal of the proposed land use amendment to
DCA for their 90 -day review.
Chairman Bird wished to enter into the
letter received from Berry Farms expressing
the steady encroachment of residential land
agricultural areas:
.: �� MEM MUM
NMI --'
NM- alter -�=_
--M- ...e
IMMINIIIIIINI
UM
OlIM
Richard N. Bird
IRC Board of Cty Commissioners
1840 25th St.
Vero Beach, Fl 32960
Dear Mr. Bird,
record the following
their concern about
use into rural,
November
uisTR(BUTION LIST
Commissioners
Administrator
Attorney
Pergonnel
Public Works
Community Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
Regarding. the Public Hearing on the Kahn property in
Fellsmere.
We have no objection to the proposed amendment. Our
concern is the steady encroachment of residential land use
into rural, agricultural areas. Prospective purchasers of
this property should be made aware of Florida Statute 823.14
the "Right to Farm Act".
Please register our concern by reading the following
excerpts from the statute into the record.
"823.14 Florida Right to Farm Act
(2) LEGISLATIVE FINDINGS AND PURPOSE.- The
Legislature finds that agricultural production
is".a major contributor to the economy of the
state; that agricultural lands constitute unique
and irreplaceable resources of statewide importance
The Legislature further finds that agricultural
activities conducted on farm land in urbanizing
areas are potentially subject to lawsuits based on
the theory of nuisance and that these suits
encourage and even force the premature removal of
the farm land from agricultural use. •I.t is the
propose of this act to protect reasonable
agricultural activities conducted on farm land from
s'be 31g j • s4
o
cNOV 1991
t TQ
'14. RECEIVED o
01�� BOARD COUNTY
t. COMMISSIONERS ti.
esziz act
NOV 12
61
POOK 8 r F„LE
2 19,1
BOOK 84 F'r.:[ 792
nuisance suits. (3) DEFINITIONS.- (b) "Farm
Operation" means all conditions or activities by the
owner, lessee, agent, independent contractor, and
supplier which occur on a farm in connection with
the production of farm products and includes, but is
not limited to, the marketing of produce at roadside
stands or farm markets; the operation of machinery
and irrigation pumps; the generation of noise,
odors, dust, and fumes; ground or aerial seeding and
spraying; j'�'� f e application o in thof chemical fertilizers,
conditioners, insecticides, pesticides, and
herbicides; and the employment and use of labor."
Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you
have any
questions please feel free to call.
Sincerely,
04141
mes E. Cloughley,
Vice -President Operations
P.O. Box 305. 12985 77th Street • Fellsmere, Florida 32948 • Phone (407) 571-1428 • FAX (407) 571-0987
PUBLIC HEARING - FELDMAN REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE APPROX. ±40 ACRES
FROM AG -1 TO R, TO EXPAND THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BOUNDARY TO
INCLUDE AN ADDITIONAL ±40 ACRES, AND TO REZONE APPROX. ±40 ACRES
FROM RFD TO RS -1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/91:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M.
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Christy Fischer
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 5, 1991
SUBJECT:
Feldman Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate Approximately ±40 Acres from AG -1 to R, to
expand the urban service area boundary to include an
additional ±40 Acres, and to Rezone approximately ±40
acres from RFD to RS -1 (LUDA-91-07-0126)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of November 12, 1991.
62
frA'.DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
"7::',1This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. At this time, the Board of County Commissioners will
, consider only the proposed land use amendment, specifically whether
to transmit the proposed land use amendment to the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). The proposed rezoning will be considered
at the final public hearing and only if the land use amendment is
•,.approved.
he subject property is located on 58th Avenue, between 4th Street
;and 1st Street, and is presently owned by David and Princess
'Feldman. The land consists of ±40 acres.
'The request involves changing the land use designation for ±40
'acres from AG -1, Agriculture (up to 1 unit per 5 acres) to Rural
,,Residential (up to 1 unit per acre), rezoning ±40 acres from RFD,
Rural Fringe District (up to 1 unit per 2.5 acres) to RS -1, Single
Family Residential District (up to 1 unit per acre), and extending
the •urban service area west of 58th Avenue to the subject
property's west boundary. The applicants intend to develop the
property with residential uses.
On September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission acting as
the Local Planning Agency voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve transmittal of the proposed land use
amendment request to the DCA.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property is zoned RFD, Rural Fringe District (up to one
unit per 2.5 acres), and consists of vacant undeveloped land.
Property to the west of the subject property is zoned A-1,
Agriculture District, and contains single family lots, most of
which are ±5 acres or larger. Properties to the south and north
are zoned RFD, Rural Fringe District, and contain ±2.5 acre single
family lots. This RFD zoning is not consistent with the
comprehensive plan's designation of the property as AG -1 (up to 1
unit/5 acres), and this RFD zoning will be changed to A-1 (up to 1
unit/5 acres) with the upcoming administrative rezonings. To the
— -
east lies 58th Avenue and vacant land zoned A-1, Agriculture
District.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is designated AG -1, Agriculture (up to 1 unit
per 5 acres), on the county's Future Land Use Map. Surrounding
properties to the north, south, and west also share the AG -1
designation. Properties to the east across 58th Avenue are
designated L-1, Low Density Residential, which permits development
of up to three units to the acre.
Urban Service Area and Residential Allocation Ratio
The county's agriculturally designated areas, such as the subject
property, are located outside of the urban service area. The
purpose of the urban service area is to promote•infill development,
prevent urban sprawl, and provide for the efficient and economical
extension of services needed for urban scale development. Managing
growth involves the efficient provision of public services and
infrastructure and the creation of well-planned communities. The
county's urban service area designation is a tool to manage growth
and encourage efficiency in locating infrastructure.
NOV 12
63
•
OV 12 ¶9
OO F:c�. 194
In this area of the county, the urban service area boundary was
modified as a result of the settlement/compliance agreement with
the Department of Community Affairs. While the principal purpose
of the settlement agreement was to bring the county's plan into
compliance, the effect of the agreement was to change the county's
urban service area and to reduce plan densities to meet several
objectives of the Department of Community Affairs. The first
objective was to reduce the county's residential allocation ratio.
The residential allocation ratio 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).
Before the settlement/compliance agreement with the Department of.
Community Affairs, the county's residential allocation ratio was
11.6. This means that the county allocated 11.6 times as many
dwelling units for the county as a whole than are projected to be
needed through the twenty year period of the plan. This 11.6:
multiplier was calculated by utilizing the following formula:
Multiplier = Total number of units allowed - Existing Units
Projected number of units needed (1990-2010)
Total number of units allowed = (total acreage of lands
for each land use category) X (maximum number of units
allowed for that land use category)
According to the Department of Community Affairs, the residential
allocation ratio should be as low as 1.25. In negotiations with
the Department of Community Affairs, the county agreed to amend its
Future Land Use Map to reduce its residential allocation ratio to
4.48. This was accomplished by reducing the extent of the urban
service area, reducing residential densities in the agriculturally
designated western areas of the county, and reducing densities in
some portions of the urban service area.
The second objective was to reduce urban sprawl by constricting the
county's urban service area (USA). The urban service area is an
area within a jurisdiction that is programmed to receive
infrastructure and services. Densities inside the USA are
generally higher than densities outside of this area. Since the
urban sprawl issue is closely related to the residential allocation
ratio, the over -allocation of residential land as referenced in the
above paragraph would contribute to urban sprawl.
The third objective was to protect agricultural lands from
premature intrusion of low density residential development. Low
density residential development is a type of urban sprawl which is
generally incompatible with agricultural uses. Oftentimes, the
intrusion of residential development into agricultural areas._will
result in additional pressures for conversion of agricultural uses
to urban uses.
The proposed land use amendment would change the density and change
the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary in the south portion of the
county, along 58th Avenue. In this portion of the county, the
urban service area boundary is 58th Avenue, except for a westerly
protrusion which encompasses the Pine Tree Park subdivision.- This
portion of the urban service area that incorporates Pine Tree Park
extends west of 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue and is bounded by 4th
Street to the south and 8th Street to the north. This area was
included in the urban service area because Pine Tree Park is an
existing subdivision with substantial development.
With the USA boundary being 58th Avenue, lands east of 58th Avenue
retain an urban designation and have a density of three units to
the acre, -while lands to the west of 58th Avenue are non -urban and
have a density of 1 unit per 5 acres.
64
Transportation
The property abuts 58th Avenue to the east. This two lane, paved
segment of 58th Avenue is classified as an urban principal arterial
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map and has approximately
80 feet of public road right-of-way.
a v
Utilities and Services
he site is outside the urban service area of the county; therefore
water and wastewater lines do not extend to the site. This portion
of the county is serviced by individual wells and septic tanks.
Environment`
The property is not designated as environmentally sensitive nor
environmentally important by the comprehensive plan. The property
is within floodplain zone AE as identified by the Flood Insurance
Rating Maps (FIRM).
ALTERNATIVES AND 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
■ Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
• Potential impact on environmental quality
• Compatibility with the surrounding area
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located outside of the County Urban Service Area
(USA); however, part of this request involves an expansion of the
USA to incorporate this property. The urban service area
encompasses that portion of the county deemed suited for urban
scale development and therefore higher residential densities..
The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation,
Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation
(Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these
services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life
enjoyed by the community. For that reason, the comprehensive plan
requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the
minimum level of service standards for these services and
facilities are maintained.
Future Land Use Policy 3.2 states that no development shall be
approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management
;`system. Section 910.07 of the County's Land Development
f Regulations requires a conditional concurrency review for land use
amendment requests. Conditional concurrency review examines the
available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed
project. Since comprehensive plan amendments and 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 this land use plan amendment request, the most
intense use (according to the county's LDR's) is one unit per acre
of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for
the concurrency analysis is as follows:
65
NOV 12199
BOOK 84 F E / J
i2 1.91_,
1. Size of Property: ±40 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned and Redesignated:
3. Existing Zoning Classification:
RFD, Rural Fringe District (up to
. Existing Land Use Designation:
AG -1, Agriculture District (up to
Proposed Zoning Classification:
Proposed Land Use Designation:
BOOK
±40 acres
F11 G F 1 4r
1 unit per 2.5 acres)
1 unit per 5 acres)
RS -1, Single Family
Residential District (up
to 1 unit per acre)
R, Rural' Residential
to 1 unit per acre)
Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 40 dwelling units
„Transportation
4s .
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. The site information
used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family Detached Housing
2. For Single -Family dwelling units:
(Variables identified in the 5th Edition ITE Manual)
a.
b.
c.
d.
Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 10.062/1 dwelling
unit
P.M. Peak Hour Rate: 1.012/1 dwelling unit
Outbound PM Peak Hour Split: 35%
Inbound PM Peak Hour Split: 65%
3. Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction) : Nwni,er of siliyie family units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound PM Peak Hour Percentage
4. a. Peak Direction of Adjacent Roadway (58th Avenue): South
b. Total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips: 27
5. Trip distribution is based upon the Modified Gravity Model
6. Traffic Capacity on 58th Avenue at a Level of Service "D":
630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic Volume on 58th Avenue:
153 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis only addresses project traffic occurring in
the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted
roadways. In this case, 58th Avenue has more volume in the p.m.
peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour, so the p.m. peak hour is used
for the transportation concurrency analysis. According to recent
count data on 58th Avenue, the peak direction during the p.m. peak
hour is south.
66
r
Given those conditions, the number of trips associated with this
request was determined by taking the total number of residential
units (40) allowed under the proposed land use, applying ITE's
1.012 p.m. peak hour trips per residential unit to get total peak
hour trips, and applying the ITE residential use p.m. peak hour
inbound factor of 65% to the total p.m. peak hour trips fox the use
to get the peak hour entering volume of trips for the site. The
.same methodology was employed to obtain the site PM peak hour
exiting volume; however, a 35% outbound factor was used instead of
the 65% inbound factor. Using a modified gravity model and a hand
assignment, these trips were then assigned to roadways on the
network.
As a result of this assignment, two volumes were -obtained for each
impacted roadway segment. These volumes represent the PM peak hour
project volume for each direction for each roadway. Using the
volume assigned to the peak direction of each roadway, a capacity
determination was made for each segment. This capacity
determination involved comparing the assigned volume to the
segment's available capacity.
. .,. . r.�-.''.9• _..
apacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated andupdated annually, utilizing the latest and best
zavailable peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
I methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) Level of Service (LOS) manual. Available
capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic
volumes; this is updated daily, based upon vesting associated with
roject approvals.
,4Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that 58th Avenue and
the other impacted 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 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 to
accommodate the proposed request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment Road
Segment
Capacity
From To LOS "D"
1905 S.R. 60 W. County Line CR 512 540
1910 S.R. 60 CR 512 I-95 540
1915 S.R. 60 I-95 82nd Avenue 1680
1920 S.R. 60 82nd Avenue 66th Avenue 1760
1925 S.R. 60 66th Avenue 58th Avenue 1760
1930 S.R. 60 58th Avenue 43rd Avenue 2650
1935 S.R. 60 43rd Avenue 27th Avenue 2650
67
140V 12 1991
IkOOKF„.0 19
NOV 1'2 •1991
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
To
BOOK 84 PAGE 798
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
2600
1638
1638
1638
1760
830
830
830
970
970
1990
890
830
830
830
630
830
830
830
830
830
830
630
630
630
830
830
830
830
630
830
830
830
630
630
630
630
830
830
630
630
630
630
830
830
830
830
630
630
630
630
630
1940
1945 .
1950
1960
1965
2020
2030
2040
2050
2060
2110
2210
2220
2250
2260
2305
2310.
2315
2320
2325
2330
2335•
2530
2540
2550
2560
2570.
2580
2920
2925
2930
2935
2940
3005
3010
3015
3020
3025
3030
3035
3040
4830
4840
4850
4860.
4870
4880
4930
4940
4950
4960
4970
Roadway
segment
S.R.
S.R.
S.R.
S.R.
S.R.
16th
16th
16th
16th
16th
17th
12th
12th
12th
12th
60
60
60
60
60
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Street
Old Dixie
Old Dixie
Old Dixie
Old Dixie
Old Dixie
Old Dixie
Old Dixie
Oslo
Oslo
Oslo
Oslo
Oslo
Oslo
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
43rd
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
58th
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Hwy.
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Road
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
Avenue
8th Street
8th Street
8th Street
8th Street
8th Street
8th Street
4th Street
4th Street
4th Street
4th Street
4th Street
Existing Demand
Existing Vested
Volume Volume
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
I. R. Blvd.
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
17th Street
U.S. 1
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. Co. Line
Oslo Road
4th Street
8th Street
12th Street
S. V.B. City Lmt.
16th Street
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
8th Street
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
26th Street
Oslo Road
4th Street
8th Street
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
41st Street
45th Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 1
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
Indian River Blvd.
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
I. R. Blvd.
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. Co. Line
Oslo Road
4th Street
8th Street
12th Street
S. V. B. City Lmts
16th Street
S. V.B. City Lmts
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 1
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
26th Street.
41st Street
4th Street
8th Street
12th Street
16th Street
S.R. 60
41st Street
45th Street
49th Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 1
I. R. Blvd
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 1
Total Available
Segment Segment
Demand Capacity
1905 292 1 293
1910 292 14 306
1915 734 37 771
1920 950 67 1017
1925 972 93 1065
1930 972 39 1011
1935 612 34 646
1940 878 24 902
1945 747 3 750
1950 747 10 757
1960 509 4 514
1965 846 43 889
2020 121 1 122
2030 337 0 337
2040 463 0 463
2050 851 0 851
2060 -• 851 9 860
2110 680 3 683
2210 81 0 81
68
247
234
909
743
695
1639
2004
1698
888
881
1125
871
708
493
367
119
110
1307
809
Project
Demand
1
1
2
2
2
4
3
3
2
1
1
1
5
4
3
3
1
1
1
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
•
Existing Demand Total
Roadway Existing Vested Segment
segment Volume Volume Demand
2220 81 9 90
2250 400 5 405
2260 527 29 556
2305 180 17 197
2310 427 15 442
• 2315 432 0 432
2320 504 1 505
2325 441 17 458
2330 441 17 458
2335 139 20 159
2530 162 3 165
2540 162 8 170
2550 265 19 284
`2560' 265 32 297
2570: ;360 41 401
2580 ;:`, 414 37 451
2920 `454 0 454
2925 454 1 455
2930 1373 ' 1 .374
2935 373 9 382
2940 283 9 292
3005 144 9 153
3010 144 6 150
3015 - 144 6 150
3020 144 '21 165
3025 400 20 -420
3030 414 29 443
3035 414 9 423
3040 414 9 423
4830 99 9 108
,'4840 `193 2 195
4850 342 0 342
'4860 342 4 346
x.4870 351 3x:.354
W`. 4880 =198 " 0 198
4930 103 7 110
4940 k :216 5 221
-;4950 SF 315 8 323
.4960:`H 315 6 321
4970 ^ ° 450 1 451
-Water
Since this application involves expansion of the urban -service
area, subsequent development of the site would involve water
service from the county system. Based upon the most intense use
allowed under the proposed land use designation, development of the
property will have a consumption rate of 40 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERUs), or 10,000 gallons per day. This is based upon the
level of service of 250 gallons per ERU per day. If the subject
property were.. included in the urban service area, county water
service would be available to the site from the South County Water
Plant. A review of the South County Water Plant capacity indicates
the availability of more than 4,000,000 gallons per day. Since no
ERUs 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 pay his impact fees and connect to the
county system if capacity is available at the time of site
development or to expand county water facilities or pay for the
expansion if capacity is not available at the time of site
development. With these conditions, the utility concurrency test
will be met for the subject request.
Available
Segment
Capacity
Positive
Project Concurrency
Demand Determination
740
425
274
433
388
398
325
372
372
671
465
460
346
533
429
379
176
375
456
448
338
477
480
480
465
410
387
207
207
522
435
488
484
476
632
520
409
307
309
179
4
2
1
1
3
3
3
2
2
1
1
3
2
1.
1
1
5
4
3
2
1
27
20
15
10
5
3
2
1
5
3
2
2
1
1
'10
5
3
2
2
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y.
Y
Y
Y .
Y
Y
•Y
Y
Y -
Y,
Y..
Y
-Wastewater
Since this application involves
area, subsequent development of
service from the county system.
allowed under the proposed land u
property will have a wastewater
NOV i 21991
expansion of the urban service
the site would involve wastewater
Based upon the most intense use
se designation, development of the
generation rate of 40 Equivalent
69
Eco .i' EAL E I99
WOV
E00K.
PAGE 600
Residential Units (ERUs), or 10,000 gallons per day. This is based
upon the county's adopted level of service standard of 250 gallons
per ERU per day. If the subject property were included in the
urban service area, county wastewater service would be available
for the site from the West County Wastewater Plant. A review of
the West County Wastewater Plant capacity indicates the
availability of more than 525,000 gallons per day. Since no ERUs
have been reservedas of the present time, the applicant has
entered into a developer's agreement with the county which states
that the developer agrees to pay his impact fees and connect to the
county system if capacity is available at the time of site
development or to expand county wastewater facilities or pay for
the expansion if capacity is not available at the time of site
development. With these conditions, the utility concurrency teat
will be met for the subject request.
-Solid Waste
y.a ;ri
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by 40
dwelling units on the subject site will be approximately 64 waste
generation units or 193 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 and minimum finished
floor elevations. As stated in Drainage Policy 1.1, the drainage
level of service standard is that post development run-off shall
not exceed the maximum discharge rate of the applicable drainage
basin if a rate has been set for the basin. If no discharge rate
has been set for. the basin, post development run-off. shall not
exceed pre -development runoff. In either case,''. allnew
construction and improvements shall mitigate the impacts of a 25
year/24 hour storm event.
The subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and
in the Indian River Farms Water Control District. No discharge
rate has been set for the M-1 drainage basin; however, there is a
standard drainage discharge rate of two inches in 24 hours in the
Indian River Farms Water Control District.
With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of
impervious surface for the proposed request will be approximately
250,000 square feet. The maximum increase in run-off volume above
the predevelopment runoff rate, based upon the amount of impervious
surface, will be 82,000 cubic feet. In order to maintain the
county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required
to retain 960,000 cubic feet of new and existing run-off on-site.
In this case, minimum finished floor elevation level of service
standards are applicable, since the property is within floodplain
AE. According to Drainage Policy 1.2, the minimum finished floor
elevation level of service standard is that all new buildings will
have the lowest habitable floor elevation not lower than the
elevation of the 100 -year flood elevation as shown on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM), or
as defined in a more detailed study report. The minimum finished
floor elevation for floodplain AE for this site is 22 feet as shown
on the Federal Emergency Management Agency FIRM. In order to
maintain the county's adopted level of service for minimum finished
floor elevations, the applicant will be required to construct all
70
buildings at or above an elevation of at least 22 feet above mean
sea level.
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 11 cubic feet per second, requiring retention
of 960,000 cubic feet of run-off for the most intensive use of the
property, and maintaining a minimum finished floor elevation of 22
feet.
Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and projected demand as a
result of this proposed amendment indicates that adopted levels of
service will be maintained. The table below identifies the amount
of additional park space that would be needed for the proposed land
use amendment and the existing surplus acreage by park type. This
indicates that the surplus acreage of park exceeds the project
demand of additional park space; therefore the park concurrency
test is met.
Park TypeLOS Project Demand Surplus Acreage
Urban District 5.00 .2 195
Community(South) 1.25 .019 9
Beach 1.50 .06 70
River 1.50 .06 30
Concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste, andparks has been
met for the proposed land use amendment. Since water and
wastewater lines are not available, the applicant has a signed a
developer's agreement to ensure that these facilities are provided.
This is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 2.7, which requires
development projects to maintain established levels of service.
Compatibility with Surrounding Area
Compatibility of the subject property with surrounding areas is of
critical concern. The subject property is surrounded by low
density residential development and agriculture land. .With this
land use pattern, it can be expected that a land use change for the
°.'subject property would have a number of impacts.
If the subject property were developed at a density of one unit per
acre, it would result in encroachment of low density residential
development into an area characterized by agricultural land uses
and would have a major impact upon surrounding property owners. As
mentioned earlier, agricultural uses are generally located outside
the urban service area. A change in the land use designation of
the subject property would provide an impetus for changing the land
use designation of neighboring agricultural lands and provide
pressure for conversion of these agricultural lands to urban uses.
Presently, there is a substantial amount of agricultural land and
relatively little residential development west of Kings Highway
(58th Avenue) in this area. Except for Pine Tree Park to the
north, the surrounding properties have the same agricultural land
use designation as the subject property. Pine Tree Park is an
older subdivision which has a higher density than the surrounding
area and is included in the urban service area because it existed
and was already substantially developed prior to the 1990
comprehensive plan adoption (see attached location map). That
subdivision, like many other pre-existing developments, is a use
that had to be recognized by the comprehensive plan and is not a
reason to redesignate surrounding properties to a similar density.
If the subject property's land use designation were changed, the
result would affect all other properties along 58th Avenue. The
parcels from 4th Street to 1st Street are similarly situated and
have comparable characteristics as the subject property. It is
71
MOV 12 1991
POOK FAL 801
2199
roc b4 F.AGE J2
reasonable to expect then that the subject property's land use
change would prompt these property owners to request land use
changes. The lands to the west would then be adjacent to higher
density residential development with no physical separation or
buffering, and the owners of this land would probably also request
redesignation to a higher density.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
The -subject property is located within floodplain zone AE.
Conservation Policy 4.3 of the Comprehensive Plan states that the
lands within flood prone areas shall have a low residential
density, up to three units to the acre. If the subject property's
land use designationwas changed to 1 dwelling unit to the acre,
the .subject property's land use designation would not be
inconsistent with Conservation Policy 4.3.
Staff's concern, however, is that any potential increase in the
allowable residential density in a floodplain can cause problems.
An increase in density generally increases the amount of impervious
surface and the potential hazard for flooding. For that reason,
development should be directed to upland areas outside of the 100
year floodplain, whenever possible, with development densities
severely restricted for floodplain sites.
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
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, recreation, 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 statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions - including plan amendment decisions.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies.
-Future Land Use Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
* a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan
* an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan,_or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the -
subject property
Based upon staff determination, the subject land use amendment
request does not meet any of the three criteria as stated above.
The first two criteria allow the county to approve a request to
amend the land use map only if a mistake or oversight was made
during plan preparation, adoption, or amendment. In this case, the
subject property's land use designation was changed by the plan
amendment adopted to implement the county/DCA compliance agreement.
72
In negotiating this compliance agreement, county and DCA staff
reviewed aerial photographs, identified active agricultural areas,
and located undeveloped lands to determine areas for density
reductions. The subject property was carefully considered, as were
all areas in the vicinity. Therefore, it is staff's opinion.;that
there was no mistake or oversight made in relation to designating
the subject property Agriculture, AG -1.
The third criterion of Policy 13.3 allows the county to amend the
land use map if changes in circumstances affecting the subject
property have occurred since the 1990 adoption of the comprehensive
plan. Such changes could relate to the property itself, such as
unforeseen adjacent incompatible uses being established, or
significant 'changes in adjacentdevelopment patterns having
occured. :.In this case, the densities of surrounding properties
have not changed, and no incompatible uses have been established.
There .has also not been any new development in the area to
adversely affect the subject property. Lastly, there have been no
changes in public facilities (water, sewer, road improvements) to
affect the subject property. For these reasons, the land use
amendment request does not meet the criteria of Land Use Policy
13.3.
-Future Land Use Policies 2.2 and 2.3
Future Land Use Policies 2.2 and 2.3 give two criteria for
including land in the urban service area. First, the area must be
defined as urban or suburban. Secondly, and most significantly,
the area must have public infrastructure such as central water and
sewer, improved roadways, solid waste collection, drainage, police
protection, - fire protection, educational facilities, and
recreational facilities, in place, or programmed to occur. The
subject property does not meet the first criterion of being in an
urban or suburban setting because it is not a logical extension of
areas developing with higher densities. The surrounding properties
are characterized by rural, low density, scattered development, not,.:
the higher densities associated with urban or suburban development.
Pine Tree Park is an island of higher density residential
development within this area characterized by low density
development.
•
Because central water and sewer are not in place, the subject
property does not meet the second criterion. Of all the facilities
and services incorporated within the urban service area definition,
water and sewer are probably the most important. In this case,
sewer is not programmed to be extended to the site for several
years, and water service is not presently available. So it would
appear that expansion of the urban service area in this portion of
the county is premature. Therefore, the requested land use change
does not meet either criteria and is inconsistent with this policy.
-Future Land Use Policy 4.1
Future Land Use Policy 4.1 states that land use categories shall be
designated in a manner which concentrates urban uses and
discourages urban sprawl. Such a land use pattern depends on the
projected population as well as the timing and intensity of
development. As assigned, the low density agricultural land use
designation of the subject property reflects an intent to maintain
the rural character of the area in proximity to and including the
subject property. The proposed land use change would result in
higher density development in this area, encourage the spread of
urban uses to the area, and consequently disperse rather than
concentrate urban uses.
The objective of concentrating urban uses is to prevent urban
sprawl. Urban sprawl refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned
urban development that occurs in urban fringe or rural areas.
Urban sprawl typically manifests itself by leapfrog development,
strip development, or large expanses of low density, single
Q -2199''
73 nor 84 FAL803
NOV 12 99
EoOK 84 PAGE 834
dimensional development. Designating land as agricultural with a
density of one unit per five acres or less is one mechanism to
prevent urban sprawl. The agriculture designation prevents
intrusion of low density single dimensional residential development
by allowing primarily agriculture uses, and clustered residential
development. Designation of an urban service area is another
technique to combat urban sprawl and to promote infill development.
The requested change would promote urban sprawl by expanding the
urban service area, thus leading to large expanses of low density,
single dimensional development within an agricultural area. For
these reasons, staff feels that the request is inconsistent with
Policy 4.1.
At some future time, however, there will probably be a need to
expand the county's urban. service area. When the county's
population increases and the undeveloped property within the urban
service area is reduced, the justification will exist to expand the
urban service area and increase density in the expansion areas. At
that time, the subject property and adjacent areas will be viable
candidates for the USA expansion, particularly if the drainage
district can mitigate the flood prone designation of the area.
Such a redesignation, however, would probably involve increasing
the density to more than the 1 unit per acre allowed in the
proposed rural designation. When a USA expansion is warranted,
this area would probably be changed to an L-1 (3 units/acre)
designation, consistent with the density on the east side of Kings
Highway. This scenario, however, could be adversely affected by
approval of the proposed request, since establishment of a low
density subdivision on the subject property could provide a group
of residents who may then oppose any subsequent density increase
proposals for the area.
Future Land Use Policy 6.1
Future Land Use Policy 6.1 states that the county shall not provide
services or facilities which would encourage the development of
agriculturally designated lands. Since the urban service area
contains the necessary public infrastructure to support urban
development, it is the plan's intent that urban development be
limited to the USA. Only when the amount of land within the USA is
inadequate to support projected growth and development should the
USA be expanded. Currently, the urban service area contains
approximately 63,000 acres of unincorporated county land. The
lands within the urban service area can support 4.48 times as many
dwelling units as are projected to be needed during the 20. year
horizon of the comprehensive plan. This corresponds to almost a 90
year supply of land, based upon an extension of present growth
rates.
By expanding the urban service area and increasing the allowable
density on agriculturally designated land when an ample supply of
vacant land already exists within the urban service area, the
county would discourage the development of those properties already
located in areas having existing urban services and facilities.
Since it is generally less expensive for a developer to purchase
cheaper land with a low density designation and getting a density
change than buying land within the urban service area already
provided with necessary public services and facilities, the
pressure for redesignation of these less expensive, rural lands
will always exist. When such redesignation occurs, an inefficient_
and uneconomic land use pattern is the result. Not only are
adequately sized roadways, water lines, and sewer lines
underutilized when undeveloped parcels served by these facilities
remain vacant; but the extension of services and facilities further
out in rural areas will create more unused capacity. As adopted,
the county's plan promotes infill development in order to produce
an efficient and economic land use pattern.
While a change of the subject property's land use designation to
Rural, and inclusion of the property within the urban service area
74
would not significantly affect the 4.48 residential allocation
ratio, these changes would provide justification for adjacent
property owners immediately to the north, south and west to request
a higher residential land use designation and inclusion in the
urban service area. This would prompt other property owners
located within the 58th Avenue to 74th Avenue and 82nd Avenue area
to request land use designation changes and extensions to the urban
service area. Such changes would significantly increase the total
number of dwelling units allowed in the urban service area, with
the effect being an increase in the residential allocation ratio.
Since there is sufficient land within the' USA to accommodate
projected development well past the 20 year timeframe of the plan,
there -is no need to expand the USA. Therefore, this land use
amendmentisinconsistent with Policy 6.1.
;Drainage Policy 8.1
Drainage Policy 8.1 states that only low density and low intensity
uses are allowed in flood prone areas. The only exception is for
existing platted subdivisions. The purpose of this policy is to
promote adequate drainage and prevent flood damage to property in
low lying lands. The subject property lies in a flood prone area
and therefore should be developed with low density development.
The agricultural land use designation of the subject property is
consistent with drainage policy 8.1. While a change in land use
designation to rural would still be consistent with this low
-'`density policy, it is staff's opinion that density increases should
not be encouraged in flood hazard areas. -
Alternatives
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has several concerns.
jt is staff's position that the proposed use is incompatible with
surrounding uses and is inconsistent with several policies of the
adopted comprehensive plan. Given that position, staff has
identified several alternatives available to the applicant and
alternatives available to the Board of County Commissioners.
Alternatives to the Proposed Amendment
Based upon staff review, it is staff's position that the applicant
has several alternatives for development of the subject property.
These are as follows:
Develop the subject property with the current agricultural
land use density as a cluster development.
2. Wait until infill development promotes expansion
before developing at a higher density.
3. Pursue the land use amendment request.
of the USA
As provided for by Future Land Use Policy 5.8, the subject property
can be developed as a planned development with the present
agriculture designation. Future Land Use Policy 5.8 gives three
criteria for development as a planned development in an agriculture
land use designation. The first criterion is that the density of
the project cannot exceed the maximum density of the agriculture
land use designation. The second criterion limits lot size; lots
created through the planned development process cannot exceed one
acre in size. The third criterion is that open space areas must be
retained as natural or as agricultural uses with certain allowances
for open space as recreational areas.
Based upon these three criteria, the subject property could be
developed in a cluster of eight, one acre or smaller lots. The
advantage to developing this property as a planned development
would be that a portion of the property could be developed at this
time in a manner that would allow its further development if and
when future conditions warrant an increase in density.
75
NOV 12X 91
EooK. 84 805
NOV
BOor 84 PACE806
If the subject property were developed as a cluster development,
the applicant could wait to develop the remaining 32 acres at a
higher density at that point in the future when the urban service
area is expanded and the density increased. There is the
possibility that increased development and the extension of utility
lines adjacent to the urban service area might justify an expansion
of the urban service area and an increase in the property's density
in the future. Since the county reviews the comprehensive plan
every five years, the possibility exists for a county initiated
expansion of the urban service area in 1994.
- Alternatives for the County
There are two alternatives which the Board of County Commissioners
can take concerning the applicant's request.
The first would be to deny transmittal of this request to the
Department of Community Affairs.
The second would be to approve the transmittal of the request
to the Department of Community Affairs.
Conclusion
It is staff's position that the applicant's request is inconsistent
with adopted comprehensive plan policies in the Future Land Use
Element and other elements in the plan. These are described in
detail in the above analysis section. This inconsistency warrants
denial of the proposed land use amendment. presently, the subject
property is in an area designated for agricultural and low density
residential -development and, based upon staff's analysis, this
request does not warrant a change in that designation.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners deny transmittal of this land use amendment to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and deny the request to
rezone the property. '
76
Director Keating explained that while this is a 3 -part
request, the rezoning portion will not be considered until the
land use amendment comes before the Board for final approval
after it comes back from Tallahassee.
With respect to expanding the urban service area boundary to
include the ±40 acres, Commissioner Scurlock pointed out that
when we put in a core line for utilities along certain arterials
such as Kings Highway, we seem to be illogical when it comes to
land uses and favoring one side of the road over the other for
utility service. He believed that major utility lines should _
extend to and serve the same amount of area on each side of the
road. There are several of these situations in the land use
designations with regard to allowable densities, SR -60 for
example.
Director Keating emphasized that it is always difficult to
draw a line for boundaries. In this case, when the actual water
and sewer lines are put down Kings Highway and available in front
of the property, there would be more rationale for it to be
considered in an urban service area there. Further, when
development occurs to the property to the east of the road, there
would be a rationale for increasing the urban service area.
Commissioner Scurlock wasn't sure that the line should be
drawn at Kings Highway just because it is a physical line that
you can see, and Director Keating admitted there is no right or
wrong when drawing these boundary lines. However, he felt it is
important to remember that the urban service area boundary is not
a permanent delineation. It is dynamic, and it is designed to
expand when the need arises. Staff doesn't look at Kings Highway
as being the ultimate urban service boundary. In fact, we make a
point in the staff report here that this property very well may
be a candidate for redesignation and expansion just through the
normal evolutionary process of development occurring and the
County looking at maintaining this residential allocation ratio.
If more development occurs, we then can redesignate more land in
the urban service area.
Commissioner Scurlock just wanted to point out that the
subject property where we are going to have to bring water and
sewer is only 3 blocks to the south of Pinetree Park, which is
designated to be serviced by water and sewer. He noted that
Pinetree Park is pretty densely built.
Director Keating stated that staff's position has been that
if this property is redesignated, it will provide the
justification to redesignate all the other property on the west
side of Kings Highway. It will have an effect on the residential
allocation ratio that we talked about earlier. It also is going
77 RUdK.
NOV 12
40V 12 i991
[OOK
to have a negative effect when it comes to future development
requesting higher densities. He felt that the provisions we have
now in the Comp Plan for clustering within agricultural areas
allow the best of both worlds. The cluster provision allows the
applicant to go in there and develop it at a density of one unit
per 5 acres, clustering those 8 units but keeping the other 32
units vacant for now under an easement agreement that says when
it is warranted and the property is redesignated,, the owner can
develop the additional part.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto wasn't sure how close we are
to bringing water and sewer into Pinetree Park, but thought it
was within one mile.
Director Keating summed up the reasons for staff's recommen-
dation for denial of the Feldman request, noting that the primary
reason was that it wasn't consistent with policy 13.3 since there
is no change or special circumstance involved.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing, and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Mr. & Mrs. David
Feldman, owners of the 40 -acre parcel, recalled that he was
present at a number of the land development regulations hearings
when this area was redesignated. He felt there are some
devastating effects from being thrown out of the urban service
area. Not only is the property owner getting a reduction in
densities and being removed from the urban service area, he is
being forced to warehouse his property until sometime in the
future when development becomes a little more dense on the east
side of Kings Highway. He also is being forced into a PD type of
clustering development rather than being able to sell off 5 -acre
tracts which would enable him to recover a larger part of his
investment. Attorney Henderson felt the Board was familiar with
the alternative presented by Ralph Poppell on 43rd Avenue. Mr.
Poppell did a pretty good job of presenting the proposal and
getting it before certain people at the DCA and selling them on
the proposal to include some properties on the west side of 43rd
Avenue in the urban service area including 80 acres owned by
himself. Staff supported that proposal and in doing so made some
very good statements and very clear rationale that would actually
support this amendment. Attorney Henderson felt this situation
is parallel to the Poppell amendment in that the property is on
the west side of Kings Highway and fronts a major arterial.
The Feldmans are seeking an opportunity to at least get their
request sent to Tallahassee for review by the DCA where possibly
some set -offs can be worked out.
78
David Feldman explained that he and his wife purchased this
property in 1988 believing that the area would be appropriate for
development within the near future. They had planned to develop
the property at 1 unit per acre, but were advised last June that
this property was going to be redesignated to lower densities.
He felt that the designation should be based on what is the best
thing -for the community, which in his opinion, is one unit per -
acre. Mr. Feldman advised that they have encouragement that
their project is economically advisable, and noted that two of
their neighbors are here today who are in support of the project.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Bird -
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board approved the
transmittal of the proposed land use amendment to the
DCA for their 90 -day review.
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF PROPOSED LAND USE AMENDMENTS
TO THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-172, approving the transmittal of all of
the amendments presented by staff today to the State of
Florida Department of Community Affairs for their
90 -day review.
79
NOV 12 PR
13001(p EAU. L)JCs
MOV 121991
�OGK U F„GE 810
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 172
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF PROPOSED
AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW
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 1991 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on September 26, 1991,
after due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners approve transmittal of the comprehensive
plan amendments listed as "a", "b", "c" and "d" below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1991,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), 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 the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: -
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendments listed as "a",
"b", "c", and "d" are approved for transmittal to
the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs for written comment.
a. Request to amend Comprehensive Plan Text,
including amendments to several policies,
tables and text of the Future Land Use
Element, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, Potable
Water Sub -Element, and Capital Improvements
Element (CPTA-91-07-0157).
b. Request to amend the Land Ube Eleaient of the
Comprehensive Plan for ±20 acres from L-1,
Low -Density Residential - 1 (up to 3
units/acre) to Hospital/Commercial Node for
property located on the 600 block of 37th
Street (LUDA-91-07-0177).
80
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 172
c. Request to amend the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan for ±888 acres from .AG -2,
Agricultural - 2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) to
AG -1, Agricultural - 1, (up to 1 unit/5 acres)
for property located west and south of the
City of Fellsmere, south of County Road 512
(Fellsmere Road) (LUDA-91-07-0175).
d. Request to amend the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan for ±40 acres from AG -1,
Agricultural - 1 (up Lo 1 unit/5 acres) to R,
Rural (up to 1 unit/acre) for property located
on the west side of 58th Avenue, south of 4th
Street (LUDA-91-07-0126).
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Wheeler and
upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird r-". Aye
Vice -Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 12 day of November 1991.
ATTEST:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
f frey`- K.' Barton, Clerk
J�-o9rilt . C .
u\v\c\feld.res
NOV 1_ lcM
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
81
Indian AIM Ca
Approved
Date
Admin.
Vie_//
c(
• G—,
Legal
dC�
(�-fl
11
Budget
-
AO -
Dept.
Dept.
/Q M k
wish/
Risk Mar.
4/ /A
m iK
tkooK: 84 F'AUE 811
Pr -
12 t99
BOOK 64 PAGE
ACCEPTANCE OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM SOUTH BEACH RESIDENTS TO
PURCHASE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FOR ENHANCING THE EMT -D PROGRAM
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/91:
4el.,
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler
County nis ator
FROM: Doug Wrighi, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: November 5, 1991
SUBJECT: Acceptance of Additional. Funds from South Beach
Residents to Purchase Capital Equipment For
Enhancing the EMT -D Program
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the regular meeting scheduled for November 12, -1991.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The EMT -D Program was implemented with Board approval on May 15,
1991, at Station No. 6 utilizing $23,000.00 in donated funds from
South Beach residents. The enhanced equipment on board the first
responder unit has been used on different medical emergencies
aiding critically ill patients until paramedics arrive. Since the
program was implemented until September 8, 1991, the EMT -D unit has
responded to ninety-four (94) fire and EMS emergency incidents...
On September 5, 1991, the Moorings Property Owners Association,
through Mr... George Shaw, contacted the Department of Emergency
Services and inquired about the possibly of purchasing additional
equipment for the EMT -D unit with excess funds. On October 2,
1991, the Director of Emergency Services responded to the request._
advising of three types of additional equipment that would be
beneficial to the program. It was also pointed out to Mr. Shaw
that the equipment now in place was sufficient to accomplish the
goals and objectives originally outlined and no deviation in
quality or quantity of service would occur if the additional
equipment was not purchased or put into service.
On October 30, 1991, the Moorings Property Owners Association
delivered a cashiers check in the amount of $2,831.00 to the
Department of Emergency Services to be used to purchase the
additional following medical equipment:
1. Pulse Oximetry Unit - This medical device would be used to
determine the..oxygen level within a patient's blood stream. This
device will assist the EMT in generating critical patient
information to achieve immediate patient evaluation resulting in
improved patient care. This unit would be compatible with existing
pulse oximetry units currently on board other emergency transport
vehicles. Anticipated cost of the pulse oximetry unit is
$2,200.00.
2. Glucose Monitor
determine .. the exact
hypoglycemic patients
glucose level can be
until the arrival of
- This medical device would be used to
blood glucose level in diabetic and
Identification of a life threatening
temporarily corrected by responding EMT's
the paramedics. By having this equipment
82
available, the EMT's can begin treatment using oral/sublingual
dextrose agents in symptomatic patients and those deemed in need by
the monitoring device. The cost of the monitor unit plus dextrose
agents is $271.00.
3. Obturator Airways - The purchase of additional obturator
airways will be used to supplement existing supplies and are
utilized on the basis of. single patient use. The cost of the
obturator airways which includes six tubes is $360.00.
TOTAL COST.OF-ADDITIONAL EQUIPMENT - $2,831.00
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
If the Board of County Commissioners approves the acceptance of the
funds and authorizes the expenditure of the funds for the stated
medical equipment, staff will revise the existing medical protocols
and include instructions on utilizing the equipment. The EMT's
.will then be trained how to interpret the data from the pulse
oximeter and glucose monitor to enhance life sustaining techniques.
r. Roger Nicosia recommends the purchase of the medical equipment
and is in the process of formulating the training program which
will be implemented to qualify staff in the use of this
sophisticated equipment.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the
purchase of the capital medical equipment items as stated above and
authorize acceptance of the $2,831.00 in donations -from residents
of the South Beach area and the Moorings Property Owner's
Association.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by •
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted
$2,831 in donations from residents of the South Beach
area and the Moorings Property Owner's Association, and
authorized the purchase of the capital medical
equipment items as listed in the above staff
recommendation.
83
NOV 12 99
Nor
OV i
BOOK 84 PAGE 814
77TH STREET FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT EASEMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/91:
NOmmOONOWNINNNIIMMOMMONNIMONINOMNOmMONIINOMMON
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Directo
and
Roger D. Cain, P.
County Engineer
FROM: `F:''`' W. A. "Bill" Meage
Construction Coordinator
SUBJECT: 77th Street F.P. & L. Easements
DATE: November 5, 1991 -
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Florida Power and Light has been trying to obtain easements within
county owned property on the south side and north side of Hobart
Road at Kings Highway. According to the Proposed County
'wThoroughfare Plan these easements would be in the proposed right-
of-way area [see attached (blue area)].
f Cr }p1is?
Staff has reviewed the proposed location of the easements requested
by F.P. & L. and found these locations to be unsuitable for long
term use and would most likely be in conflict with future road and
drainage design in this area.
Alternative & Analysis
Staff has determined that F.P. & L. facilities could be located at''.
the proposed future right-of-way lines with little or no.
interference with the proposed roadway or drainage improvements
within this area [see attached (yellow area)]. It would also
enable us to regulate the location of other utilities coming into
this area without the need for easements for each as all utilities
would fall under the right-of-way permit requirements.
' RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the County owned lands that fall within the
proposed future right-of-way along the east side of King Highway
and along the north side of Hobart Road be officially designated
for the purpose of right-of-way as described (see attached
Resolution). Staff also recommends that an easement as described
(see attached) be granted to Florida Power and Light Company for
the purpose of placing an electrical transformer within a small
portion of county owner property at the intersection of right-of-
wav lines at the northeast corner of Kings Highway and Hobart Road._
FUNDING
None required.
84
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 91-173 dedicating County -owned land
for a right-of-way, and approved a Deed of Easement
granting an easement to FP&L for the purpose of
placing an electrical transformer within a small
portion of County -owned property at the intersection
of right-of-way lines at the northeast corner of Kings
Highway and Hobart Road.
RESOLUTION NO. 91- 173
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA DEDICATING COUNTY -OWNED LAND
FOR A RIGHT-OF-WAY.
WHEREAS, the County owns certain parcels of land in fee
WHEREAS, portions of said parcels are needed for right-of-way,
and
WHEREAS, it is in the public interest and will assist orderly
administration to dedicate by resolution the needed right-of-way to.
the general public,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that:
1. The land described in paragraph two of this Resolution is
hereby dedicated to public right-of-way. Said dedication to remain in
effect until this Resolution is specifically set aside or superseded.
NOV 9.2 a�9
Legal descriptions of right-of-way:
a. The East 50 feet of the West 90 feet, LESS the
South 40 feet, of the SW 1/4 of the SW 1/4 of
Section 33, Township 31 South, Range 39 East,
Indian River County.
b. The North 40 feet of the South 80 feet of the SW
1/4 of the SW 1/4 of Section 33, Township 31
South, Range 39 East, LESS the West 90 feet
thereof, lying West of Lateral "G" Canal, Indian
River County.
85
nooa 84 F.A6E. i5
40l9 12 1991
!BOOK 84 f4E, 816
c. The East 50 feet of the West 90 feet of the South
5314.01 feet of the North 5389.01 feet of Section
4, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian
River County.
The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner
Bowman and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Scurlock , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
- follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird A y e
Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Ay e
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ave
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman A y e
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 12 day of November 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Ric . : rd N. Bird
Chairman
Admin.
Legal
86
DEED OF EASEMENT
THIS DEED OF EASEMENT, made this 12
day of November ,
p91, by Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
orida, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, in favor
dxd d _Power and Light, Grantee,
ITNESSETH: That the said Grantor, for and in consideration of
thasum of ONE DOLLAR and other valuable consideration in hand paid
*;:the Grantee, the receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does
ereby grant, bargain, and convey to the Grantee, its successors and
ssigns , forever, a utility easement for the location, construction, and
r,�ff., moi}
maintenance, an electrical transformer, and upon the following described
property situated in the County of Indian River, State of Florida, and
being more particularly bounded and described as follows:
From the SW corner of Section 33, Township 31 South, Range 39
East, run East along the South section line, 98.5 feet to a point. Then
run North, parallel with the West line of the said section 80 feet to a
POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run West, parallel with the South section
line, 8.5 feet to a point. Then run North, parallel with the West line
of the said section, 8.5 feet to a point. Then run Southeasterly, 12
feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Lying in Indian River, Florida.
TO HAVE AND TO HOLD the. same together with all rights
thereunto belonging, and all the estates, rights, title, interest, lien,
equity, and claim whatsoever of the said Grantor, either in law or
equity to only - the proper use and s benefit of the Grantee, their. -
successors and assigns forever, as long as the same is used by the
Grantee for the purposes of this conveyance; provided, however that
this deed of easement ' is subject to all of the requirements and
restrictions of Section 125.42, Florida Statutes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the said Grantor has hereunto set its
hands and seals the day and year first above written.
N
w
TATE ,OF.:YLOBIDA
Warne OF' N.s IAN RIVER COUNTY
.:lad' ..i.. a.,�
HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day, before me, an officer duly
authorized in the State and County aforesaid to take a:.sa.aa........ gcmc itc,
personally appeared JEFFREY K. BARTON and RICHARD N. BIRD to me
well known to be the persons described in and who executed the
foregoing instrument and who acknowledged before me that they
executed the same.
WITNESS my ,had and official sal in the County and State last
aforesaid this =l day of , 1991.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
By:
Richard N.
C..
Bird, Chairman
RECORD VERIFIED
JEFFREY K. BARTON
CLERK CIRCUIT COURT
INDIAN RIVER CO.. FLA
My Commission expires:
NOV 121
ary Public
DOCUMENTARY STAMPS $ Z.1)
JEFFREY K. BARTON, CLERIC
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
87
EOOK 8 rAGE. C.y1 ti
NOV-12 199
POOK
AWARD OF BID 92-32, CR -510 WABASSO CAUSEWAY BRIDGE REPAIRS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/4/91:
FAI;c QJs
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Award of Bid #92-32,
CR510 Wabasso Causeway Bridge Repairs
DATE: November 4, 1991
FILE: wabasso.nov
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Bids were received Oct. 23, 1991, for the Wabasso Causeway
Bridge Repair work.;,,The entire timber fender system beneath
the bridge needs replacement and miscellaneous minor items
need repair. The County's bridge consultant on this
;:.project, Post, Buckley, Schuh, and Jernigan, Inc. (PBSJ)
"Miami, FL, has estimated the cost of this work to be
$579,500.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Letters were sent on Oct. 3,.1991 to 23 contractors through.,
Florida notifying' -them of •the project. In addition, the;;
project was advertised,in the local newspaper. Only one bid •
•was received as follows:• .�. 7 $� J I ,ti.l.ei
. S"1 h f Y w KE il
I S �3 { '�a�j 4 +I:n.fi. o ryd4Ei�bV', 1t... .
Zi p 's✓ '. "1 c k i ? tdi : r Basent Bid t-2-. '44:
Bidder � .� s;;� ;,„".�
Tom Quinn Company,'; Inc .,.� :`
rH ” .µ:
SY .., i'rA.rn
Palmetto, FL/Hobe Sound, FL hsy ,,� . �,_ $ 628,158 t
>Yry d ;;f
On Oct. 16, 1991, the ,. Purchasing , Division;' called' eight o,
_en .of the bidders to inquire as. to'.,why, they had not •picked; ..
up "contract ' documents .. for thiswork. ;:The contractors;'
,communicated various reasons as noted in the attached memo *
from Fran Boynton to Jim Davis dated Nov. 5, 1991. ;n;
PBSJ has reviewed the bids and contacted various firms and
government agencies to determine the contractor's..
qualifications and past performance. As a result of this
effort and the fact that only one bidwasreceived, the
Consultant and County staff would normally recommend that
the project be re -bid. However, the US Coast Guard Aids to
Navigation Branch in Miami has informed the County that it
is critical to replace the timber fender system as soon as
possible. The timber structure is rapidly deteriorating and
falling into the intracoastal waterway,.: channel.
Navigational lights on the fenders cannot be kept in working
condition. This situation places the entire bridge in
jeopardy if a large vessel wandered off course as recently
happened in Fort Pierce.
The contractor has indicated that if the County disposes of
the old timber structure, a substantial savings would
-.•result. Staff is trying to determine the amount of savings
at this time.
88
Due to the critical need for, this repair, staff presents the
following alternatives:
Alternative No. 1
Award the bid to Tim Quinn Company, Inc. as follows:
Base Bid $628,158
Delete Item 5
Bridge Inspection Vehicle $ 2,500
$625,658
Alternative No. 2
Reject the bid and re -bid the project. If this
Alternative is chosen, staff recommends new piling be
driven immediately as an interim emergency measure to_
restore navigation lights at each end of the timber_
fender system at a cost of $8,000.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
,,Alternative No.1 is recommended. -214g 154 1 066x31
;.;
Road and Bridge Division Replacement Fund 1
.($700,000 budgeted to replace bridges at 43rd Ave over the
Main Relief Canal and Oslo Road at Kings Highway).
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
Alternate No. 1 as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CONTRACT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE
BOARD WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
REQUEST BY MR. BUDDY ROWE TO SPEAK BEFORE THE BOARD RE CUSTOMER
SERVICES FROM NORTH BEACH R.O. WATER PLANT AND SEA OAKS WASTEWATER
PLANT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/25/91 and
letter dated 9/12/91:
89 BUOK, jL A' Sig
F'E
NOV 12199
Loop
8,71
DATE:
TO:
OCTOBER 25, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY:
SUBJECT:
HARRY E. ASHER
`ASSISTANT DIRE TOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
REQUEST BY MR. BUDDY ROWE (CUSTOMER SERVICED BY NORTH
'.BEACH R.O. WATER PLANT AND SEA OAKS WASTEWATER PLANT)
TO SPEAK BEFORE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
BACKGROUND:
The Board of County Commissioners authorized the purchase of the
North Beach Water Company (NBWC) in 1988 and Sea Oaks Utilities,
Inc. (SOUI) in 1989.
,ANALYSIS : '
At the time of purchase of both NBWC and SOU
utilities in the respective franchise areas
Indian River County uniform county rate and
surcharge of $13.00 for water service and
service.
I, all customers of the
became subject to the.
a purchase acquisition
$13.00 for wastewater
As authorized by its Rate Ordinance and Resolution,- the County
charges a monthly base facility and billing : charge to each
equivalent residential unit serviced by the water and sewer system.
is
sAn analysis of the,
current applicable charges to the customers'
,:the NBWC and SOUI franchise is as follows:
Billing Charge
Base Facility Charge
Acquisition Charge
Water
$ 2.00
8.70
$10.70
13.00
$23.70
Sewer
$ 2.00
12.25
$14.25
13.00
$27.25
$50.95
The surcharge amounts will be removed upon payment of the funds
borrowed for the acquisition of the NBWC and SOUI facilities.
The. Department believes that the rates would have been much higher
at the present time if Indian River County had not purchased the
facilities.
RECOMMENDATI ON :
The Department of Utility Services requests time on the Agenda for
Mr. Buddy Rowe, 1502. Coral Oak Lane, Vero Beach, Florida, to address
the Board of County Commissioners.
90
Telephone: (407) 567.8000
)
'October 22, 1991
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
Mr. Buddy Rowe
1502 Coral Oak Lane
Vero Beach, FL 32963
SUBJECT: YOUR CORRESPONDENCE DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 1991
Dear Mr. Rowe:
Suncom Telephone: 224-1011
. This is to respond to your letter dated September 12, 1991, and
advise that the Department of Utility Services has requested time
on the Board of County Commissioners' agenda for you on November
12, 1991. The Board of County Commissioners' meetings start at
9:00 a.m.
As follows is an explanation of the charges applicable to water and
sewer customers previously serviced by the North Beach Water
Company (NBWC) and Sea Oaks Utilities, Inc. (SOUI).
Both the North Beach Water Company AND Sea Oaks Utilities, Inc.,
Were authorized and permitted for construction and operation under
a franchise agreement between Indian River County and both NBWC and
SOUI. One term of both agreements was an option for purchase
within specified time limits by Indian River County. Indian River
County purchased both of these utilities under the option agreement
set forth in the franchise agreements. -
At the time of the purchase of both NBWC and SOUI, all customers of
the utilities became subject to the IRC uniform County rates and a
purchase acquisition surcharge of $13.00 for water service and
$13.00 for wastewater service.
The County charges a monthly base facility and billing charge to
each residence connected to the water and sewer system. The base
facility charge is a minimum charge to each customer. It is
charged even if the customer does not use the water and sewer
service that is available to them.
The money received from this charge pays for the fixed expenses of
maintaining and operating the water and sewer system that keep it
available for the customers when they need it.
'A' breakdown of the minimum uniform monthly charges related to in
your letter, effective as of October 1, 1991, per residential unit
are as follows:
•
Billing Charge
.Base Facility Charge
Acquisition Charge
Water Sewer
$ 2.00 $ 2.00
8.70 12.25
$10.70 $14.25
13.Q0 13.00
$23.70 $27.25
Total
$50.95
The surcharge amounts will be removed upon payment of the funds
borrowed for the purchase of the facilities.
We believe that the rates would have been much higher at the
present time if Indian River County had not purchased the
facilities.
Please confirm by November 4, 1991 that you can attend November 12,
1991. .
Very truly yours, .
Harry E. Asher
Assistant Director of Utility Services
91
10V 12-9.91
BOOK 84 F'A E
NOV 12
BOOK N rAtriE8521
Mr. Rowe explained that he was here today looking for a
little relief from the high rates for water and sewer service in
the north beach area because the average rate for residential
units along AIA amounts to $70 a month.
Chairman. Bird explained that the reason for the higher
utility bills in that area compared to other areas in the county
is that when the County purchased the North Beach Water Company
and Sea Oaks Utilities, Inc., all customers of those utilities
became subject to the IRC uniform county rates and a purchase
acquisition surcharge of $13.00 for water service and $13.00 for
wastewater service.
Mr. Rowe noted that most of the residents in that area go
north for the summer but their bills remain high, and
Commissioner Scurlock explained that the County charges a monthly
base facility and billing charge to each residence connected to
the water and sewer system. The base facility charge is a
minimum charge to each customer. It is charged even if the
customer does not use the water and sewer service that is
available to them.
In response to Mr. Rowe's belief that new developments such
as Orchid Island golf course and the Grand Harbor Beach Club
being added to the service area should result in a decrease of
rates and surcharges, Utilities Director Terry Pinto explained
that new customers actually add expense to the plant. He
stressed that you pay only for your capacity in the treatment
plant. If there are 100 units in a development, you pay
one-hundredth of that cost.
After lengthy explanation and debate about Mr. Rowe's
complaints about the quality of the water and the need for
Culligan service, Director Pinto offered to talk to the Culligan
man because there are no minerals in the water.
Commissioner Scurlock suggested that the Utilities Dept. do
a thorough testing on Mr. Rowe's water, and Director Pinto
agreed.
In conclusion, Mr. Rowe maintained that the high cost of;
utilities in Indian River County is the overall problem.
WEST/CENTRAL REGION REUSE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN - ENGINEERING
CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 10/29/91:
92
DATE:
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
OCTOBER 29, 1991
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO //� '�
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY RVICES
ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICIES
WEST/CENTRAL REGION REUSE WATER TRANSMISSION MAIN
ENGINEERING CONSULTANT AGREEMENT AND
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 1
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -91 -12 -ED
"BACKGROUND
On September 24, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners authorized
the Department of Utility Services to conduct negotiations with and
proceed with an agreement with the first -choice firm, McQueen and
*Associates, Inc., based upon the outcome of the negotiations .(see
Exhibit• A) .
,ANALYSIS
Negotiations with McQueen and Associates, Inc., for professional
services have been completed, and a Standard Form of Agreement
between Owner and Engineer for Professional Services, with Work
Authorization No. 1, were submitted to the County for approval (see
.Exhibit B). Work Authorization No. 1 consists of design services,
"permitting,services during bidding, construction contract
administration, and resident inspection of said project.
•
+In ''the preliminary" study report, the Department directed .the
consultant to visit sewer and effluent disposal Master Plans. The
pipe size androute shall be determined in accordance with future
development of the sewer area and Comprehensive Plan in the County.
The subject effluent disposal pipe can be easily converted to become
a sewer collection system to serve the same area should future
development warrant such conversion. The determination will give
the most economical route as it was originally formulated in IRC RFP
91-116 (see Exhibit C).
The consulting -fee for services is based upon the FmHA percentage of
total construction costs. The estimated total construction cost of
the project is $1,481,3:04.00.
'Consulting services fee (5.81%)
Resident inspection services (1.91%)
Additional services
a. field surveying fee
b. soil testing
Miscsllaneous costs
a. extra prints and copies beyond
the agreement allowance (upper
limit)
Note: *
Funding
Fund.
$86,063.76 *
28,292.91 *
10,000.00
5,000.00
1,000.00
Total $130,356.67 *
Figure will be adjusted when firm construction costs are
known.
for design of this project will be from the Sewer Impact Fee
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends authorization'of the
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners to execute the
agreement with McQueen and Associates and approve Work Authorization
No. 1. .
93
NOV 121W
BOOK 64 FA.6E
NOV '12 1991
BOOK 84 [AGE
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the Engineering Consultant Agreement for Professional
Services with McQueen & Associates, Inc. along with
Work Authorization No. 1 (contained in the Agreement as
Exhibit "A"), as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR DOCKS ON CALCUTTA DRIVE - REDFIELD
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/4/91:
The Board of County Commissioners
William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney
November 4, 1991
License Agreement for Docks on Calcutta Drive - Redfield
On. June 18, 1991 the Board of County Commissioners approved one dock
License Agreement on Calcutta Drive with Donald Redfield and a second
License Agreement for a dock with Scott and Carolyn Redfield. Since that
date, Mr. Donald Redfield has passed away. Scott . and Carolyn Redfield
would like Board approval for the transfer of the License Agreement from
Donald Redfield to them and approval of the assignment of their License
Agreement to Scott and Carolyn Redfield's daughter and son-in-law (Jennifer
and Kevin Mahon).
RECOMMENDATION::'
Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached License Agreements upon
rovision of adequate proof of insurance and payment of the annual license
ee.-? ,. „� .. ts'..�, . ""....-'r ?: :.� ._ a r'�� r`4:" r.l"`'�LSYw 1 +
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the License Agreements with Scott and Carolyn Redfield,
as set out in the above staff recommendation.
COPIES OF LICENSE AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
94
AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE
The Board reviewed the following memo and letter dated
9/23/91:
TO: Board of County Commission DATE: November 8, 1991 FILE:
SUBJECT: Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee
FROM. Carolyn R. Eggert REFERENCES:
County Commission
Please accept the resignation of Ann Reuter from the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee and. appoint June Mitsakos in her place..
Thank you.
• 'yyl
444 C no
• •1 I�•
�• r)4Al� S�0(/N�
5' Nf-
,September, 23' a` 2 6•
kAil . .1..• J.......+•.
Honorable Carolyn Eggert
County Commission.
:• .1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, F1 32960
Dear Carolyn:
4 .
a
• Attorney •
Personnel
Public Works
Corrimunity Dev.
Utilities
Finance
Other
I have .enjoyed my time spent on the Affordable Housing
Task Force, but I have offered the committee very little.
continuity because Cliff has us traveling somewhere almost
every other month.. I am certainly not complaining, but I
do need to step down as an official member and let someone
else take my place.
At Lorry Gartner's suggestion, I contacted June Mitsakos
who owns Sea Island Realty and will be Board"of-Realtor's`
President next year. She is quite interested and asked me
to let you know that she would like to help in any. way
that she can as she plans to make affordable housing her
pet project for this year. In July she attended a
National Board of Realtors special conference on
affordable housing in DC where only 150 of the nations
most interested boards were issued invitations to attend.
The local board is quite interested in 'this subject.
June's phone numbers are 231-9100(w) and 231-5044(h).
95
OV 121gg h
BOOK 84 EAU 8Z
l4 ,/ 12 1991
BOOK 84 F E
In addition, I had a good suggestion from Joe Idlette:
Clayton Broxton. We've known Clayton ("Tiny") for years
and agree he'd be an excellent choice. He's a
.well-respected and well- connected member of the Gifford
community •who works for the school board running paint
crews, and also does some house construction and
."'.'renovations. However, I have been unable to talk with him
on whether he is available for day time meetings. His
phone number is 5.67-2967(h)
I am sorry that I need to resign. however, I would like
to continue receiving notices of the meetings and will
attend as many as possible.
Sincerely,
Ann Reuter,
•
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the resignation of Ann Reuter from the Affordable
Housing Advisory Committee and appointed June Mitsakos
in her place.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:50 o'clock A.M.
ATTEST:
. Barton, Clerk Richard N. Bird, Chairman
96