HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/5/1992BOAR034 A
D OF OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY S. 1992
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman
Richard N. Bird
Don C. Scurlock, Jr.
Gary C. Wheeler
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
************************************************
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION -
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Richard N. Bird
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
a. Chairman Eggert req.addn to today's Agenda as Item 11-A,
regarding State surplus property in area of SR60 and I-95.
b. Commr.Bowman req.addn regarding duplication of material in
Agenda packets & Co.purchasing recycled paper.
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS cont' d( *SEE BELOW)
None
* C.
d.
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular meeting of 3/17/92
B. Regular meeting of 3/24/92
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and placed on file in the office of Clerk
to the Board:
Report of Convictions. Month of March, 1992
Copy of Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of the Board of
Supervisors of Seb. Riv. Water Control District held
on Wednesday. March 18, 1992
B. Acceptance of Reimbursements from Municipalities for
Their Share of Elections.
( memorandum dated April 27, 1992 )
C. Final Plat Approval for the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart
Subdivision
( memorandum dated April 16, 1992 )
D. Bid Award #92-85 / Water Tower Inspection
(memorandum dated April 28, 1992)
Adm.Chandler req.deferment of Item 7 -H -Amendment to Admin.
Policy Manual.
Chairman Eggert req.Co. Atty's matter,
Item 9-B as the 2nd discussion item.
Item 12, be moved up- to
r
MAI 0
7. CONSENT AGENDA Icont'd.)-
E. IRC Bid #92-90 / Truck Mounted Crane
( memorandum dated April 27, 1992 )
F. Old Library Building - Asbestos Abatement Monitoring
Cost
(memorandum dated April 28, 1992)
G. Upgrade Computer Equipment to 16 MHZ, B.A. 026
( memorandum dated April- 29, 1992 )
H. Amendment to Administrative Policy Manual
( memorandum dated April 29, 1992 )
I. Request for Authorization to Sign Contract; Issuance
of Notice to Proceed - Sandridge Clubhouse, Golf Cart
Storage and Maintenance Buildings
( memorandum dated April 29, 1992 )
J. Request to Close Indian River Drive for 4th of July
Celebration
(memorandum dated April 27, 1992)
K. Department of Environmental Regulation Grant Funds
(memorandum dated April 20, 1992)
S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
FDNR Manatee Protection Speed Zones
(memorandum dated April 27, 1992)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Proposed Change ( Minor Amendment) to the Grand
Harbor DRI Development Order
( memorandum dated April 29, 1992 )
2. GHA Harbor's Request for Special Exception Con-
ceptual Planned Development Approval for the
Harbor Villages at Grand Harbor
(memorandum dated April 24, 1992)
3. Ames, et. al. Request to Amend the Comprehensive
Plan to Redesignate +/- 20 Acres From L-1 to
Hospital/ Commercial Node and to Rezone Approx.
29.05 Acres to MED
(memorandum dated April 23, 1992)
4. Feldman Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan
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 Re-
zone Approx. 40 Acres from RFD to RS -1
(memorandum dated April 27, 1992)
S. Kahn Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate +/- 888 Acres From AG -2 to AG -1
(memorandum dated April 28, 1992)
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd. ):
6. 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
( memorandum dated April 27, 1992 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Approval of Interlocal Agreement . for Mutual Aid
Between I . R. C.. Osceola County, and the I.R.C.
Emergency Services District
( memorandum dated April 22, 1992 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
1. Old Library Building Renovations
( memorandum dated April 28, 1992 )
2. New Courthouse Project - Cornerstone Request
( memorandum dated April 27, 1992 )
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
None
H. UTILITIES
Anita Park - 38th Place Water Service Project - Final
Assessment Roll and Resolution IV
( memorandum dated April 20, 1992 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
Contract for Special Appointed Public Defender in Non -
Capital Felony, Misdemeanor, and Juvenile Cases Where the
County is Statutorily Required to Provide for Court -
Appointed Counsel
( memorandum dated April 27, 1992 )
MAY ® 5 1992
a
�, A �
!BOOK N10A 4�i�,
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN CAROLYN K. EGGERT
B. VICE CHAIRMAN MARGARET C. BOWMAN
C. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD
D. COMMISSIONER DON C. SCURLOCK, JR.
E. COMMISSIONER GARY C. WHEELER
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. NORTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
B. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE DISTRICT
None
C. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 3/10/92
2. Approval of Minutes - Meeting of 3/17/92
3. Acceptance of Contract From Universal Waste and
Transit, Inc.
(memorandum dated April 15, 1992)
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
Tuesday, May 5, 1992
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, May 5, 1992, at
9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman;
Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Don C.
Scurlock, Jr.; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; Joseph Baird, OMB Director; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy
Clerk.
Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order.
Reverend Raymond Huddle, pastor of Redeemer Lutheran Church,
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Eggert requested the addition to today's Agenda as
Item 11-A of an item regarding State surplus property in the area
of SR -60 and I-95.
Commissioner Bowman requested the addition under her matters
of a discussion regarding the duplication of material in the Agenda
packets and the County purchasing recycled paper.
Administrator Chandler requested a deferment of Item 7-H -
Amendment to Administrative Policy Manual.
Chairman Eggert requested that the County Attorney's matter,
Item 12, be moved up to Item 9-B as the second discussion item.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added,
moved up, and deferred the above items.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Chairman Eggert asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 17, 1992.
There were none.
� MAY U 5 1992 J
LOOK F���3r .w I
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
3/17/92, as written.
Chairman Eggert asked if there were any corrections or
additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 24, 1992.
Chairman Eggert requested that the two references to the
"homeless" in the second paragraph of Page 16 be changed to
"people". She also requested a change in the third paragraph on
Page 19 so that it reads 11 ... there have been comments about
disabled people having trouble... 11
ON MOTION Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously
approved the Minutes of 3/24/92, as corrected.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Bowman requested that Item E be removed for
discussion.
A. Reports
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk
to the Board:
Report of Convictions, Month of March, 1992
Copy of Minutes of Quarterly Meeting of the
Board of Supervisors of Sebastian River Water
Control District held on Wednesday, March 18, 1992.
B. Acceptance of Reimbursements from Municipalities for their
Share of Elections
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
April 27, 1992
TO: HON. CAROLYN EGGERT, CHAIRMAN, BCC
FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS
RE: ITEM FOR BCC CONSEk7r bF MAY 5, 1992
Please amend the elections budget so that we may accept the
reimbursements from the municipalities for their share of
the elections held in 1992 so far. The $9,252 will be put
into the Special Elections Account, 001-700-519-036.74 from
the municipalities as follows:
Vero Beach $4,700
Sebastian 3,092
Indian River Shores 1,046
Fellsmere 414.
Thank you.
K
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
the reimbursements from the municipalities and
authorized the deposit of the reimbursements into
the Special Elections Account, as recommended by
the Supervisor of Elections.
C. Final Plat Approval for the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart
Subdivision
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/16/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI ON HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. I i' , AI
Community DevelL? irector
THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Christopher D. Rison Cok",
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: April 16, 1992
SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR THE SEBASTIAN SQUARE/WAL-MART
SUBDIVISION
SD -90-04-14
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 5, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart Subdivision is a proposed 3 lot
commercial subdivision of a ± 11.25 acre parcel. The subdivision
is being created to "plat over" an existing commercial site. to
establish separate lots. The site is the existing Sebastian
Square/Wal-Mart shopping center located between U.S. #1 and
Riverside Drive, south of the City of Sebastian city 'limits. The
subject property is zoned CG, General Commercial, and has a
Sebastian City Limits/U.S. #1 Commercial Node land use designation.
On August 9, 1990, the. Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary plat approval for the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart
Subdivision.- No Land Development Permit was required for the
project as the project was platting over an existing site in which
improvements were already in place or could be required when the
subdivision lots develop in the future via site plan applications.
3
1100K
MAY 05 1992"�'
MAI 0 5 1992 Bou 66 a 256''
No additional subdivision documentation is required by the project
as no improvements will be dedicated to the public. Maintenance of
the site may be upheld by enforcement of the site's original site
plan and future approved site plans.
The owners, First Union National Bank" of Florida and Wal-Mart
Stores, Inc., through their agent, Morgan and.Eklund, Inc., have
submitted a final plat document in conformance with the approved
preliminary plat and are now requesting final plat approval.
ANALYSIS: I
The applicants have effectively satisfied the conditions of
Preliminary plat approval for the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart
Subdivision and satisfied all applicable requirements of final plat
approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final
plat approval for the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart Subdivision.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
Commissioner Bird,
the Board unanimously granted
by
final plat approval for the Sebastian Square/Wal-Mart
Subdivision, as recommended by stiff.
( Copy of Cash Deposit and Escrow Agreement is on file in the Office of
Clerk to the Board ) (For SanitARY Sewer Lift Station, etc.)
D. Bid Award #92-85/Water Tower Inspection Utilities Dept.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/92:
DATE: April 28, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General Servi
FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing ManageePl.
SUBJECT: Bid Award 092-85/Water Tower Inspection
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications mailed to:
Replies:
4
April 1, 1992
Fifteen (15) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
i ;1•'
S.G. Penney & Assoc.
Pt St Lucie, FL
Tank Industry Construction
Orlando, FL
Tank Engineering & Mgmt.
Tampa, FL
C/P Utility Services
Hamden, CT
TOTAL AMOUNT OF ID:
BID TABULATION
$ 28,620.00
$ 34,830.00
$ 36,228.00
$ 38,380.00
$ 28,620.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Water Utilities Water Tank Storage Maintenance
Account
BUDGETE� -z 4Q,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to S.G. Pinney & Assoc
as the lowest, most responsive, and responsible bidder meeting
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
In addition, staff requests the Board's approval of the attached
agreement when all requirements are met and approved as to form
by the County Attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #92-85 to S.G. Pinney & Assoc. in the amount
of $28,620, and approved the agreement as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
5
MAY 0 5 199
MAY 0 5 1
E. IRC Bid #92-90 -- Truck Mounted Crane - Utility Dept.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
DATE: April 27, 1992
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
Department of General ServicAs-
FROM:
Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: IRC Bid 192-90/Truck Mounted Crane
Utility Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION•
Bid Opening Date: April 15, 1992
Specifications mailed to: Four (4) Vendors
Replies: Four (4) Vendors
O BID TABULATION
Action Fabrication $ 6,847.00
Clearwater, FL
Nicholls Truck Bodies $ 6,940.00
Jacksonville, FL
Steele -Balt, Inc $ 7,025.00
Titusville, FL
Rayside Truck & Trailer $ 71060.00
West Palm Beach, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $ 6,847.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Sewer Utilities Other Machinery and Equipment
Account
BUDGETED AMOUNT:
RECOMMENDATION:
silt 000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Action Fabrication as
the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications set forth in the Invitation to Bid. (See attached
memo) .
Commissioner Bowman asked if Action Fabrication bid a Liftmore
model originally, and General Services Director Sonny Dean advised
that all of the bidders met the specifications, but there was a
mix-up on the outrigger model that Action Fabrication bid. After
reviewing all the bids, he called the low bidder, Action
Fabrication, and asked about their bid on the detachable outrigger.
Mr. Ray Gillis of Action Fabrication said that he bid.one tube -type
6
outrigger for the center of the truck. Director Dean advised that
he explained to him that the County likes the Liftmore Model 31131
Drop Down Jackstand Outrigger because we load from the side, and
asked them to fax us a price with the outrigger 31131 installed.
Action Fabrication's new price of $6,841 is still the low bid by
$93 and remains staff's recommendation.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #92-90 to Action Fabrication, as set out in
the above staff recommendation.
F. Old Library Building - Asbestos Abatement Monitoring Cost
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/92:
DATE: APRIL 28, 1992
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: OLD LIBRARY BUILDING - ASBESTOS ABATEMENT
MONITORING COST
BACKGROUND:
On February 25, 1992, the Board approved expenditure of funds to
abate the old library building of asbestos. In accordance with the
law, it was necessary to have a qualified contractor monitor this
abatement and perform certain test during the actual work. Due to
the time constraints, we were unable to get prior Board approval.
Environmental Aspecs, Inc., the firm performing similar work on the
new courthouse site, proposed a price for this project at the same
rate as the courthouse project.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Since the courthouse project was bid and Environmental Aspecs, Inc.
was the low bidder and this cost was extended to the old library
work, staff recommends Board -Approval.
L-
7
BOOK
Environmental
Aspecs,
Inc.
==21dousY�T T'%. 8°'vie°°
Ae
INVOICE FOR BRRVICRB
ATTEN XONt DEPT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SOLD TOe INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH FL 32678
NUMBER:
92104.100
DATE=
03/31/92
PROJECT NAME
Old Library Facility
PROJECT LOCATIONS
Vero Beach, FL
EAI PROJECT NUMBER1
40-921-949
YOUR PURCHASE ORDER NOlIDERt
As per agreement
PAYION'1' TERMS s
DUE UPON RECEIPT
DATE
•a• TIME CBARGRB
EMPLOYEE / PROJECT FUNCTION
w••
QUM
RATE
AMOUNT I
02/26/92
02/27/92
R Mahan
R Mahan
Daily Air Monitoring
Air
1.00
1 00
289.00
289.00
02/28/92
R Mahan
Daily Air Monitoring
1.00
289 00
289.00
289.00
289.00
92
03/02/92
R MMahan
R
Hours >
* Daily Air OMoniitoring
3.00$289.00
05
89.00
/92
R Mahan
R MahanDaly
OMoy
Airnitoring
i.00
3.00$85
$day
243.35
130.0503/0392
03/04/92
R Mahan
Dail Air monitoring
Y q
1.00
1 00
$29.00
289.00
$ 289.00
289.00
03/05/92
92
R Mahan
R Mahan
Daily Air Monitoring
1.. 00
$ 289.00
289.00
03/06/92
R Mahan
Daily AirOMonitoring
2.005289.00
03/06/92
R Mahan
Hours > 10/day
1.00
2.00
$ay
$ 43.35
$$86.70
289.00
$ 86.70
•• MIBC'EEPRNBE AND MATERIAL CHARGES •;
REMIT TO: Environmental Aspecs, Inc.
Post Office Box 28210 TOTAL AMOUNT DUES $ 2,745.50
Raleigh NC 27611-8210
P.O.Bo28210, Rae'gh,NOrthCarplina27611-8210 • (919) 954-8011
R8910n8) 010cm Florida 9 NoM Carou=.
p /wa
ON MOTION by Commissioner -Scurlock, seconded by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously extended
approval for asbestos abatement on the old library
building to Environmental Aspecs, Inc. in the amount
of $2,745.50, as recommended by staff.
G. Ungrading of Computer Equipment in Purchasing Det,artment
Budget Amendment 026
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/29/92:
8
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: April 29, 1992
SUBJECT: UPGRADE COMPUTER EQUIPMENT TO 16 N=
BUDGET AMENDMENT 026
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A. Baird&
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The Board of County Commissioners approved a computer system for the Purchasing
Department in the 1991/92 fiscal year. The new Purchasing System was to operate at 4
MHZ in order to utilize existing equipment Currently all other operating systems
connected to the mainframe operate at 16 MHZ. Data Processing feels that it would be
in the best interest of the county for us to upgrade the Purchasing System to 16 MHZ to
be consistent with all of the other departments. To accomplish this, we need to purchase
two new personal computers and four (4) 16 MHZ token ring cards at a cost of
approximately $5,500.
The Budget Office, Purchasing Department and Data Processing feel that changing the
system from 4 MHZ to 16 MHZ will be beneficial and save money on a long term basis.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget
amendment in the amount of $5,500.00.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment 026 in the amount of $5,500 to
upgrade computer
equipment, as recommended
by staff.
TO: Members of the Board
SUBJECT:
BUDGET AMENDMENT
of County Commissioners
NUMBER:
026
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
DATE:
April 28, 1992
OMB Director
Entry,
Numberl Funds/Deoartment/Account
i
Name 'Account
Number ;
i
Increase ; Decrease
1. !EXPENSE
;GENERAL FUND/Purchasing
;OfficeFurniture & EguiDment
1001-216-513-066.41
S
5 500$ 0
!Reserve for Contingency
i
!-001-199-581-099.911$
Oj$ 5,500
9
?UOK
J {'
MAY 051992
I
r
61
AY
� 2, BOOK FACE
H. Amendment to Administrative Policy Manual
Item deferred.
I. Notice to Proceed - Sandridge Golf Course - Clubhouse Cart
Storage and Maintenance Buildings
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/29/92:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Direct;
Request for Authorization to Sign Contract;
Issuance of Notice to Proceed -
SANDRIDGE CLUBHOUSE, GOLF CART STORAGE
AND MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS
April 29, 1992 FILE: clubhse.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On April 7, 1992, Barth Construction was awarded. the
Contract to construct the clubhouse, cart storage buildings
and other maintenance buildings at Sandridge Golf Course for
Base Bid + Alt. 2 and 6 $709,725
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to sign the
contracts and the Public Works Department to issue a Notice
to Proceed.
Funding shall be from Account #418-000-169
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the Chairman to sign the contracts with Barth
Construction and authorized the Public Works Dept.
to issue a Notice to Proceed, as recommended by
staff.
10
J. Request to Close Indian River Drive for 4th of July Celebration
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
FROM: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
SUBJECT: Request to Close Indian River Drive for
4th of July Celebration
REF. LETTER: Letter from John Malek to Jim Davis dated
April 11, 1992
DATE: April 27, 1992
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
FILE: seb4.agn
The City of Sebastian Celebrating the Spirit of America
Fourth of July Festival is requesting permission to close a
portion of Indian River Drive at US 1 North to Davis Street
on July 4th from 6 AM to 12 Midnight to accommodate the
Parade and Festival. Staff has no objection to this
request, provided that:
1) Proper barricades, furnished by the Traffic Engineering
Division, are installed by the Festival
representative(s) and that the representative(s)
contact the Traffic Engineering Division at 569-5143
seventy-two hours prior to event, -
2) A representative be listed as a contact person in
charge of the event in case the road needs to be
opened.
3) Access to emergency vehicles be maintained.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends approval. No funding is applicable.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized
the closing of Indian River Drive to accommodate
Sebastian's 4th of July parade and festival with the
3 conditions as set -out in staff's recommendation.
11
NOK
MAY 0
L�
MAY 0 5 1992BOOK 6jb f'Hi E4.0'
K. Department of Environmental Regulation Grant Funds - Hazardous
Waste Collection Center Activities
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/20/92:
DATE: APRIL 20, 1992 _
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
THRU: TERRANCE G. PINTO, DIRECTOR
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRI
X:::�j
FROM: RONALD R. BROOKS, MANAGER "X
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRI
SUBJECT: DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION
GRANT FUNDS
BACKGROUND
The State Department of Environmental Regulation (DER) issued the
county grants for implementation of a Hazardous Waste Management
Program in 1988 and 1989. The first grant was for construction
of a hazardous waste storage facility and the second was for
reimbursement for costs of disposing of hazardous wastes during a
collection day. The total dollar amount of the grants received
and subsequently utilized by the county to date is approximately
$58,125.
The DER grant program can provide up to $100,000 of hazardous
waste grant funds to each county. As such, Indian River County
is entitled to a remaining $41,875 in grant funds for its
hazardous waste program.
The DER is currently awarding hazardous waste management grants
to those counties that desire same. The grants have been
prioritized for those counties that have not yet implemented a
hazardous waste management program. Funds remaining after othe
award to those counties are now being -distributed to counties who
desire the funds and already have a program in place.
AN_
S.W.D.D. staff requested authorization by the Board to pursue the
additional hazardous waste grant funds if they became available.
That request was granted and a letter was sent to DER requesting
hazardous waste grant funds if they became available.
Attached is a recently received grant contract issued by the DER
to Indian River County for use of grant funds to improve the
county,'s existing hazardous waste facilities and to reimburse
expenses associated with collection and disposal of household
waste.
S.W.D.D. has budgeted $25,000 this fiscal year for upgrading the
existing hazardous waste storage facilities to include the
installation of air conditioned storage areas and the
construction of safer and more environmentally sound work and
storage areas. S.W.D.D. staff intends on utilizing the proposed
grant funds for additional funding of the hazardous waste storage
facility improvements, and for reimbursement of expenses for our
hazardous waste collection operations.
12
S.W.D.D. staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners
accept and execute the attached contract for award of grant funds
to the County in the amount of $41,875. It is also requested
that the Board authorize the S.W.D.D. to utilize the funds to
cover costs for improvements to the existing hazardous waste
storage facilities, with utilization of all remaining funds to
reimburse expenses for collection and disposal of household
waste.
The Board should be aware that the execution of this grant will
obligate the county to provide another two years of hazardous
waste collection service as is presently in place in accordance
with previous grants.
S.W.D.D. staff believes that this hazardous waste management
program is essential and beneficial to the interests of Indian
River County and had intentions of maintaining the program
regardless of obligations to the DER. The intent is to take
advantage of monies offered by the DER to continue a hazardous
waste management program on a long-term basis.
4
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously accepted
and authorized the Chairman to execute the contract
for the award of grant funds to the County in the
amount of $41,875, as set out in the above staff
recommendation.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
PUBLIC DISCUSSION - FDNR MANATEE PROTECTION SPEED ZONES
Commissioner Wheeler questioned the advisability of this being
on the Agenda today previous to the outcome of next Monday's
meeting of MANWAC, but Roland DeBlois, Chief of Environmental
Planning, felt it would be advantageous to discuss this today
since a DNR representative is -in attendance.
Mr. DeBlois briefly reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
13
E,OOK
MAY 0 51992
MAY 0 5 1992
u F�
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT READ CONCURRENCE:
obert M.ttpmejW
g,
Community DevelDirector
FROM: Roland DeBlois, AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: April 27, 1992
RE: FDNR Manatee Protection Speed Zones
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 5, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Recently, the State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) notified
county staff that DNR had drafted their recommendations for manatee
protection speed zones in Indian River County. Now that the state
has drafted its proposal, the county has the opportunity to provide
the state with comments and recommendations regarding the DNR plan.
Background
In October 1989, FDNR made recommendations to the Governor and
Cabinet regarding needed boating safety and manatee protection
strategies for 13 "key" manatee protection counties,_ including
Indian River County. As a result, the Governor and Cabinet voted
to allow the 13 counties to choose among three alternatives
regarding local speed zone regulations, these alternatives being:
1)� a 300' wide shoreline buffer slow -speed zone
(marked navigation channels exempt);
2) a maximum 30 m.p.h. speed limit within marked
channels, 20 m.p.h. elsewhere; or
3) a locally developed site-specific interim speed
zone plan.
In choosing the alternative of preparing a locally developed site-
specific interim speed zone plan, the Board of County Commissioners
appointed an ad hoc manatee protection and boating safety
committee. The ad hoc committee made recommendations to the Board,
and at a public hearing on February 6 1990, the Board adopted an
interim manatee protection speed zone plan (Resolution 90-20) which
was forwarded to FDNR for consideration.
FDNR Marine Resource Division staff reviewed Resolution 90-20 and
concluded that the plan did not provide adequate protection for
manatees. Consequently, FDNR submitted a proposal to the Board
requesting that its proposal be adopted in lieu of Resolution 90-
20.
At a public hearing on May 8, 1990, the Board adopted the FDNR
Proposal with modifications, and submitted the modified proposal
(Resolution 90-58) to FDNR for incorporation into state rules.
Now$ approximately two years after the Board's adoption of
Resolution 90-58, FDNR staff are finalizing their recommendations
on manatee protection speed zones in Indian River County and are
soon to make recommendations to the Governor and Cabinet on the
matter for incorporation into state rules. FDNB staff will be
holding a local public hearing on their proposed zones -within the
coming month.
14
Although FDNR staff's recent proposal is based on the county's
recommendations as set forth in Resolution 90-58, the FDNB
proposal contains modifications, as herein described.
Comparison of Resolution 90-58 to the FDNR Proposal
Following is a summary comparison of the county's recommended
speed zone plan to the plan now proposed by FDNR staff.
County Res. 90-58
FDNR Proposal
Intracoastal Waterway plus 100' Intracoastal Waterway plus
buffers exempt from speed restriction 100' buffers: 35 mph
segments, unrestricted
segments, seasonal and
year-round slow speed
segments.
Five non -restricted areas/
recreation use areas
One non -restricted
recreational use area,
two 35 mph year-round
recreational use areas,
two seasonal 35 mph
recreational use areas
(June 1 - October 31)
Non -restricted area between Wabasso Non -restricted area between
Bridge and the Sebastian Inlet, east Wabasso Bridge and the Seb-
of the Intracoastal astian Inlet east of the
Intracoastal, except for a
seasonally regulated "sand
and shell" islands area
Remainder of the Indian
River slow speed year-
round, with commercial
fisherman having the
opportunity for exemption
based on hardship
St. Sebastian River, Indian
River County portion:
slow speed year-round, with
20 mph travel corridor between
U.S. 91 Bridge and F.E.C. tracks
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Remainder of the Indian
River slow speed year-
round, with selected areas
idle speed (mouth of St.
Sebastian River, Johns
Island Creek, the
Fingers, the Moorings,
subdivision canals).
Commercial fisherman
opportunity for exemptions
with conditions.
Motorboats prohibited zones
(resident access by decal):
Vero Shores inner canals,
Sebastian Inlet Park north
cove
St. Sebastian River, Indian
River County portion: slow
speed year-round
On March 13, 1992, FDNR staff informally met with a number of local
people (representing various Interests) to get initial feed -back on
its draft speed zone regulations. The draft plan was also reviewed
and discussed by the Marine Advisory/Narrows Watershed Action
Committee (MANWAC). At each meeting, the two main..focuses of
discussion were FDNR staff's proposal to establish speed
restrictions in segments of the Intracoastal Waterway channel, and
the proposal to seasonally restrict popular water ski areas,
particularly the "Jungle Trail narrows".
15
MAY 0 5 199
OK [AUC 4,0 d�
I
_I
MAY 0 5 1992 Boos
FDNR staff have indicated that manatee protection warrants speed
restrictions in certain sections of the Intracoastal Waterway
channel, largely to allow reaction time for boaters (and manatees)
to avoid collisions. As proposed, the majority of the Intracoastal
Waterway channel would be exempt from speed restriction or limited
to 35 m.p.h. maximum speed. FDNR staff have pointed out that most
boats would not be adversely affected by the 35 m.p.h. maximum, and
that in those specific segments of the channel where speed would be
restricted below 35 m.p.h. the limit is warranted based on manatee
sighting data.
Regarding the Jungle Trail narrows area which is proposed to be
restricted to seasonally slow speed, FDNR staff originally proposed
a 35 m.p.h. speed allowance from June lot to September 30th each
year, with the remainder of the year to be slow speed. However,
subsequent to the local informal meeting, FDNR staff revised their
recommendations to allow 35 m.p.h. from June lot to October 31st
each year, shortening the slow speed season by one month.
The Jungle Trail narrows is the most popular water ski area in the
county, and is used for skiing year-round. From FDNR staff's
perspective, the area is of major importance to manatee migration,
and anything other than slow speed year-round is a compromise on
their part, in an effort to accommodate popular use of the area for
skiing.
In addition to the two main issues discussed, MANWAC members
raised the more fundamental question as to the need for
establishing manatee protection speed restrictions in Indian River
County. Relative to other "key" counties, manatee mortality in
Indian River County is low. In 1992, for example, four manatee
deaths were'recorded in the county, with only one (possibly two)
attributed to boat collision.
FDNB staff maintain that Indian River County is of vital importance
to the migration habits of manatees on the east coast of Florida.
Moreover, the St. Sebastian River is documented has being one of
the most important havens for manatees on the coast, and county
waters serve manatees accessing this area. While the manatee
mortality rate is relatively low in the county, FDNR staff indicate
that, statistically, there has been a noticeable increase in
manatee deaths over the past decade.
Alternatives
The Board of County Commissioners has a number of alternatives in
commenting to FDNR concerning the proposed manatee protection speed
zones, including:
1. Expressing support of the FDNR manatee protection speed zone
proposal;
2. Expressing support of the FDNR proposal with modifications;
3. Reiterating county recommendations as set forth in County
Resolution 90-58: or
4. Expressing non-support of the FDNR proposal.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board authorize staff to send a comment
letter to FDNR supporting the proposed manatee protection speed
zones with a recommendation that the proposed seasonal recreation
use areas be modified to extend the 35 m.p.h. period from April lot
to October 31st each year.
16
Patrick M. Rose, Environmental Administrator of Protected
Species Management, Florida Dept. of Natural Resources, explained
that in reviewing the interim measures of about six counties, it
was felt that a better way to go would be to do a more thorough job
of going beyond what would be the interim measure and, if possible,
doing something where they would not have to keep coming back and
adjusting the plan. They are now in the fine-tuning process on the
differences in opinions.
Commissioner Scurlock asked if the fly -over count that was
done in the Indian River to determine the number of manatees was
ever released to the public.
Mr. Rose advised that the results of the most recent count
have not been released at this point because they are in the
process of final analysis. The numbers have been released,
however.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that for the past three years
in this county, there has been only one manatee death per year that
was related to boats. Many boaters have asked for that information
as well as the Sebastian Inlet Taxing District.
Mr. Rose said that he had met with Ray LeRoux of the Sebastian
Inlet Taxing District and discussed the DNR proposals. He wasn't
aware that the District had requested that data.
Commissioner Wheeler wondered if recent studies are correct
that it is the older manatees that are being hit because they have
a hearing loss caused by a virus.
Mr. Rose stated that there is no evidence to date that
manatees have a problem hearing boats.
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to see a balance of concern
between the protection of the manatee and man's right to enjoy his
surroundings.
Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that the County has selected
the option for a locally developed, site-specific speed zone plan.
He felt that if we are not going to be allowed to do that and the
State is going to design the plan anyway, then maybe we should have
selected one of the other options that puts all the onus on the
State.
Commissioner Bowman reminded the Board that they did not
accept the ad hoc committee's report in its entirety and had, in
fact, modified it considerably to the dissatisfaction of the DNR.
Mr. Rose commented that there are many, many things in the
State's plan and most of it is consistent with the County's
recommendation. There are a few areas where there are some
differences of opinion and they had suggested even stronger
provisions than what they are proposing today. They are concerned
17
MOO
with the local government situation and the rights of the boaters
who use the local waterways. They have a difficult problem to
solve and there are competing uses of the waterways, but they are
trying to work together with everyone and they appreciate the
MANWAC committee because they have really helped the DNR to better
understand some of the local constraints. They appreciate all the
feedback they can receive.
Commissioner Bird understood that it was not necessary to get
into the details of the changes today since we will deal with those
changes when it comes back later this month.
Mr. Rose said he would appreciate having the opportunity to go
over some of these changes today. The state is proposing to
establish 35 mph, unrestricted, season and year-round segments
within the Intracoastal Waterway and 100 -ft. buffer zones.
Currently, that area is exempt from speed restrictions. The state
also wants to scale back the county's five non -restricted and
recreation use areas to one non -restricted recreational use area,
two 35 mph year-round recreational use areas and two seasonal (June
1 to Oct. 31) 35 mph recreational use areas.
Mr. DeBlois noted that would include the Jungle Trails
narrows, which is the most popular ski area in the county. From
DNR staff's perspective, the area is of major importance to manatee
migration, and anything other than slow speed year-round is a
compromise on their part. The non -restricted area between Wabasso
Bridge and the Sebastian Inlet, east of the Intracoastal Waterway,
would remain intact, except for a seasonally regulated area around
the sand and shell islands. The remainder of the Indian River
would have slow speed restrictions year-round, with selected areas
at the mouth of the St. Sebastian River, Johns Island Creek, the
Fingers, the Moorings and subdivision canals posted for idle
speeds.
Mr. Rose noted that Indian River County has a lot of water
space and areas where boating activities can be confined. There
are not that many places where the boaters and the fishermen are
forced to share their activities.
Mr. DeBlois reported that the Marine Advisory Committee has
made 3 recommendations, but they will not be presenting those
recommendations to MANWAC until next Monday's meeting at 2:00 p.m.
Commissioner Wheeler, chairman of MANWAC, extended an
invitation to Mr. Rose to attend the MANWAC meeting next Monday,
Mr. DeBlois announced that the DNR will hold an official
public hearing at the Vero Beach High School on Wednesday evening,
18
r
May 27, to receive feedback from the general public, and that this
matter will be brought back to the Board on May 26 at their regular
meeting.
Commissioner Scurlock understood there is no need to make an
absolute final recommendation until we get as much input as we can
get, and Mr. Rose commented that is precisely what they have been
trying to do and they do not want to rush the county into anything.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously deferred
this matter back to MANWAC for recommendation and
scheduled a public discussion item for the regular
BCC meeting of May 26, 1992.
Commissioner Bird felt we certainly don't want to depend on
any public hearings before the Governor and Cabinet as being an
opportunity to get anything changed, because experience has shown
that is not the thing to do. He stressed that it would be better
to handle it on a local basis first before it gets to the Governor
and Cabinet.
CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL APPOINTED PUBLIC DEFENDER
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Sharon Phillips Brennan - Assistant County Attorney
DATE: April 27, 1992
SUBJECT: CONTRACT FOR SPECIAL APPOINTED PUBLIC
DEFENDER IN NON -CAPITAL FELONY, MISDEMEANOR,
AND JUVENILE CASES WHERE THE COUNTY IS
STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO PROVIDED FOR
COURT-APPOINTED COUNSEL
On April 2, 1992, a committee comprised of Commissioner Gary Wheeler,
County Attorney Charles Vitunac, Circuit Judge Paul Kanarek and
Public Defender Phillip Yacucci met and reviewed the draft request for
proposals and agreement which were submitted to this Board for
discussion on February 25th.
The committee recommended changes concerning investigative fees and
other case -related costs and changed the definition of "case".
This agreement, incorporating the committee's changes, is recommended
by the committee for the Board's approval and for authorization to
request proposals from local attorneys interested in contracting with the
county to provide special appointed public defender services.
19
MAY 0 6 121 BOOK bbF ,r i
"A, 0 b "2
BOOK 6 f.4, E !' 1
Assistant County Attorney Sharon Brennan understood that since
the Commissioners no longer serve on selection committees,
Administrator Chandler will be the Board's representative on the
committee. She explained that this is the final agreement that is
being submitted by the committee for- the Board's approval and they
are requesting authorization to send out requests for proposals on
this matter.
Commissioner Scurlock questioned the potential budgetary
impact, and Attorney Brennan explained that OMB Director Joe Baird
ran the numbers on this and the average that we are paying now for
non -capital felony cases is around $900. She was not sure what it
is for juvenile and misdemeanor cases, which also would be covered
under this contract. In St. Lucie County, their contract was $525
for non -capital felonies, and it was $650 in Martin County. It
would be a savings in money and County staff time as there is a
tremendous amount of paperwork and administrative work that has to
be done in the processing of all of the attorneys' motions for fees
and costs that are connected with these cases. We probably
couldn't put a dollar amount on it, but the savings would be
substantial.
Attorney Vitunac advised that Attorney Brennan's primary
position is to analyze each and every claim that comes across in
our entire county, and the costs are audited before any money is
spent. She goes to court on a weekly basis to challenge any claims
that are too high. If this goes through, there still will be some
conflicts that she will monitor, but her hours will be cut way back
unless other work is found.
Attorney Brennan explained that she still will be working in
the area of bond estreature remissions, and she noted that capital
cases are becoming more and more of a concern.
Commissioner Scurlock understood that in any event this will
impact her number of hours.
Attorney Vitunac confirmed that it would, but emphasized that
even so, she has done a good job in working up this request for
proposal.
Chairman Eggert asked if the Board wished the County
Administrator or his designee to be on the selection committee, and
the Board indicated their preference of the Administrator's
designee due to the Administrator's heavy work load.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED
by Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board approve
the request for proposal, as amended, and authorize its
distribution.
20
Attorney Vitunac said they would like to mail the request for
proposal to every attorney or law firm in this county instead of
just advertising.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARING - PROPOSED MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE GRAND HARBOR DRI
DEVELOPMENT ORDER
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, Attorney Vitunac
announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as
follows:
�. VEgO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDAININAN
-----
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
_
Couwy
TheNOTICE OF PUMM HEARIN(111
Board of County Coarrisajonerg of
Rhrer Cou,g, hereby
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
„ of a Pt.or
r __ 1 e
a �Z/
25th Streit. vwo Beach. Flouida theACTIMIStration at
C
' '
am" ("proposed
(D.O.) for the Protect known 11 to dokaos G
The
In the matter of .O
mirror emendrnents relate to the
tion of +-t0.ce awes to the overal Protect c
the deletion of a proposed 16o room hotel a,
►a t s Mink ead= Ytr of the develop
apprareort
the Wt am rd�aaii SIM
In the Court, was pub-
cents! aft.
The
follows:TGrWd Harbor Prof b ,m
Bond on the south by 45th Street SM-
lished in said Newspaper in the issues ofon
d
the
f
; 4locam south of the Sedimentation
Bash�
eA", and bated east of us Noway
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a news paper published at
Al members al ft public are bwltad to an
and P set the ° hinuhcWm Awn,
oto appeat�arryr dedsbn which
�
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
at
bade record mpog read to snows theta ,
etudes P^' b n�°� the
and evkbnce upon which the
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ped is
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
IdbnRiver
Board um
�bA°r°
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
� 13, t� � mw
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
89W
Sworn to and subscribed�befoyg metA0 day of A.D.19_
7
(Business Manager)
t
(SEAL)
a' mile, Slntr e:
jWW
21
t
[100K ,C. 4L- ! j
MAY 0 51992
MAY 0 5 N92
BOOK Ft, E
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/29/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
"Opm Al
Robert M. Rea ng, acp
Community De/vve opm Director
FROM: Stan Boling,"AICP
Planning Director
DATE: April 29, 1992
SUBJECT: Proposed Change (Minor Amendment) to the Grand Harbor DRI
Development Order
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 5, 1992.
BACKGROUND:
On October 23, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted a
development order (D.O.) approving the development of regional
impact (DRI) known as Grand Harbor. Subsequently, several
amendments were approved that modified the original D.O. The
amended D.O. remains in effect and governs the general development
of the entire project via specific development conditions and
approved application materials which include a project land use
map.
The project site presently contains (854.45 acres located between
U.S. #1 and the Indian River, north of 45th Street and south of
53rd Street and the North Relief Canal (see attachment #2). The
project has been partially constructed and includes two golf
courses and other recreational facilities, a 144 slip marina,
approximately 300 residential units, a sales center, restored
wetland areas, and various infrastructure and landscaping
improvements. The existing D.O. allows for the development of up
to 3,000 residential units and approximately 450,000 sq. ft. of
retail commercial development, as well as office development.
REQUESTED AMENDMENT:
The owner/applicant, GRA, Grand Harbor Ltd., is now requesting an
amendment to the D.O. to effect three modifications. These
proposed modifications are:
1. Add to the overall project ±10.08 acres of land (known as the
"Barnes" tract) which are currently adjacent to the project
site.
2. Change the project land use map to delete the originally
proposed resort hotel development at the marina (on the river)
and "reclassify" the DRI project land use designation of the
marina area into a mixed use residential/commercial area.
3. Allow the developer the flexibility to "transfer" at its
Option, all or a part of the previously a
sq. ft. of marina commercial developmentroved 100,000 gross
project's currentlydesignatedPotential to the
located between U.. #1 d Indian River Boulial evard (Phase IV)center ._
P,
22.
I
M M
The requested D.O. amendment is necessary to accommodate Grand
Harbor's request for approval of a mixed use marina area conceptual
and preliminary PD plan (see attachment #1). The marina area
conceptual P.D. proposal is also scheduled for consideration at the
May 5, 1992 Board meeting; however, the conceptual plan proposal
can be considered only if the Board approves the D.O. amendment
request.
Pursuant to FS 380.06 which governs DRIs, the county may determine
that the development order amendment request does not constitute a
substantial deviation. If such a finding is made, the proposed
change may be treated as a "minor amendment". As a minor
amendment, a change in an approved D.O. can be made by the Board of
County Commissioners without Regional Planning Council review.
Pursuant to LDR section 916.05(1)1 the Planning and Zoning
Commission considered this request at its April 9, 1992 regular
meeting. At the April 9th meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of County
Commissioners determine that the application/request does not
constitute a substantial deviation and that the Board approve the
D.O. amendment request (see attachment #3). The Board of County
Commissioners is now to make a finding as to whether or not the
request constitutes a substantial deviation and is to approve,
approve with conditions, or deny the request. If the Board
determines that the request constitutes a substantial deviation,
then no final action can be taken by the Board until the
substantial deviation review process is concluded and another
special public hearing is scheduled.
ANALYSIS:
*Determination: Not a Substantial Deviation
Florida Statutes Section 380.06 states that the addition of
property to a DRI, such as is proposed with Grand Harbor's request,
constitutes a substantial deviation unless otherwise rebutted by
the applicant. Information and analysis from the applicant
indicate that no increase in the use intensity of the project would
result from approval of the request. County and Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) staff have reviewed the request
Pursuant to FS 380.06 and have indicated that the request does not
appear to increase overall project impacts, does not constitute a
substantial deviation and may be treated as a proposed change,
"minor amendment". Thus, staff analysis indicates that the Board
of County Commissioners should find that the request does not
constitute a substantial deviation. As of the date of this report,
no final determination has been received from DCA staff regarding
a substantial deviation determination.
*Effect of Request
Approving the request would not increase the allowable maximum
development intensity of the project. Approval would merely add
±10 acres to the overall project (see attachment #2) and would
allow the developer more flexibility in the arrangement of
residential and commercial uses within the marina area and between
the marina area and the project's shopping center site.
County staff, including public works, utility services, emergency
bervices, and planning, have reviewed the request and have no
objections to approval. However, county staff, Treasure Coast
Regional Planning Council staff, Department of Community Affairs
staff, Florida Department of Transportation staff, and the
developer have agreed to a condition to be attached to the D.O.
amendment. The condition requires the developer to update the
23
AY 0 5 1992 MOK
MAY ® 51992
project's originally proposed building schedule, land' use
intensities, and traffic analysis by the end of 1992. All of the
referenced agencies and the developer have agreed to the wording of
such a condition, and the condition has been incorporated within
the proposed resolution approving Grand Harbor's request (see
attachment #4). Subject to the proposed condition, county staff
have no objection to approval of the request and adoption of the
proposed resolution.
RECOMMMATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners:
1. Determine that the request does not constitute a substantial
deviation.
2. Adopt the attached resolution to amend the Grand Harbor D.O.
to allow the requested changes as described in this report.
Planning Director Stan Boling reviewed the three modifications
requested by the applicant. Staff is recommending that the Board
adopt the resolution that would allow for the changes and make a
finding that this does not constitute a substantial deviation. The
basis of making that finding is that there is no increase in the
amount of development allowed with these changes. It is basically
expanding the overall project area and giving them more room to
develop what already has been approved. He pointed out that the
proposed resolution contains a condition about updating the project
because the project is behind the original schedules and phasing
that was proposed back in 1985.
Commissioner Bowman noted that there is a conflict between the
Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and the Florida Department
of Community Affairs on whether there is a substantial deviation.
The TCRPC said that the proposed change does not meet or exceed any
of the criteria in Sections 380.06 (19) (a), (b) or (c) of Florida
Statutes requiring automatic Substantial Deviation review. The FDCA
said there is a substantial deviation and cites Section E-3. She
wished to know what E-3 is.
Director Boling explained that E-3 says that if you are adding
any acreage to a DRI project, they presume that will constitute a
substantial deviation unless you make a finding otherwise on
competent evidence. Basically, what is going to happen in the
marina areas will not increase any intensity; in fact, we are doing
away with some of the commercial along the river. He noted that
the DCA signed off on 'this after their letter of April 9 was
received.
Commissioner Scurlock commented on how the transfer of
intensities can change the impact on the demand for water, sewer,
etc., and Director Boling agreed that in looking at the overall
project, it does make a difference where you put things with regard
24
to transportation and utilities.
He confirmed that staff of all
County departments have looked at this at the county level and have
no objection to this change.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-68, amending the Development Order
(D.O.) approved by the Board of County Commissioners
for the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact
(DRI).
RESOLUTION NO. 92- 68
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING THE DEVELOPMENT ORDER (D.O.) APPROVED
BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FOR THE
GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT
(DRI)
WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 380 Florida
Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida has adopted Resolution 85-128 (adopted October 23, 1985)
establishing the Development Order (D.O.) approving the Grand
Harbor Development of Regional Impact (DRI), and has amended the
adopted Development Order by the adoption of Resolution 86-4
(adopted February 5, 1986), Resolution 86-89 (adopted October 20,
1986), Resolution 86-108 (adopted December 9, 1986), Resolution 87-
147 (adopted December 8, 1987), Resolution 89-80 (adopted August 8,
1989); and ,
WHEREAS, the project developer (GHA, Grand Harbor Ltd.) has
formally applied for and has agreed to certain changes to the
development approval relating to the addition of ±10.08 acres of
property in the southwest corner of the project site (see Exhibit
"A", legal description), deletion of the proposed resort hotel at
the project marina, and project land use map changes; and
WHEREAS, the proposed changes, including the addition of ±10.08
acres to the project, will result in no increase in commercial
square footage allowed nor allow additional residential units to be
constructed within the overall project site;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners
of Indian River County, Florida that:
1. The Board of County Commissioners finds that the proposed
changes to the DRI plan and the addition of ±10.08 acres to
the overall project site do not constitute a substantial
deviation pursuant to Chapter 380 of the Florida Statutes.
25
r
MAY 0 51992
BOOK F',,GE :0
RESOLUTION 92_68
2. The notification of proposed change application and materials
submitted on February 24, 1992 by Dennis Matherne on behalf of
the developer, GHA, Grand Harbor Ltd., along with -subsequent
and related staff and applicant correspondence are hereby
incorporated by reference into the Application for Development
Approval (ADA) for the project.
3. All conditions and restrictions specified in the project
Development Order (Resolution 85-128), and all subsequent
amendments (reference the Resolutions specified above), shall
remain in full force and effect and shall be binding upon the
±10.08 acre site being added to the project.
4. The t10.08 acre parcel described in Exhibit "A", attached, is
hereby added to the project and approved for retail
development. The updated legal description covering the
overall DRI site is hereby recognized to be the legal
description contained in Exhibit "B", attached.
5. The resort hotel development referenced on the project land
use map is hereby deleted. No hotel development is approved
for the project. In lieu of hotel development, residential
land use is increased by 8.8 acres and limited to 150 dwelling
units in the area previously approved for hotel use.
6. The previously approved 100,000 gross sq. ft. of retail
commercial development allowed in the project marina is hereby
allowed to remain in the marina area or to be transferred in
part or in whole to the project shopping center site located
between U.S. #1 and the Indian River Boulevard. The
previously approved 165 dwelling units is allowed to remain in
the area known as the Harbor Center south of Pod B.
7. The following language is added to the "TRANSPORTATION"
section of the Development Order:
"TRANSPORTATION
A. The -developer shall not receive building permits for any
portion of development of Grand Harbor after December 31,
1992, until a traffic analysis is conducted by the
developer and submitted to Indian River County, Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of
Community Affairs, and the Florida Department of
Transportation. The methodology to be. used in the
traffic analysis shall be determined in agreement between
Indian River County, Treasure Coast Regional Planning
Council, the Department of Community Affairs, and the
Florida Department of Transportation. The traffic
analysis will address the following:
a• projected timing of the remaining building permits
and certificates of occupancy for the development
of Grand Harbor; and
b• identification of roadway and intersection
Improvements necessary to.maintain Level of Service
C during average annual conditions and Level of
Service D during peak season conditions (peak hour,
peak direction) for the subject transportation
network during the projected buildout of the
Project including project impacts and growth in
background traffic.
B• The developer shall not receive building permits and/or
certificates of occupancy for the development of any portion
of Grand Harbor after July 31, 1993, until the Transportation
Section of the development order is amended to incorporate new
and/or revised conditions that reflect the results of the
traffic analysis identified in Condition A., above. -
C. The developer shall not receive building permits for the
development of any portion of Brand Harbor after March 31,
1993, until the traffic analysis identified in Condition A.,
above, has been approved by Indian River County, Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council, the Department of Community
Affairs, and the Florida Department of Transportation.
26
1
D. Along with the traffic analysis, the developer shall submit an
updated, project -wide phasing and land use plan. The phasing
and land use plan must be approved and incorporated into the
development order in the same manner as the traffic analysis.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bowman and the motion was seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A„e
Vice Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman AMP
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. A.�3p
This Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this . 5 day of May , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
by s6 9t -
Chairman Cqkolyn K.J1Wgert
ATTEST
Jeffr y Bartpn, County Clerk
PUBLIC HEARING - GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION
CONCEPTUAL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR HARBOR VILLAGES
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
27
MAY 0 5 ` S92 c{oo� '��'c
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
I Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
T.—
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero
Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement,
1
,
being
/zlo
a YA,
L
SUBJECT'
In the matter of
► SITS
in the
Court, was pub-
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARMS
No** of hearYg toocrr tie s��
T = approvo
tr for a Ownnid
lashed 1n said newspaper in the issues of ' j %%��"
OHA L�a
ceted in Section 13, Immt1p 32 S. and ROW 38
E, end SODOM 24, Township
32 S. Range 39 E•
Lee the above map for the boatbn.
P f havd � owphiich�Parft In hWW and
to
be held by
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County,
the Board o' County"
eon ChenbWon Nvir ��the C=q Adr*ftt"n &9d -
Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida,
Idsori TTS at 1840 25th Stree� V�ro • Fbr
w>ah meaam
each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one
Anycrb slon
which may be made at fe moo `"B n� to on-
wenaceto
year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that has neither paid nor promised an
or corporation
ah of f o
fhel "p0A
is
any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of secur ng this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
,bb �
Board of oK
Sworn to and subscribed before methis
Apr113 �' C
893314
_��" day ofr A.D. 18
/�s"f
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/24/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
HEAD CONCURRENCE:
••�.. ..,a%ca166. Aay,'ea1Vr
Community Development rector
THROUGH: Stan Boling,Ric
P
Planning Director ,1�A
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICPA
Senior Planner, Cur ent Development
DATE: April 24, 1992
SUBJECT: GHA Harbor's Request for Special Exception Conceptual
Planned Development Approval for the Harbor Villages at
Grand Harbor
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 51 1992.
28
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Rimley Horn and Associates, Inc. in combination with Masteller and
Moler, Inc. have submitted an application for special exception use
and conceptual planned development (P.D.) approval for the overall
Harbor Villages development, and preliminary planned development
approval for Phase I of the Harbor Village development on behalf of
GHA Harbor Ltd. The proposed development is located in the
northeast corner of Grand Harbor (see attachment #2) and includes
the marina basin and adjacent properties. The proposed P.D. will
cover only the marina area and is separate from the P.R.D. (planned
residential development) approved in 1986 which covers the
residential PODs and golf course south of the marina.
The overall conceptual plan proposes a maximum of 481 residential
units and 113,000 sq. ft. of commercial floor area within the 64.31
acre site which includes a 24.07 acre marina basin. These figures
represent the maximum residential/commercial development intensity
permitted by the zoning, and do not exceed the overall density
approved with the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact
(DRI). However, the conceptual Planned Development does propose a
minor modification to the approved DRI land use plan, which
requires a minor amendment to the DRI approval. Therefore, the
P.D. plan proposals can only be approved if the Board a
roves the
DRI amendment which is also scheduled for consideration at the May
5, 1992 Board meeting. The proposed conceptual P.D. plan is
consistent with the proposed DRI amendment.
The Phase I preliminary P.D. plan proposes 79 units on 34.40 acres
of which 10.33 acres are buildable area, and 24.07 acres constitute
the marina tract (predominantly water). Phase I will be platted
into two tracts: a single buildable upland area tract, and a
marina area tract.
The approval steps in the P.D. process are as follows:
Approval Needed . Reviewing Body
1. Concept Plan/Special Exception P&ZC and B.C.C.
2. Preliminary P.D. (preliminary plat P&ZC
and site plan)
3. Land Development Permits Staff
4. Final PRD (plat) B.C.C.
At its April 9, 1992 meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission voted unanimously to recommend that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the conceptual PD plan and
special exception use request (see attachment #6). The
Planning and Zoning Commission also granted preliminary P.D.
approval for phase I subject to special exception use and
conceptual plan approval by the. Board of County Commissioners.
Therefore, if the Board of County Commissioners approves the
special exception use and conceptual plan the preliminary P.D.
for phase I approval will be in effect.
The applicant is requesting Board of County Commissioners
action involving the first step in the process: conceptual
plan and special exception use approval for the overall P.D.
project area.
The Board is now to approve, approve with conditions, or deny
the Planned Development special exception request and
conceptual plan.
Conceptual P.D. and Phase I Preliminary P.D. Plan
29
MAY 0 5 199
Fr -
MAY 0 5 1992
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Development: ROOK G
Phase I:
Parcel 1: 10.33 Acres (part of Phase I)
Marina Basin: 24.07 Acres (part of Phase I)
Sub -Total: 34.40 Acres (total of Phase I)
Phase II:
Parcel 2: 29.91 Acres (total of Phase II)
Total of Phase I and II: 64.31 Acres (Overall
Conceptual Plan,
Total of Phases I and II)
2. Zoning Classification:
16.20 Acres: RM -61 Residential Multi -family District
(up to 6 units per acre)
48.11 Acres: CG, General Commercial (up to 8 units per
acre density allowed)
3. Land Use Designation:
16.20 Acres: L-2, Low -Density Residential (up to 6
units per acre)
48.11 Acres: C/I, Commercial/Industrial
4. Residential Density:
Phase I: 79 units/34.40 acres a 2.3 unit/acre
Phase II: 402 units/29.91 acres a 13.4 units/acre
Overall: 481 units/64.31 = 7.5 units/acre
Maximum units allowed by zoning: 482 units
5. Commercial Development:
Phase I: none
Phase II: 113,000 sq. ft. (Maximum potential)
Overall: 113,000 sq. ft. (Maximum potential)
6. Impervious Area:
Phase I: 222,577 sq. ft. or 14.8% of total development
area (marina not counted as impervious)
Phase II: up to 941,331 sq. ft. or 72%
Overall Project: up to 1,163,908 sq. ft. or 66.5% of the
buildable area
7. Open Space required:
Note:
Overall Project Required: 30% of 64.31 acres or
840,404 sq. ft.
[Note: the P.D. ordinance requires 30% open space]
Overall Project Provided: 30% of 64.31 acres or
840,404 sq. ft.
Phase I Proposed: 362,250 sq. ft. or 24.1% of Phase I
area of -development
Phase II Proposed: 478,154 sq. ft. or 36% of the Phase
II area development -
The marina basin can count for up to 30% of the
amount of total required open space. The overall
Project effective green area requirement is 13.5
acres or 588,282 sq. ft. in addition to 216,122 sq.
ft. of water body open space credit.
30
8. Traffic Circulation: The project site can be accessed througn
the main Grand Harbor U.S. #1 entrance or from 53rd Street.
The applicant is proposing a 24' wide paved access road to
directly access the clusters of condominium buildings
contained within the project site. The interior traffic
circulation within the building clusters will be provided by
24' driving aisles, which will provide access to all parking
spaces.
9. Off -Street Parking:
Phase I Required: 158 spaces
Phase I Provided: 171 spaces
Note: These spaces will be provided in a combination of
garage, trellis, and open parking spaces.
Phase II Required:
10. Stormwater Management:
Residential uses require 2 spaces
per unit. Any commercial use will
require subsequent approval of P.D.
plans which provide for the
appropriate number of spaces, which
varies by specific commercial use
category.
Phase I: A detailed stormwater management plan has not been
submitted or approved by the Public Works
Department but will be reviewed and approved
through the land development permit process.
However, Public Works has reviewed and approved the
conceptual drainage plan submitted with the subject
request and has no objections to conceptual and
preliminary P.D. plan approval.
Phase II: A conceptual stormwater management plan for the
overall development has been reviewed and approved
by the Public Works Department.
11. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with
Chapter 926 requirements and provides for the required 25'
buffer along the perimeter of the project.. The plan also
provides for an upland edge transitional planting adjacent to
estuary areas, as required by the DRI development order.
Where the 25' perimeter buffer is provided "off-site" on
adjacent property under the developer's control, the buffer
will be legally tied to this project via a covenant which will
be filed along with the P.D. final plat. A Type "C" buffer
strip is required to be provided within the' 251 perimeter
buffer where commercial uses are proposed adjacent to
residential uses on the project's perimeter.
Irrigation, grading and planting details of the upland edge
transitional, zones will need to be provided with the land
development permit application. The upland planting details
will need to be approved by the Environmental Planning Section
prior to issuance of a land development permit.
12. Utilities: The project will be served by County water and
sewer -services. The utility services plan has been approved
by the County's Department of Utility Services.
31
MAY 0 5 199
MAY ® 5 1992
13. Dedication and Improvements: As part of the approved Utility
Master Plan and in conjunction with the DRI approval, the
developer has committed to construct a water storage tank for
potable water distribution and fire flow. The proposed water
tank will be sized to store approximately 400,000 gallons;
however, the exact size, location and design of the facility
will need to be approved by the Department of Utility
Services. The water storage tank will need to be completed
and accepted by the County_ prior to the issuance of a
certificate of occupancy for any portion of development within
the overall planned development.
14. Concurrency: The conditional concurrency certificate
application submitted for this project has been reviewed and
approved.
15. Planned Development Waivers: Through the planned development
Process, waivers from or modifications to the standard design
requirements can be approved. The applicant has requested the
following design modifications:
Along the south and west project site boundaries where
the 25' perimeter buffer will be provided "off-site", the
building setbacks may be reduced from 25' to 09. [Note:
Along the south boundary, the project is adjacent to the
Grand Harbor Estuary Area; -along the east boundary the
site abuts the River Club Golf Course.].
The building setback along the marina basin seawall (not
along the Indian River) may be reduced from 25' to 01.
Right -of -Way widths may be reduced from 60' to 40' and
may be replaced by an easement(s).
Residential units with ground floor street frontage are
Permitted. Residential units are not required to be
accessory to any commercial use or structure(s).
Staff have reviewed these design modifications and find these
modifications acceptable.
16. Recreation Area: Planned developments proposing residential
units are required to provide 522.72 sq. ft. of recreation
area per unit. For Phase I, a total of 41,295 sq. ft. of
recreational area is required; this is provided by the two
pools proposed in Phase I. In addition, residents will have
access to other recreational amenities within the Grand Harbor
development. Any specific development proposal for Phase II
will need to meet the recreation requirement for that phase.
17. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: North Relief Canal/RS-1
South: Estuary Area/RM-6
East: Indian River/N/A
West: River Club Golf Course/RS-6
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners:
1. Approve the special exception use and conceptual planned
development plan with the following conditions:
a. that any required perimeter buffer for this project that
will be provided "off-site" shall be legally tied to this
project by a covenant;
32
b. that prior to final P.D. plat approval, any covenant
required to establish an off-site perimeter buffer shall
be recorded; the covenant shall also be referenced on the
final plat;
c. that prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy
for any portion of development within the planned
development,- the applicant shall construct a water
storage facility that is approved by and acceptable to
the Department of Utility Services;
d. that prior to the issuance of a land development permit
for Phase I, an irrigation plan shall be submitted by the
developer and approved by staff, and the grading and
planting details for the transitional upland edge strip
shall be submitted by the developer and approved by
staff.
Planning Director Stan Boling explained that approval of this
item is contingent on approval of the previous item. For the
record, he wished to point out a couple of changes that were made
during some last minute negotiations with the DCA. Some of the
intensities that are referred to in staff's memo have been reduced.
The commercial development has been changed from 113,000 square _
feet to 100,000 square feet. The maximum number of total
residential units in the marina area has gone from 481 to 414.
That would change some of the densities that are reflected in the
staff analysis, which- again reflect back to the impact on
transportation and utilities.
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard. There being none, she closed the Public
Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved
the special exception use and conceptual planned
development plan subject to the four conditions set
out in staff's recommendation.
33
NOOK
J
BOOK U F U"E
PUBLIC HEARING - AMES ET. AL REQUEST TO AMEND COMP PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE +20 ACRES FROM L-1 TO HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE AND TO
REZONE APPROX. 29.05 ACRES TO MED
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
Published Daily
Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, -Jr. who on oath
says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a .l�G
i
C In the matter of/
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the
/said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscritA bef a me/nts day o A.D. 19
!1 'y �
(Business Manager)
(SEAL) F 70 l"';4
%fty Nat. store of Fb tds
My (a *L*n E*b= has". 1993
34
•.��� ::,.� MOYR1tt
sot o
em
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE
�'1Quinll
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigneJ
d authority personality appeared 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
Vyr�
billed to.j..���+'�•--`f'DG�,F..... moi.. (✓'? rlAr�i.Ot!Ai��
was published in said newspaper in the Issue(s)
H
L OilO AV
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
= day o A.D Z Cr
•� Business Manager
(SEAL) Rotary ruRk, snob of ne h6
My c"Minfe" b&" Ju— Q0. tee?
eA' Pnss'jo anak Moada7. Ams 27- lees
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE/
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will
consider adopting an ordinance to amend the use of land within an
unincorporated portion of Indian River County as shown in the maps of the
advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, May
5, 1992, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At
this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final
decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
amendments are 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 AND EXPANDING THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +-20 ACRES FROM L-1 TO HOSPITAL/
. COMMERCIAL NODE BY ENLARGING THE US 01/37TH STREET
HOSPITAUCOMMERCIAL NODE FROM +-230 ACRES TO +-250
ACRES; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
j COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +-888 ACRES FROM AG -2 TO AG -1
Ij
-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 CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Department located on the second floor of the
County Administration • Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, between the hours of 8,30 aaw. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this
meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made
which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be
based.
' • Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s -Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
N
35
Sublect Property+
r •: s e"
MAY
����
�orK �
',.4 3 8
F�a,;E�u
The Board reviewed the
following memo dated 4/23/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIV HEAD CONCURRENCE
ober . Reati , AIC
THRU: Sasan Rohani 5.f.
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: Cheryl A. Twor
Senior Planner Range Planning
DATE: April 23, 1992
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
(LURA -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 May 5, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a' request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and to rezone
Property. 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.
On September 26, 1991,
as the Local Planning
Purpose of making a
Commissioners. At that
voted 6-0 to recommend
amendment request.
the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting
Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
recommendation to the Board of County
meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
the transmittal of the proposed land use
On November 12, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit the above -referenced land use amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and announced their
intention to hold a final public hearing concerning this amendment.
- DCA Objections
Planning staff received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report on March 9, 1992. For this
osed
amendment, the DCA ORC Report contained one objection baseduponinconsistency with state law (9J-5, FAC, and 163 F.S.), and one
objection based upon inconsistency with the state comprehensive
plan. Both of these objections, however, focused on the same
36
issue. That issue related to a lack of detail in the traffic
analysis portion of the staff report. Based on comments by the
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the DCA's objections
were that the analysis of the proposed amendment did not:
o Indicate total p.m. peak hour, peak direction traffic
impacts.
c Specify methodology used to distribute traffic volumes to
the impacted roadways (as shown on the Impacted Roadway
Segment chart).
o Specify how project demand data was determined in the
chart.
c Explain the reason for analyzing exiting trips and
entering trips separately.
® Fully document and justify the procedure used to
calculate "New Trips".
Since receiving the ORC report, planning staff have reviewed DCA's
objections and have revised the concurrency portion of the report.
As revised, the analysis of the proposed amendment more clearly
describes and analyzes the specific components of the traffic
review.
Existina 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 -31 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-20 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.
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 t9 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.
37
Fr -
MAY 0 61992
Transportation
BOOK Ftu�E
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 sp_icata) and coastal dropseed
(Sporobolus virainicus), intermixed with saltwort (Salicornia app.)
and glasswort (Batis spp.). Also on site are sea -oxeye (Borrichia
spp.), white mangrove (Laauncularia 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 "Resson 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 (ACOS) 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
unimproved vehicular access 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).
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
o Changes to Address DCA's Objections _
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.
38
M
FA
0
Summary of Changes to Address DCA's Objections
Subsequent to receipt of the DCA ORC Report, planning staff
assessed DCA's objections and coordinated with the DCA staff
regarding their resolution. In this case, DCA's objections were
not substantive in nature. Rather, the objections related to
technical aspects of the transportation analysis. Consequently,
staff revised the transportation analysis to incorporate the
specific data requested by DCA and DOT.
Listed below is a summary of each of the revisions staff made to
the transportation analysis, in order to address DCA's objections.
o The total p.m. peak hour, peak direction traffic impacts
have been indicated in the transportation portion of the
concurrency review.
o The methodology used to distribute volumes to the
impacted roadways, as shown on the Impacted Roadway
Segment chart, has been specified in the paragraph before
the chart.
o Exiting trips and entering trips have been analyzed
separately to identify the distribution of trips to
and/or from the site to each TAZ and to identify the
assignment of these trips to the available roadway
network. This methodology is described in the Traffic
Analysis section (page five) of this staff report.
The revisions referenced above address three of the five components
of the principal DCA objection. It is staff's position that the
other two components of that objection were adequately addressed
in the staff report transmitted to DCA. Staff feels that the
methodology used to derive project demand data for each segment and
the procedure used to calculate new trips are adequately addressed
on pages 5-7 of this staff report.
With the revisions and explanations referenced above, DCA's
principal objection and its state plan inconsistency objection have
been addressed.
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
39
MAY 0 5 1992
F_
MAY ® 51992 �i FLUE 41
proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property: t29 acres
2. Size of Area to be Rezoned: t29 acres
Size of Area to be Redesignated: t20 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification:
a. t10 acres: RM -3, - _Multiple -Family Residential
District, (up to 3 units/acre)
b. t19 acres: RS -3, Single -Family Residential District,
(up to 3 units/acre)
4. Existing Land Use Designation:
a. t20 acres: M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8
units/acre)
b. t9 acres: Hospital/Commercial Node
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: MED, Medical District
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: Hospital/Commercial Node
or 7. Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 290,000ressq.ft. of
Retail Commercial
-Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed
development of the property indicates that the existing 1level of
service "D" or better would not be lowered. The site information
used for determining traffic impacts is as follows:
1. Retail Commercial Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For Structures 200,000 to 300,000 square feet (based upon the
ITE Gross Leasable Floor Area category):
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 47.58/1000 gross
b. Peak Hour: 5-6 P.M. sq.ft.
c. Peak Direction: Exiting
d. 5-6 P.M. Peak Hour Exiting Trips: 9.5% outbound
e. 5-6 P.M. Peak Hour Entering Trips: 8.3% inbound
f. 5-6 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 4.4/1000 gross sq. ft.
3. Total p.m. peak hour/peak direction trips: 1,276 TEPH
4. Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips):
Total Square Footage 8 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip
Ends/2 X Percentage Peak Hour/Peak Direction Trips X
Percentage New Trips
(TriP distribution baeed on a Codified Gravity Mods")
5. New Trips: 75% or 492 peak hour/peak season direction
Trips based on the ITE Manual
Directional Split:
Roadway Segment $ Actual Trips
1. West on 37t1i St. 30 148
2. South on I.R. Blvd: 50 246
3. North on I.R. Blvd.* 20 98
* Not a peak direction
40
6. Traffic Capacity on 37th Street at a Level of Service "D":
980 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. 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 addresses only project traffic occurring in
the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted
roadways. In this case, the site will access two thoroughfare 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 he 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 47.58 Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 gross square
feet to the 290,000 square feet to get total daily trips, dividing
that number by half to get the number of daily exiting trips,
applying the ITE Shopping Center use p.m. peak hour exiting factor
(9.5%) and multiplying that number by ITE's 758 to ensure that only
new trips are counted.
The total p.m. peak hour exiting trips for the proposed use were
calculated to be 492. 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 508. Based upon this
analysis, 148 trips were assigned to 37th Street, and 246 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.
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 pro ected project for the segment'saeak irection nassessing or notthis volume was ss thn hesegment'savailable 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. These
calculations begin with the county's recently secured state-of-the-
art traffic counting equipment which records at fifteen (15) minute
intervals. From this, the county utilizes a "Quarterly Count
Program" with the ability to calculate actual LOS "D" figures,
based on Appendix I. As a result, county staff are able to
determine existing traffic characteristics. Available capacity is
the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes;
this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project
approvals.
41
MAY 0 5 1992 �0 ; AV ..1 �
L
MAY 0 5 1992
BOOK 8,6 P,�A204
Based upon staff analysis, it was determined that all 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. The table indicates
Roadway Segment by link number and each link's capacity at a Level
of Service (LOS) "D". The chart also lists each link's total
demand. Total demand is the sum of the existing (counted) volume
of the roadway plus vested volume. Vested volume is the amount of
traffic assigned to the link based on approval projects. By
subtracting total link demand from Link Capacity at a LOS "D", the
available capacity is derived for each link. Then, project demand
is compared to available capacity to get a link by link concurrency
determination. A positive concurrency determination will be "yes"
for all links which have a Project Demand that is less than
available capacity. As indicated in the table, there is
sufficient capacity in all of the segments to accommodate the
proposed project.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road -Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
CapaciD
Segment
1010
Road
S.R.
A3A
From
So. Co. Line
To
S. V.B. City Lmts
LOS "
r3 -2b-
1060
S.R.
AlA
Fred Tuerk Rd.
Old Winter Beach Rd.
1310
1090
S.R.
AlA
C.R. 510
No. Co. Line
1340
1110
I.R.
Blvd
4th St.
12th St.
1760
1120
I.R.
Blvd
12th St.
S.V.B. City Lmts
1760
1130
I.R.
Blvd
S.V.B,. City Lmts
17th St.
1760
1140
I.R.
Blvd
17th St.
21st St.
1760
1150
I.R.
Blvd
21st St.
S.R. 60
1760
1160
I.R.-Blvd
S.R. 60
W.V.B. City Lmts
1760
1170
I.R.
Blvd
W.V.B. City Lmts
O.S. #1 053rd St.
1760
1210
I-95
N. Co. Line
C.A. 512
3530
1220
I-95
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
3530
1230
I-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Rd.
3530
1305
O.S.
#1
So. Co. Line
Oslo Rd.
2300
1310
O.S.
#1
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
2220
1330
O.S.
#1
S.V.B. City Lmts
17th St.
2270
1340
O.S.
#1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm P1.
2300
1345
O.S.
#1
Royal Palm Pl.
Atlantic Blvd
2300
1355
O.S.
#1
N.V.B. City Lints
Old Dixie Hwy.
2300
1375
O.S.
#1
49th St.
65th St.
2650
1390
O.S.
#1
Old Dixie Hwy.
Schumann Dr.
2370
1395
O.S.
#1
Schumann Dr.
C.R. 512
2370
1400
1410
O.S.
#1
C.R. 512
N. Seb. City Into
2300
1610
O.S.
#1
Roseland Rd.
N.C. Line
2320
1720
Roseland Rd C.R. 512
N. Bab. City Lmts
630
1730
C.R.
512
I-95
C.R. 510
630
1740
C.R.
512
C.R. 510
W. Sob. City Lmts
630
1750
C.R.
512
W. Seb. City Lmts
Roseland Rd
630
C.R.
512
Roseland Rd.
U.S.. #1
630
1810
1820
C.R.
510
C.R. 512
66th Ave.
630
1830
C.R.
510
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
630
1840
C.R.
510
58th Ave.
O.S. #1
630
1905
C.R.
510
O.S. #1
S.R. AlA
630
1910
S.R.
60
W. Co. Line
C.R. 512
540
1915
S.R.
S.R.
60
60
C.R. 512
I-95
I-95
540
1920
S.R.
60
82nd ave.
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
1680
1760
42
1
A
0000wmmm00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000
1A�O�AOMMMM�CMMMrrMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMt'�iMMMMMMMMMIO W101pMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
�o r �c a �o �o �o Io r m m m o+ o� co ao ao ao m m ao ao ao ao m �o Io Io Io ao ao ao ao ao ao ao Io Io Io r r r r Io Io Io �o ao ao Io Io Io Io �o Io Io ao ao �o Io Io Io Io Io �o Io �o Io Io ID Io Io Io Io Io Io Io Io Io
N �-i n1 N •1 ri ei .i rl
rl •i .i •-1
m
a m
4'
�a�IaaaQaA•�� '���O��Oa��m�92
,�.�a ;+���"��m �mm�a w•.i�Q��a11'Qt°i0gamag
++Mmr M�O{> •� ��sa����41.0 JrclaC4O41;%D LfO►V41sANN0-DHHlNNOte-fp�Nmaa�oOH a•mNIfQmm-.i1O�dVV�•i-0a��1O�i- 0 %uIn4a�aM�
q* 0
W In
inol
m m m
�a°°,4-j4As1NN.O�N,qN.oOOo• d•im• .c-•�1�'0• .-•ie�l•'�f• d•�lO• tO• d� •-1W.-ImaSQiN•-Im•r10ifQ•mpOt0d{J�m}.�riNV"�fOst r.. fIaQoN.Vyml�to In .0,.oa+maar+�aa •��+4�++oa� oU�a���� a s192Iomm to �9 � 1.a•.�b� �h pSM9 9opo121f10sNNO.ip��N+naOOAWmaiiat014inLLn�aO1aA•�aiO1�Q'Od a ae
19a^
9a
0
�.1 . . .q.1 . .�.1 . . . . .�0 .�0 a.1 �D.
000000000+i�+I�i�+;�"fa-4 mmmmmmmmm���O�>psOSO�>>O>OP>>��>�>P>>�OS�a�s�����+�ai
��D--��+-+++��++++aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa.caaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa�o�alo�o�,�;o
a4 a4 a4 a4 a4 c4a�o4o4 + +moi +�►,�, + AQaQaaaQAAa+�0-P.0.0.0�i '��.1��,1��.1��.1�} '��.1 w N w w w w w w w�+ �� 'o+�+,'o,�'4��
• • • • • • • • •mmmm1ONNNN • • • • • • • • • •rrrrP•N,rOd0000 .tt,q �1
fpmmtAMVIfAfAm�-1'i.'1'''�r�•-I•�OOOOOOOOOOONNNNNNNNNNNNNN�VM'VM'avdM'aVMdM'Imfl�mpllHlmAYf1ImAl1�lAN�a���Oachin ��(�0
10
ommomomam0000000o0omowommomom0000000000000owomomoomou101f omomomomoo0000000000000o
MNMsts}uflff�p�pNMd,m�pM,d,map,,,�HNNMMs}�fflfltp�pM�}m�prm.i�-INMtfiplOrOei•-INNMstd'IAO•-IrINNMM'd��IAIANMtftAlprNMd'1gNM'�4'If1NM
0101010fa101Ot010100000NNNNMMMMMMMMMMMV'tMti'd'sta}IAmmmmmmm0�Ot01010►A1p1p1p100000000000riri•ie�ele�NNNNMMMMs�st
°"�'"I'�"���"��^'I•"I.iNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNMMMI'q(�'1f+1egMMMMMe•1MMMMsIsl,�fstV�stV�slsl�
Lu
D
:Z)
;410
MOK 00 Fhtll ZZ
'R�wayi
SegmBnt
Road
From
TO
Segment
Capacity
LOS it
4440
4450
41st St.
41st at.
43rd Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
630
4460
37th at.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
I.R. Blvd
630
4720
26th 8t.
66th Ave.
I.A. Blvd
58th Ave
980
4730
4740
26th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave
630
630
4750
26th St.
26th at.
43rd Ave.
Aviation Blvd
630
4830
8th St.
Aviation Blvd
58th Ave.
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
630
4840
4850
8th St.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
630
630
4860
8th at.
8th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
830
4870
8th St.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
830
4930
4940
4th at.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
830
630
4950
4th St.
4th St.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
630
4960
4th St.
20th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy
630
630
4970
4th St.
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. #1
630
Roadway
8sisti
Bx
Total
vestssegment
Available
Positive
SE A tvolume
Y
Y
vnln
Segment
- _ j
Concurrency
1010
1060
665
320
50
715
605
24
Y
1090
275
54
10
374
285
936
1055
34
9
Y
1110
1120
801
801
59
860
900
96
Y
Y
1130
801
60
63
861
864
899
696
145
y
1140
1150
612
46
658
1102
145
145
Y
y
1160
612
90
54
65
666
1094
145
y
1170
0
83
155
83
1605
1617
160
y
1210
1220
1030
40
1070
2460
246
48.
y
Y
1230
1030
1120
5
0
1035
2495
48
Y
1305
1102
95
1120
1197
2410
1103
24
24
Y'
1310
1330
1526
1341
115
1641
579
96
Y
Y
1340
1143
10
18
1351
1161
919
1139
48
Y
1345
1355
1143
1309
51
1194
1106
96
Y
Y
1375
747
132
90
1441
859
48
Y
1390
815
61
837
836
1813
1494
96
Y
1395
1400
950
945
39
989
1381
73
34
Y
Y
1410
887
16
5
961
1339
9
Y
1610
207
2
892
1428
5
Y
1720
310
7
209
317
421
313
1p
Y
1730
1740
288
355
0
288
342
48
18
Y
Y
1750
418
0
2
355
275
18
y
1810
162
20
420
182
210
448
18
Y
1820
1830
162
29
191
439
36
48
y
Y
1840
360
346
30
28
390
240
24
Y
1905
292
1
374
293
256
12
Y
1910
1915
292
14
306
247
234
12
24
Y
Y
1920
734
950
37
67
771
909
48
Y
1925
972
93
1017
1065
743
695
48
Y
1930
1935
972
612
39
1011
1639
48
54
Y
Y
1940
878
34
24
646
902
2004'
73
Y
1945
747
3
750
1698
888
73
Y
1950
1955
747
10
757
881
73
73
Y
y
1960
747
509
8
4
755
883
73
Y
1965
846
43
513
889
1125
48
Y
2020
2 030
121
1
122
671
708
48
5
Y
2040
337
463
0
0
337
493
5
Y
Y
2050
851
463
851
367
119
8
Y
2060
2230
851
225
9
860
110
10
12-
Y
Y
2240
400
7
1
232
598
24
Y
2250
400
5
401
429
24
Y
2260
427
29
405
556
425
274
48
Y
2310
2315
29
15
442
388
48
5
Y
432
0
432
398
5
Y
Y
44
Roadway
Secceat
Bust:
McLating
Volume
Demand
vested
Volume
Total
8ee,=ent
Demand
Available
Segment
Capacity
project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
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
2830
310
0
310
320
6
y
2840
297
2
299
1461
7
Y
2850
297
2
299
1461
12
y
2860
265
5
270
1490
17
y
2870
265
18
283
1477
24
y
2905
135
1
136
494
3
y
2910
225
2
227
403
5
y
2915
360
0
360
270
7
y
2920
454
0
454
176
12
y
2925
454
1
455
375
12
y
2930
373
1
374
456
12
y
2940
283
9
292
338
24
y
2945
166
1
167
463
18
y
2950
166
1
167
463
12
y
3005
144
9
153
477
3
Y
3010
144
6
150
480
5
y
3015
144
6
150
480
6
y
3020
144
21
165
465
8
Y
3025
400
20
420
410
9
y
3030
414
29
443
387
24
y
3035
414
9
423
207
24
Y
3040
414
9
423
207
12
y
3045
202
8
210
420
12
Y
3050
175
6
181
449
8
y
3055
189
0
189
441
8
Y
3120
180
4
184
446
12
y
3130
180
1
181
449
18
y
3140
180
2
182
448
24
y
3150
126
0
126
504
24
y
3160
126
0
126
504
8
y
3170
139
0
139
491
6
Y
4220
153
4
157
473
8
y
4230
153
2
155
475
12
Y
4240
153
2
155
475
24
Y
4250
153
4
157
473
24
Y
4320
130
0
130
500
12
Y
4330
130
1
131
499
15
y
4340
256
13
269
361
24
y
4350
256
44
300
330
48
Y
4420
117
9
126
504
24
Y
4430
117
31
148
482
24
Y
4440
184
38
222
408
24
y
4450
184
39
223
407
48
y
4460
700
0
700
180
148
y
4720
117
0
117
513
6
Y
4730
117
2
119
511
12
Y
4740
4750
117
117
4
8
121
509
18
y
4830
99
9
125
108
505
522
24
12
y
4840
193
2
195
435
24
y
y
4850
4860
342
342
0
4
342
488
24
y
4870
351
3
346
M.
484
476
36
36
y
4930
103
7
110
520
11-
y
4940
4950
216
315
5
8
221
409
24
y
y
4960
315
6
323
321
307
309
36
38
y
4970
450
1
451
179
36
y
y
!F
MAY 0 5 1992
MAY 01 5 1992
-Water BOOK ( J FA{
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 County 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
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
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
46
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
Flood Zone AE, which is a special flood hazard 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,
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 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 33.3
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
47
orgy
MAY 51992 pt
Ci F„,E,e:�e
MAY 0 5 .1997
BOOK 8� FADE 0 0FU
* an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* a substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property
Based upon staff determination, 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
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 less suited to 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
Future 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 31000 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 residential 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 lack of suitability for
residential development rather than a market need to expand the node.
48
M
-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.
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
49
d
r MAY 0 51992
BOOK ' RIJE • 0 21
development; therefore, all commercial land use redesignation
requests must be reviewed for consistency with that policy. This
plan amendment is consistent with policy 1.211 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.
Potential Impact on Environmental Qualitv
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 of the conservation 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.O6(i)(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 with past
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 100 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 pro rt
development, and Pe y prior to
by requiring coordination with local, state, and
federal agencies to ensure that impacts to listed rare species are
avoided or minimized, as applicable.
50
1
Compatibility with the Surroundina 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,
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 has 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:
1. 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.
2. 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 theFlorida Department of Environmental
Regulation and the Army the.
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.
51
9 i
�,,�o� b FIDE _. -�
F -
MAY 0 51992 BOOK 04
Alternatives for the Board of County Commissioners
There are two alternatives for the county to take concerning the
requested land use amendment:
1. Deny this request to amend the Future Land Use Map from L-1 to
Hospital/Commercial Node and deny the request to rezone the
property from RS -3 to MED, or
2. Approve this amendment as requested by the applicant.
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 these 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.
It is staff's opinion that FDOT and DCA concerns relating to
traffic have been sufficiently addressed in the concurrency portion
of the analysis section. 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 approve the request to amend the Future Land Use Map
from L-1 to Hospital/Commercial Node and rezone the property from
RS -3 to MED.
52
_I
ae1.n'. 1
JM.w 1• •r r
1
'HOSPITAL
t • r
Subject .,
Property
AIN
MED
t t • 1 �• w.
1
e
14
• GOV. LOT 3 '
.
�•
1
'HOSPITAL
t • r
Subject .,
Property
I
TRACT R 1
t
. IMP
�1
/ TRUT � •� � �
RM -6
•
KIYGHa Mtoiict: �,;•, , RS -3 .
�• ! �»p.a•..a•w ,a�.�an: sus• ..�rlTe
j
53
MUL
• GOV. LOT 3 '
.
�•
i GOV. LOT, 4
If
,a,• .�,�� • Vis.'.: . �'
/`.yam•' , '•'VjrA' S♦♦ '
I
TRACT R 1
t
. IMP
�1
/ TRUT � •� � �
RM -6
•
KIYGHa Mtoiict: �,;•, , RS -3 .
�• ! �»p.a•..a•w ,a�.�an: sus• ..�rlTe
j
53
MUL
r-
MAY 05 1ji
BOOK F'nuEv.�
Chairman Eggert announced that the Board has taken note of all
of the letters that have come in on this item either for or against
the rezoning.
Community Development Director Robert Keating explained that
this item and the next two are Comp Plan amendments that have been
before the Planning & Zoning Commission in September and the Board
of County Commissioners last November and are back before the Board
for final approval after having been reviewed by the DCA.
Director Keating, using an aerial view of the area, noted that
20 acres of the subject property -are already within the hospital/
commercial node and approximately 9 acres are outside the node.
The applicant is requesting that ±20 acres be redesignated from
L-1, Low Density Residential (up to 3 upa) to Hospital/Commercial
Node, and that ±29.05 acres be rezoned 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.
Director Keating advised that the DCA ORC report contained one
objection of a technical transportation nature. However, the DOT
has contacted the DCA telling them that staff's revisions to the
report and staff's explanations of exactly how the transportation
analysis was done are adequate. Therefore, staff has absolutely no
question that this proposed amendment is adequate in terms of
addressing DCA's objections.
Director Keating pointed out that much of the property is
environmentally sensitive. It is characterized by a lot of high
marsh vegetation, and there is no question that there is a
hydrologic connection to the river on part of the property. The
big question centers around how much of the property is
characterized as estuarine wetlands. Once an environmental study
of the property is done, the amount of land that is determined to
be estuarine wetlands is automatically given a C-2 land use
designation which is a Conservation designation allowing one unit
per 40 acres. An environmental survey of the site needs to -be done
regardless of what zoning is given today, but there is a question
on whether it should be done up front or at the time of
development. The results of the environmental survey will dictate
which parts of the properties can be developed as a MED use and
which parts will be given a Conservation designation. Staff
determined that it would be most appropriate to have the
environmental survey done at the time of development because it
would not have any significant adverse effects to do that and
54
M ® M
L
because it would not be necessarily beneficial to do it at this
particular point in time.
Continuing, Director Keating advised that another important
issue is the definite policy in the Comp Plan that requires 70%
development of a node before it can be expanded unless "otherwise
warranted". Staff has calculated that about 490 of the node is
developed, which is substantially less than what is needed.
In this case, however, staff looked at the characteristic of Indian
River Boulevard creating a physical barrier to the east. The
Boulevard will constitute a barrier which will separate the subject
property from the property to the east of that which is the City of
Vero Beach. Staff looked at how this property is impacted with the
Boulevard under construction and determined that because the
Boulevard is there and because of the existing medical uses there,
particularly the Medical Center, it puts this particular property
in an unusual situation where it really would not be conducive for
residential development. Therefore, staff feels that the
"otherwise warranted" criterion of the node change policy would be
applicable.
Commissioner Scurlock noted that there has been substantial
construction in that area since the last time this was before the
Board.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Paul Koehler, 4480 25th Lane, Vero Beach, objected to the
rezoning as 'an investor in three pieces of properties within the
medical zone. He reviewed the letter he sent to each of the
Commissioners listing some of the reasons why he believes the
zoning should be turned down. First of all, he did not see any
justification in giving new zoning within the medical node while
there is still 50% of the property available for whoever wishes to
build. or buy within that node. In effect, this would allow
someone to buy inferior, less expensive property and enrich
themselves by rezoning. Secondly, if the property is environ-
mentally sensitive, he didn't understand how you can take it from
residential at one unit per acre to MED and say that it is going to
make the property less environmentally sensitive. It seemed to him
that Medical zoning would be a greater infringement upon that
environmentally sensitive area. .Thirdly, since that property is on
the south side of the new road, he questioned whether the buyer is
going to be content with having to go in 37th Street to service
that property if he does get the zoning. Fourthly, he objected to
the possible transfer of densities to the property that is usable
because he felt that is going to increase the possibility of
L
55
r
X,
PL10K f'A;E S • 9J
environmental problems. Lastly, he objected because he paid top
dollar for his property and believed that the rezoning of these
properties that were bought at a lower price would dilute his
investment. In conclusion, Mr. Koehler expressed his hope that the
Board would respect both his money and the environment.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins felt there is a
misunderstanding about Indian River Boulevard as it relates to this
project. The subject property has access from Indian River
Boulevard and 37th Street (Barber Ave.). He also noted that two
acres of this property at the eastern edge have been condemned for
Boulevard right-of-way. One of the terms of the settlement of the
condemnation suit was that they would have one access off of Indian
River Boulevard.
Darrell McQueen, representing the group of doctors who own the
property, just wanted to remind the Board of the justification for
changing this zoning and changing the land use designation as set
out in staff's recommendation. Indian River Boulevard does
significantly impact this project. The taking of two_acres at the
eastern corner of this parcel took an amount of property that will
prohibit ingress and egress from Barber Avenue. It will allow
right turns in and right turns out from Barber Avenue, but one of
the conditions of the condemnation negotiations is that in the
future if it is deemed that a left -turn out of the project
northbound creates a hazardous condition, that left turn northbound
will be eliminated. This is the access this property has to Indian
River Boulevard and to Barber Avenue, with or without the Comp Plan
amendment.
Mr. McQueen next addressed the concerns about the
environmentally sensitive aspect of the property. He could not
remember in any of the discussions they have had on this subject
any talk about the transfer of densities out of the wetlands to the
uplands. In all the discussions the have always ays been told crystal
clear that the wetlands will be Conservation, C-2 and that there
will be no transfer. They were told that they could build one unit
per acre in those wetlands. They estimate that the hydric soil
line just about splits in half those eastern 20 acres and that
approximately 10 or 12 acres of this site will be environmentally
sensitive and will not have one square foot of medical node or
residential units other than what the Comp Plan allows which is 1
unit per 40 acres.
Director Keating explained that a transfer would be applicable
only with residential. Density relates to residential; intensity
relates to non-residential. With the MED District you can have
both residential and non-residential uses. There is the ability to
56
transfer residential density from the wetlands to the uplands, but
there is no ability to transfer any commercial intensity. No
commercial square footage can be transferred from the wetlands to
the uplands.
Mr. McQueen concluded his arguments and noted that some of his
clients are here today if the Board has any questions.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that the purpose of
getting more property into the node is that there may be some
upland in the node, even if it is a small amount.
Commissioner Bird felt that if we were establishing the node
boundaries today, we probably would look at the Boulevard as being
the normal eastern boundary and not leave any wedges of property in
between.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED
by Commissioner Bird, that the Board adopt Ordinance
92-17, redesignating ±20 acres from L-1 to Hospital/
Commercial Node by enlarging the Hospital/Commercial
Node from ±230 acres to ±250 acres; and adopt Ordinance
92-18, rezoning from RS -3 and RM -3 to MED the property
generally located on the 600 block of 37th Street.
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock commented that if we
had the results of the environmental survey, we would know exactly
what we are dealing with today.
Chairman Eggert agreed, but felt the construction of the
Boulevard puts this into a unique situation.
Commissioner Bowman noted that the policies of the Comp Plan
are not subordinate to zoning and that the C-2 designation for
wetlands is primary regardless of zoning. Further, the C-2 area
must be delineated prior to site development and nothing can be
changed prior to site development.
Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a good reason to get the
survey done as soon as possible.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
57
E�UOK.
IMAY 0 51992
I
F,
ISA`' 0 5 1992FtgCE�
ORDINANCE NO. 92-17
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ±20 ACRES FROM
L-1 TO HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE BY ENLARGING THE US#1/37TH
STREET HOSPITAL/COMMERCIAL NODE FROM ±230 ACRES TO ±250 ACRES,
AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on -February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the County received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian ,;-River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November -12, 1991,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the State review pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 9, 1992, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
58
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 17
on May 51 1992, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
C The land use designation of the following described
Property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
The NW J of the NE J of Section 36, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Less and
except the West } of the NW J of the NE } of Section 36,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Florida, less the north 75 feet thereof. Subject to
easements, restrictions & reservations of record. As
described in O.R. Book 500 page 308. -
Be changed from L-1 to Hospital/Commercial Node.
The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
C Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
add 20 acres from L-1 to Hospital Commercial Node for the
U.S. #1/37th Street Hospital/Commercial Node.
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
Of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severabilit
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
59
a a,� 67
i
Bom 6 F'rA.'j ® 141
ORDINANCE' NO. 92- 17
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 5 day of May , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 27 lay of April 1992 for public hearing to be held on the
5 day of May , 1992 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird A e
Commissioner Gary Wheeler e
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. ye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Carol I
K. Egger hairman
ATTEST-
Je k
ORDINANCE NO. 92-18
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -3
AND RM -3 TO MED FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE 600
BLOCK OF 37TH STREET, AN DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to_
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
60
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
The NW J of the NE J of Section 36, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Less and
except the NW J of the NW J of the NE J of Section 36,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County,
Florida, less the north 75 feet thereof. Subject to
easements, restrictions & reservations of record. As
described in O.R. Book 500 page 308.
Be changed from RS -3 and RM -3 to MED.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 5 day of May , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 13 day of April , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 5 day of May , 1992 at which time it was
moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by
Commissioner Bird , and adopted by the following
vote: -
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:—
Carolyyx.
Egger hairman
ATTEST_ BY:
Je
XJ
61
PUOK
BOOK 86 pg E p'ji
PUBLIC HEARING - FELDMAN REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 40
ACRES FROM AG -1 TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL 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 hour of 9:05 O'clock A.M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Dally
Vero Bead►, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager. of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a �r�%/ .
In the matter
In the
Court, was pub.
lished in said newspaper in the issues of
4u`�l "
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian Rlver.County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period Of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper, of securing this
Swom to and subscribed before me this 1
day of A.D. 19 e? _
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)
62
NOTICE — PIHI IC HEAR8i10
N' IiF N of hearing to caruldx the adoplion of a
county ordinal rezoning land frorm RFD, Rural
Fel to RS -1, amgy Redder"
Th David
and Prtnoess eprqMated wed of
Avenue between 4it Stroet and let Street. Th,
PmPer1y, erg a proxknatety �'+-
aores le � h the soothe w of secdon n,
TTw
onship 33. Range 38E "Wand beirg in drdlan
A � at owphipcohrtperties In Interest and
4 shell hamto be heard.
bebold by Boarrdd of County -Cc sofof
�rr Chmnberss of River theC
In the Canty Cormnle-
ebounty Adrniniatnition
Build-
ing.1,ted at 1840 25th 3uesday May 5, 11192 V
Tan he Beach, Flor-
�TBoard cI C00ifty 0o nmy adopt
a zoning district other than the dishlCt tequemt 4
8 le wiQir the mems genard use category.
Anyone who mal' wish to appeal any deciaton
which maybe meds at thisrneeting will need to en -
Sure that a vabaim record of the proome RW is
rra de, whtel kick m teatimory and evidence upon
which the appealis - i , -
kxW River Canty
Board of Canty Camnleglonere
134.44 dynn K Eggert, `haku '
Apra 13.1992 883344
007
a s
i A-iC
lu
,
6th STO
:SUBJECT
: ••; ;:,.:
T
I .PROPERTY
let sT s'
.:
NOTICE — PIHI IC HEAR8i10
N' IiF N of hearing to caruldx the adoplion of a
county ordinal rezoning land frorm RFD, Rural
Fel to RS -1, amgy Redder"
Th David
and Prtnoess eprqMated wed of
Avenue between 4it Stroet and let Street. Th,
PmPer1y, erg a proxknatety �'+-
aores le � h the soothe w of secdon n,
TTw
onship 33. Range 38E "Wand beirg in drdlan
A � at owphipcohrtperties In Interest and
4 shell hamto be heard.
bebold by Boarrdd of County -Cc sofof
�rr Chmnberss of River theC
In the Canty Cormnle-
ebounty Adrniniatnition
Build-
ing.1,ted at 1840 25th 3uesday May 5, 11192 V
Tan he Beach, Flor-
�TBoard cI C00ifty 0o nmy adopt
a zoning district other than the dishlCt tequemt 4
8 le wiQir the mems genard use category.
Anyone who mal' wish to appeal any deciaton
which maybe meds at thisrneeting will need to en -
Sure that a vabaim record of the proome RW is
rra de, whtel kick m teatimory and evidence upon
which the appealis - i , -
kxW River Canty
Board of Canty Camnleglonere
134.44 dynn K Eggert, `haku '
Apra 13.1992 883344
007
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
r, 0-2 e -2 �_ V_W__ /0, .00 _. & -
Robert Rea n ��11, AICP
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani .5 ,k.
Chief, Long -Ran a Planning
FROM: Cheryl Tworek
Senior Planne ng -Range Planning
DATE: April 27, 1992
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 (LURA -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*May 5, 1992.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
property. The subject property is located on 58th Avenue, between
4th Street and lot 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/5 acres) to Rural
Residential -(up to 1 unit/acre), rezoning 40 acres from RFD, Rural
Fringe District (up to 1 unit/2.5 acres) to RS -1, Single -Family
Residential District (up to 1 unit/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, conducted a public hearing for the
Purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners regarding this request. At that meeting, the
Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend the
transmittal of the proposed land -use amendment request.
On November 12, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit the above referenced land use amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and announced their
intention to hold a final public hearing concerning this amendment.
- DCA Objections
Planning staff received DCA's Objections, Recommendations and
Comments (ORC) Report on March 9, 1992. For this proposed
amendment, the DCA ORC report contained several substantive
objections. Identified as inconsistencies with state law (9J-5.
FAC and 163, F -S.), with the state comprehensive plan, and with the
comprehensive regional plan, these objections focused
the premature development of agriculturally designated
on
the proliferation of urban sprawl. gnated lands and
63
II
MAY 051992
BOOK 85 PAvt•�i
Specifically, DCA stated that the proposed amendment was not
consistent with the following:
° Future Land Use Policy 13.3
a. DCA stated that the county's justification for
approving the subject land use amendment was not
consistent with- the intent of the Urban Service
Area (USA) concept. DCA noted that the purpose of
the comprehensive plan is to provide infrastructure
to serve land uses, not to designate land uses to
serve infrastructure.
b. According to the ORC Report, the county's oversight
Justification was incorrect. DCA stated that the
area around and including the subject property was
considered during the Stipulated Settlement
Agreement (SSA) negotiation process, and that no
oversight was made in placing the subject property
outside of the Urban Service Area (USA).
° Future Land Use Ob ective 6 and Policy 6.1
DCA stated that the proposed amendment is inconsistent
with the intent of Policy 6.1, which prohibits extension
of public services and facilities that encourage the
development of agriculturally designated lands.
° Housing Policy 2.2
DCA stated that the proposed amendment is -_not supported
by an analysis of the need for increased residential
development as it relates to the amount of land needed to
accommodate the projected population.
° Future Land Use Objective 1 and Policy 4.1
DCA stated that the proposed amendment does not
discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl.
Besides the specific objections referenced above, DCA also
determined that the subject land use plan amendment request is not
consistent with the state plan nor with the comprehensive regional
Policy plan. As indicated.An the ORC report, this inconsistency
exists because the proposed amendment does not discourage urban
sprawl and does not provide a balanced, well-planned mix of land
uses.
Planning staff has reviewed the DCA's objections, coordinated with
DCA staff, and revised the analysis section of this staff report.
In addition, staff has drafted a new land use policy to address
issues related to the subject amendment request.
With the changes proposed, planning staff feels that the proposed
land use amendment will be acceptable 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
Property to the west of the subject P� land.
Agriculture District, and containssinglefamily lots., most of
which are t5 acres or larger. Properties to the south and north
are zoned RFD, Rural Fringe District, and contain t2..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
District. land zoned A-1, Agriculture
64
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.
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 mget 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 a
1.1
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
65
MAY 051992
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.
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.
Utilities and Services
The 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:
o Changes to address the DCA Objections
o Concurrency of public facilities
o Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
o Potential impact on environmental quality
o Compatibility with the surrounding area
This sectionwill also consider alternatives for development of the
site.
Summary of Changes to Address the DCA Objections and Comments
In order to address DCA's objections and comments, planning staff
coordinated with the DCA staff. As a result
identified various revisions which will resolve ICA' s concerns
These revisions include changes to both the policies of the
comprehensive plan and the data and analysis section of the staff
report. It is staff's position that these changes will resolve
DCA's objections and retain the intent of the proposed amendment.
RCA's principal objection to this
encouragement of development in agriculturally aosed desamendment focused on the
the proliferation of urban sprawl. y gnated areas and
planning staff has revised the data and analysis section ess this joftthis
66
� � r
® s �
staff report. Specifically, staff has explained why it is logical,
rational, and efficient to ensure that the urban service area
includes land on both sides of roadways serving as major utility
(water and sewer lines) corridors.
In order to ensure that a consistent approach is taken countywide
regarding the establishment of urban service area boundaries in the
Proximity of utility corridor roadways, planning staff and DCA
proposed policy 1.37. As structured, this policy satisfies DCA's
concerns regarding urban service area expansion and urban sprawl.
Another of DCA's objections related to the county's failure to
justify its position that the proposed amendment satisfied the
oversight criterion of Future Land Use Policy 13.3. Staff has
addressed this objection by expanding the data and analysis section
of this staff report. As revised, the staff report explains why
failure to consider the effects of roadways serving as major
utility corridors influences the location of the urban service area
boundary and why that fact justifies approval of this amendment.
DCA also objected to the proposed amendment based upon its effect
on the county's residential allocation ratio. This objection has
been addressed by revision of the data and analysis section of this
staff report. Not only do those revisions indicate that the
proposed amendment will have a negligible effect on the county's
residential allocation ratio; but the revised staff report also
explains that DCA's ORC Report references incorrect population
figures as a basis for the allocation ratio objection.
Besides the objections above, several others were included in the
ORC Report. These related to the amendment's inconsistency with
county plan policies to discourage development within
agriculturally designated areas and with the propensity of the
proposed amendment to encourage urban sprawl. These objections
have been addressed by revisions to the staff report. As modified,
the staff report explains that, because the proposed amendment is
warranted based upon utility corridor reasons, there will be no
adverse impact on agriculturally designated areas nor an
encouragement of urban sprawl.
It is staff's position that the changes referenced above not only
address DCA's general objections but also address ORC Report
objections relating to state plan and regional plan
inconsistencies.
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
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
67
F_
MAY 0 5 1992
'800K 86 P,"; 13 71C
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:
1. Size of Property: 140 acres
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Size of Area to be Rezoned and -Redesignated: 140 acres
Existing Zoning Classification:
RFD, Rural Fringe District (up to 1 unit per 2.5 acres)
Existing Land Use Designation:
AG -1, Agriculture District (up to 1 unit per 5 acres)
Proposed Zoning Classification:
Proposed Land Use Designation:
RS -1, Single Family
Residential District (up
to 1 unit per acre)
R, Rural Residential (up
to 1 unit per acre)
Most Intense Use of the Subject Property: 40 dwelling units
- 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:
(Variables identified in the 5th Edition ITE Manual)
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 10.062/1 dwelling
unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Rate: 1.012/1 dwelling unit
C. Outbound PM Peak Hour Split: 35%
d. Inbound PM Peak Hour Split: 65%
3. Formula for Determining New Trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction):
Number of single family units 8 P.M. Peak Hour Rate %
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
68
M
i
M
for the transportation concurrency analysis. According to recent
count data on 58th Avenue, the peak direction during the p.m. peak
hour is south.
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 for 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.
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 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
Segment
Road
From
TO
Cap it
1905
1910
S.R.
60
W. County Line
CR 512
540
1915
S.R.
S.R.
60
60
CR 512
I-95
I-95
540
1920
S.R.
60
82nd Avenue
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
1680
1925
1930
S.R.
60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
1760
1760
1935
S.R.
S.R.
60
60
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
2650
1940
S.R.
60
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
2650
1945
1950
S.R.
60
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
2600
1638
1960
S.R.
S.R.
60
60
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.8. 1
1638
1965
S.R.
60
U.S. 1
I. R. Blvd.
Indian River Blvd.
58th Avenue
1638
2020
2030
16th
16th
Street
Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
1760
830
2040
16th
Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
830
830
69
L_
BUUK Ltiut a�
MAY 0 51992 P,OOK. b F.,% -Eek 2.
Roadway Segment
Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
2050
16th Street
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
970
2060
16th Street
17th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
970
2110
17th Street
Q.S. 1
I. R. Blvd.
1990
2210
12th Street
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
890
2220
12th Street
58th Avenue-
43rd Avenue
830
2250
12th Street
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
830
2260
12th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. Co. Line
830
2305
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. Co. Line
Oslo Road
630
2310
Old Dixie Hwy.
Osic Road
4th Street
830
2315
Old Dixie Hwy.
4th Street
8th Street
830
2320
Old Dixie Hwy.
8th Street
12th Street
830
2325
Old Dixie Hwy.
12th Street
S. V. B. City Lmts
830
2330
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. V.B. City Lmt. 16th Street
830
2335
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S. V.B. City Lmts
830
2530
Oelo Road
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
630
2540
Oslo Road
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
2550
Oslo Road
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
630
2560
Oslo Road
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
830
2570
Oslo Road
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
830
2580
Oslo Road
Old Dixie Hwy.
Q.S. 1
830
2920
43rd Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
830
2925
43rd Avenue
12th Street
16th Stmt
630
2930
43rd Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
2935
43rd Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Stmt
830
2940
43rd Avenue
26th Street
41st Street
830
3005
58th Avenue
Oslo Road
4th Street
630
3010
58th Avenue
4th Street
8th Street
630
3015
58th Avenue
8th Street
12th Street
630
3020
58th Avenue
12th Street
16th Street
630
3025
58th Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
3030
58th Avenue
S.R. 60
41st Street
830
3035
58th Avenue
41st Street
45th Street
630
3040
58th Avenue
45th Street
49th Street -
630
4830
8th Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4840
8th Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
630
4850
8th Street
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
830
4860
8th Street
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
830
4870
8th Street
Old Dixie Hwy
U.S. 1
830
4880
8th Street
U.S. 1
1. R. Blvd
830
4930
4th Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4940
4th Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
630
4950
4th Street
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
630
4960
4th Street
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy
630
4970
4th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
630
Existing Demand
—V-e—st—a
Total Available
Positive
Roadway
Ex st ng
Segment Segment Project
Concurrency
Segment
volume Volume
Demand Capacity
Demand Determination
1905
292 1
293
247 1
Y
1910
292 14
306
234 1
Y
1915
734 37
771
909 2
Y
1920
950 67
1017
743 2
Y
1925
972 93
1065
695 2
Y
1930
972 39
1011
1639 4
Y
1935
612 34
646
2004 3
Y
1940
878 24
902
1698 3
Y
1945
747 3
750
888 2
Y
1950
747 10
757
881 1
Y
1960
509 4
514
1125 1
Y
1965
2020
846 43
121
889
871 1
Y
2030
1
337 0
122
337
708 5
493 4
Y
Y
2040
463 0
463
367 3
Y
2050
851 0
851
119 3
Y
2060
2110
851 9
680 3
860
110 1
Y
2210
81 0
683
81
1307 1
809 1
Y
2220
81 9
90
740 4
Y
Y
2250
2260
400 5
527
305
425 2
Y
2305
29
180 17
556
197
274 1
433 1
Y
2310
2315
427 15
442
_
388 3
Y
Y
2320
432 0
504 1
432
398 3
Y
2325
441 17
505
458
325 3
372 2
Y
2330
2335
441 17
458
372 2
Y
Y
2530
139 20
162 3
159.
671 1
Y
165
465 1
Y
M
rr;
W
M
-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
EMS 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.
-Wastewater
Since this application involves expansion of the urban service
area, subsequent development of the -site would involve wastewater
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 wastewater generation rate of 40 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 10400 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 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 wastewater facilities or pay for
71
,
PO0K.
Existina
Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
ZxLeting
Vested
Segment
segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume
Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand
Determination
2540
162
8
170
460
3
Y
2550
265
19
284
346
2
Y
2560
265
32
297
533
1
Y
2570
360
41
401
429
1
Y
2580
414
37
451
379
1
Y
2920
454
0
454
176
5
Y
2925
454
1
455
375
4
Y
2930
373
1
374
456
3
Y
2935
373
9
382
448
.2
Y
2940
283
9
292
338
1
Y
3005
144
9
153
477
27
Y
3010
144
6
150
480
20
Y
3015
144
6
150
480
15
Y
3020
144
21
165
465
10
Y
3025
400
20
420
410
5
Y
3030
414
29
443
387
3
Y
3035
414
9
423
207
2
Y
3040
414
9
423
207
1
Y
4830
99
9
108
522
5
Y
4840
193
2
195
435
3
Y
4850
342
0
342
488
2
Y
4860
342
4
346
484
2
Y
4870
351
3
354
476
1
Y
4880
198
0
198
632
1
Y
4930
103
7
110
520
10
Y
4940
216
5
221
409
5
Y
4950
315
8
323
307
3
Y
4960
315
6
321
309
2
Y
4970
450
1
451
179
2
Y
-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
EMS 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.
-Wastewater
Since this application involves expansion of the urban service
area, subsequent development of the -site would involve wastewater
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 wastewater generation rate of 40 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERUs), or 10400 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 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 wastewater facilities or pay for
71
,
PO0K.
r
MAY ® 5 N92
BOOK '�' �'P���E►���:
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.
-Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pickup by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Stolid 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, all new
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
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.
72
M M M
-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.
ParkesLOS
(Acrea a/1000 Po
Pro ect 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, and parks 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 is not a major concern for this property. Although
the proposed request is to change the property's land use
designation from agricultural to rural, it is anticipated that
residential development on the subject site will maintain
compatibility with surrounding areas in two ways. The first will
be through buffering. Land Development Regulation Section 911.04
requires that projects designated for development at one unit per
acre adjacent to agricultural areas provide a minimum fifty (50)
foot setback. This type of buffering would minimize the effect of
higher density areas upon surrounding agricultural properties. The
second means of ensuring compatibility will be through landscaping.
At the time of development review, the site will be required to
meet the county's landscaping requirements and to provide adequate
buffering between residential development and adjacent
agriculturally designated properties.
While any expansion of the urban service area and redesignation of
agricultural lands prompts concern of a domino effect, that concern
seems unwarranted in this case. As explained in the comprehensive
plan consistency section of this staff report, the reasons
supporting the proposed change are narrowly based and affect few
other parcels.
From a land use compatibility perspective, the proposed changes
seem reasonable. While the county's land use plan generally
establishes a pattern of gradual density reduction from east to.
West, there are areas where that pattern does not exist. In this
case, the land use designation for properties east of 58th Avenue
is 3 units/acre, while the density for lands west of 58th is 1
unit/5 acres. With the proposed change, a more gradual density
difference would be achieved by instituting -a 1 unit/acre density
between the 3 units/acre on the east and the one unit/5 acres on
the west. Although a perfect density transition is not necessary
in all areas, it is staff's position that the proposed change will
enhance compatibility in this situation.
Based upon
feels that
compatible
,
the analysis performed on the subject property, staff
the requested rural land use designation would be
with the surrounding area.
73
mo
FY /rff—� ��)M ° o {yy _
mo _
.. V � F,ij J dR.Ei
F_
MAY 0 5 1992
80pp //�� yy
00 FrlllE d�,
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality _0
The subject property is located within floodplain zone AE. Being
within an AE zone, the property is subject to the provisions of
Conservation Element Policy 4.3. 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. Since the requested land use designation for the subject
property is R -Rural and that land use designation allows
development at a maximum density of 1 dwelling unit to the acre,
the applicant's request would be consistent with Conservation
Policy 4.3.
While staff has concern regarding any potential increase in the
allowable residential density within a floodplain, there does not
appear to bea problem with the subject request. Not only is the
proposed density substantially less than the maximum allowed by
policy 4.3, but other requirements, including county stormwater
management rules and Indian River Farms Water Control District
regulations, will further mitigate any potential impact.
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 be amended only 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. These land uses include agricultural,
residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses.
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 substantial change in circumstances affecting the
subject property
* a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan, or
* an oversight in the approved.comprehensive plan.
Based upon staff's analysis, the subject land use amendment request
meets one of the three criteria and is therefore consistent with
policy 13.3.
The first 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 adjacent development patterns having
occurred. 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.
F_�
74
The second 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.
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.
Despite careful consideration during the county/DCA compliance
negotiation process, staff feels that a mistake or oversight did
occur. It is staff's position that the oversight or mistake
involved a failure to consider the effect of delineating a major
roadway as the urban service area boundary, when that boundary
serves as a major utility corridor. While county staff
acknowledges that the subject property was carefully considered in
relation to urban sprawl, agricultural preservation, and
residential allocation issues during the compliance negotiation
process, it is staff's position that 58th Avenue's function as a
major utility corridor and its effect on the subject property was
not considered at that time.
Subsequent to approval of the county/DCA stipulated settlement
agreement, the county recognized that major water and sewer lines
were programmed for installation on 58th Avenue. As a result,
properties on both sides of and within 1/4 mile of 58th Avenue will
have all of the public infrastructure necessary for including the
property in the urban service area. In fact, staff feels that it
would be inefficient to have major utility lines within a road
right-of-way and not allow those lines to serve adjacent
properties. It is staff's opinion that an oversight occurred
during compliance negotiations, because both DCA and county staff
failed to consider that programmed water and sewer service for 58th
Avenue would justify including the subject property within the
Urban Service Area and assigning the property an urban land use
designation.
This utility corridor issue not only affects the subject property;
it also affects all similarly situated lands. For that reason,
staff feels that the Urban Service Area boundary must be examined
on a large scale. Specifically, all corridors where major water
and sewer lines are programmed must be examined and adjacent
properties considered. In order to provide for this review, staff
proposes that the Board of County Commissioners adopt new Future
Land Use policy 1.37. This policy provides for a county sponsored
corridor study and urban service area boundary analysis. As
proposed, policy 1.37 reads as follows:
Future Land Use Policy 1.37. By 1993s, Indian River County
shall conduct a corridor study for each roadway which serves
as an urban service area boundary. A corridor includes road
right-of-way and property within one-quarter (1/4) mile of -
both sides of the right-of-way. The Rings Highway (58th
Avenue) Corridor is hereby designated as a high priority
corridor study area. For each corridor studied, the analysis
shall identify programmed infrastructure improvements,
particularly water and sewer lines. Where water and sewer
lines are planned for installation within the right-of-way of
a roadway serving as the -urban service area boundary, the
study will examine the financial, environmental and physical
impacts of providing urban services to land on both sides of
the right-of-way. Based upon the study results, the existing
urban service area designation and land use plan designation
for lands within the corridor will be assessed, and necessary
changes will be identified. Any identified changes shall
address the need to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area
(USA) boundary depicted on the Future Land Use Map in order to
75
MAY 0 5199
MAY 0 51992
I
B00K 8
compensate for any recommended expansion of the Urban Service
Area boundary, to discourage the proliferation of urban
sprawl, to ensure the separation of urban and rural land uses,
and to maintain the relationship between the needs of the
Projected population and the land uses depicted on the Future
Land Use Map. Such changes shall then be considered by the
Board of County Commissioners as proposed comprehensive plan
amendments.
Policy 1.37 was drafted in coordination with DCA staff. It is
county planning staff's understanding that the DCA agrees that
excluding the subject property from the urban service area was a
mistake or oversight and that proposed policy 1.37 will ensure that
the utility corridor issue will be addressed in a comprehensive
manner.
-Future Land Use Policies 20-2 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.
Since it has been established that major water and sewer lines are
Programmed for installation along 58th Avenue, that indicates that
public infrastructure is available to the subject property. To
further comply with policies 2.2 and 2.31 staff has drafted new
Policy 1.37. It is staff's position that these factors indicate
that the proposed amendment is consistent with policies 2.2 and
2.3.
-Future Land Use Policy 6.1
Among DCA's ORC report objections was a statement that the proposed
request is inconsistent with Future Land Use Policy 6.1. This
Policy states that the county shall not provide services or
facilities which would encourage the development of agriculturally
designated lands. As structured, Policy 6.1 is intended to
prohibit the development of agriculturally designated lands.
However, that policy was not intended to preclude redesignation of
agricultural areas to a more intense land use category, if
circumstances warrant it. In this case, staff's position is that
various circumstances, particularly the planned installation of
major water and sewer lines along 58th Avenue, warrant a change in
land use designation for the subject property from AG -1 to R.
Staff feels that the proposed change is not inconsistent with
policy 6.1.
-Future Land Use Policy 4.1
Another consideration with respect to this amendment re
Future Land Use Policy 4.1. This Policy quest is
categories shall be deli P cY states that land use
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. 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 e
single dimensional development. Designation expanses of low density,
area is a technique to combat urban sprawl andto
urban service
development.promote infill
76
Given the fact that major water and sewer lines are programmed
along 58th Avenue and other major roadways, there will probably be
a need to expand the county's urban service area along several
rights-of-way. As drafted, proposed Future Land Use.Policy 1.37
provides a structured means to review land located in proximity to
urban service area boundaries to determine where the USA boundary.
should be modified. Since proposed policy 1.37 ensures that any
urban service area expansion will be done in a manner that
discourages urban sprawl, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment is consistent with policy 4.1.
Related to the urban sprawl issue is the residential allocation
issue. This was discussed generally in the existing conditions
section of this staff report. While that discussion indicates that
the county's residential allocation factor is higher than
recommended by DCA, it is staff's position that the population
increase represented by the proposed amendment would not
significantly affect the existing 4.48 ratio. With only forty
acres, a proposed density of 1 unit/acre, and a conservative
estimate of 2.5 persons per household, the proposed land use change
would increase the county's population by only 100 persons. This
would not change the 4.48 ratio. With respect to the effect of
changing the land use designation for all similarly situated
properties, proposed policy 1.37 ensures that this will have no
adverse effect on the ratio.
Among DCA's objections was the statement that the staff report
should address the allocation of land uses in the county based on
Bureau of Economic and Business Research's 2010 population
projection of 140,000 for the county, compared to the county plan's
projection of 177,000 persons for that year. The implication was
that the county should consider reducing densities instead of
increasing density.
Through research, however, the planning staff determined that DCA's
177,000 number represented resident and seasonal population, while
the BEBR number represents only resident population. Since
resident population projections are the only figures used for
calculation of residential allocation factors, it can be inferred
that DCA's allocation factor objection was not based on correct
data and analysis. Based upon that fact and the previous
discussion regarding the minimal effect of the proposed amendment
on the county's residential allocation factor, it is staff's
position that this analysis supports the proposed land use change.
- 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 proposed rural land use designation of the subject property is
consistent with drainage policy 8.1.
Alternatives
Staff has identified several- alternatives available to the
applicant and alternatives available to the Board of County
Commissioners.
- Alternatives for the Applicant -
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:
77
MAY 0 5 92
r
MAY ® 5 1992
BOOK
1. Develop the subject property with the current agricultural
land use density as a cluster development.
2. Wait until infill development promotes expansion of the USA
before developing at a higher density.
3. Pursue the land use amendment request.
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.
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.
- 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 this request to amend the Future
Land Use Map and rezone the subject property.
* The second would be to approve the amendment and the rezoning,
as requested by the applicant.
Conclusion
It is staff's position that the applicant's request is consistent
with adopted comprehensive plan policies and compatible with
surrounding land uses. It is also staff's position that all of
DCA's objections have been adequately addressed. For those
reasons, staff supports the proposed amendment.
RECOMMENDATION
Based upon its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve this land use amendment request to expand the
urban service area by forty (40) acres, to change the land use
designation of the subject property from AG -1 to R, and to rezone
the subject property from RFD to RS -1. In addition, staff
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt proposed
Future Land Use Policy 1.37.
78
r
M M
Community Development Director Robert Keating recalled that
the last time this request was before the Board, staff recommended
denial, but the Board decided to transmit it to the Dept. of
Community Affairs in Tallahassee for their 90 -day review. The DCA
ORC report contained several substantive objections which focused
primarily on the premature development of agriculturally designated
lands and the proliferation of urban sprawl. Staff addressed each
of these issues specifically and made revisions to the staff report
to essentially rebut what the DCA said in certain cases. Staff
also explained in more detail the concept of roadways serving as
utility corridors and the economics and efficiency of serving land
on both sides of a roadway. In our negotiations with the DCA, they
accepted that reason, but they recommended that the County adopt a
new policy that would require the County to do corridor plans along
each of the roadways for similar characteristics so that we would
essentially be treating all similarly situated properties in the
same manner. After many phone calls and fax transmissions, our
planning staff and DCA did come up with the proposed wording for a
new policy. Policy 1.37 requires that the County look at lands on
each side of each one of the right-of-ways that serve as a corridor
and determine if the urban service area needs to be expanded or if
it needs to be contracted in those particular areas. Policy 1.37
also requires the Board, after receiving the results of those
studies, to go in and make Comp Plan changes to accommodate them.
Staff feels that with the adoption of proposed Policy 1.37 and with
the revisions made to the staff report, we have satisfied all of
DCA's objections.
In response to Chairman Eggert's question on population data,
Director Keating advised that as of the 1990 census, the resident
population was 90,208 and the resident in -season population was
105,000 to 107,000.
Director Keating concluded with staff's recommendation for
approval of this land use amendment request to expand the urban
service area by 40 acres, to change the land use designation of the
subject property from AG -1 to R, and to rezone the subject property
from RFD to RS -1. In addition, staff recommends that the Board
adopts proposed Future Land Use Policy 1.37.
Chairman Eggert asked if staff had made the DCA aware that we
are experiencing rural sprawl going east and that we are
consistently balancing off with the changes to agricultural that we
have been getting. _
Director Keating responded that we have not told them
specifically that we have been having a lot more rezonings into
that, but he anticipated that they would say that it is appropriate
79
MAY 0 519IR 9or1
F,
SAY 0 5 1992 �,��,
!BOOK' F'tyuEja�
to change our land use map to reflect that. He felt the DCA's
major focus is that areas that are purely agricultural should not
be encroached on in a piecemeal basis. He felt that it is
appropriate policy that our plan specifically recognizes that it is
appropriate to have certain agricultural uses within the urban
service area and east of I-95.
Commissioner Bowman asked if staff had any idea of the actual
number of parcels that would fall with the domino effect, and
Commissioner Scurlock believed it would be all the major corridors
with utility lines.
Director Keating stated that it would be where the roadways
are the urban service area boundaries. He felt that Policy 1.37
negates the fear that we had of a domino effect that was referenced
in our agenda item at the transmittal stage. This ensures that we
do a study to determine whether it is appropriate to expand 'or
contract the urban service area. It doesn't give carte blanche
permission to expand the urban service area; it requires the County
to look and see whether it needs to be balanced with the
contraction of it.
Commissioner Scurlock believed this would be controlled under
the utility element and expansion of the master plan.
Attorney Steve Henderson, representing Mr. and Mrs. Feldman,
thanked the Board for their patience through all of this and
thanked staff for their efforts and their ingenuity with the DCA.
He noted that his clients are here this morning if the Board has
any questions.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-19, redesignating ±40 acres from AG -1 to R
for property located on the west side of 58th Avenue,
south of 4th Street, expanding the urban service area,
and adopting future land use Policy 1.37.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 92-20, rezoning from RFD to RS -1 property
generally located on the west side of 58th Avenue, south
of 4th Street.
80
ORDINANCE NO. 92-19
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
(RINGS HIGHWAY), SOUTH OF 4TH STREET, EXPANDING THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA, AND ADOPTING FUTURE LAND USE POLICY 1.37, AND
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the County received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November -12, 1991,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS,_ the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the State review pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received' the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 9, 1992, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian -River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
81
MAY 0 51992 NMN
Y 0 5 1992 BOOK 66 Fd�Esc�,
ORDINANCE 92-19
on " May 51 1992, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
t
The amendment to the Indian'River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
C The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
All of Tract 9, less the North 660 feet thereof; and all
of Tract 16, less the South 622.66 feet thereof; all in
Section 17, Township 33 South, Range 39 East as shown on
Plat of Indian River Farms Company as filed in Plat Book
2, page 25, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida;
now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida.
Containing 39.157 acres, more or less.
Be changed from AG -1 to R.
The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
c The Urban Service Area is hereby enlarged by 40 acres.
C Policy 1.37 of the Future Land Use Element, as shown in
Attachment A, is hereby adopted.
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflictinq Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severabilit
It is declared to be the. -intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming -law.
82
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 19
Approved and adopted by -the-Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this day of , 1992.'
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 27 day ofApria 1992 for a public hearing to be held on the
5 day of May , 1992 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded by Commissioner
Bowman , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Attachment A
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Carol K. Egg2#tj Chairman
ATTEST BY:
Je -K-. - $ar n, k n �.
ORDINANCE 92-19
Proposed Future Land Use Policy 1.37
By 1993, Indian River County shall conduct a corridor study for
each roadway which serves as an urban service area boundary. A
corridor includes road right-of-way and property within one-quarter
(1/4) mile of both sides of the right-of-way. The Kings Highway
(58th Avenue) Corridor is hereby designated as a high priority
corridor study area. For each corridor studied, the analysis shall
identify programmed infrastructure improvements, particularly water
and sewer lines. Where water and sewer lines are planned for
installation within the right-of-way of a roadway serving as the
urban service area boundary, the study will examine the financial,
environmental and physical impacts of providing urban services to
land on both sides of the right-of-way. Based upon the study
reports, the existing urban service area designation and land use
plan designation for lands within the corridor will be assessed,
and necessary changes will be identified. Any identified changes
shall address the need to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area
(USA) boundary depicted on the Future Land Use Map in order to
compensate for any recommended expansion of the Urban Service Area
boundary, to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, to
ensure the separation of urban and rural land uses, and to maintain
the relationship between the needs of the projected population and
the land uses depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Such changes
shall then be considered by the Board of County Commissioners as
proposed comprehensive plan amendments.
83
EOCIa �j'� Fr ,;r
MAY 0 5 1992
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 20
BOOK [,A.
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND ACCOMANYING ZONING MAP FROM RFD TO RS -1,
FOR THE PROPERTY GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 58TH
AVENUE (RINGS HIGHWAY), SOUTH -OF 4TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED
HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
All of Tract 9, less the North 660 feet thereof; and all of
Tract 16, less the South 622.66 feet thereof; all in Section
17, Township 33 South, Range 39 East as shown on Plat of
.Indian River Farms Company as filed in Plat Book 2, page 25,
Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida; now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida. Containing 39.157
acres more or less.
Be changed from RFD to RS -1.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 5 day of May , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach -Press -Journal
on the 13 day of April , 1992 for a public hearing to be
held on the 5 day of May_ , 1992 at which time it was
_moved for adoption by Commissioner Wheeler , seconded -by
Commissioner Bowman , and adopted by the following
vote:
84
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Ave
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Ave
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:4,01 a::±� 't L1001 J/
Carol R. Egge Chairman
ATTEST BY:
JefjXV3K'. ^
QiZ.li.
REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN TO REDESIGNATE +888 ACRES FROM
AG -2 TO AG -1
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
85
MAY 0 51992
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach. Rondo 32961 562-23/15
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE OF FLORIDA a'JOUCitt1� .
$afore 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
was published In said newspaper in the Issue(s)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day o A.D ZOE
Business Manager
Zau-.1'
4�
(SEAL) Watery Public. Stets of iferbbe
MY C—Foston f■pbef 1wb A, seed
pP
BOOK FAQ E j)�
44, Prasa.Awmel, Monday, April 27, IM
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE/
• COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Fldrida, will
.consider adopting an ordinance to amend- the use of land within an
unincorporated portion of Indian River County as shown to the maps of the
advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, May
5. 1992, at 9x05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At
this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final
decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
amendments are included in the proposed ordinance entitleds
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 AND EXPANDING THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +-20 ACRES FROM L-1 TO HOSPITAV
. COMMERCIAL NODE BY ENLARGING THE US 01137TH STREET
HOSPITAl/COMMERCIAL NODE FROM +-230 ACRES TO +-250
ACRES; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +-888 ACRES FROM AG -2 TO AG -1
FOR PROPERTY LOCATED WEST AND SOUTH OF THE CITY OF
FELLSMERE, SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 512 (FELLSMERE ROAM AND
AMENDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT INCLUDING POLICIES,
TABLES AND TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, SANITARY
I SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, AND CAPITAL
IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, INCLUDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties' may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Department located on the second floor of the
County Administration . Building located of 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m: and St00 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this
meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made
which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be
based. • -
86
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By, -s -Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
M
The Board reviewed the following staff memo dated 4/28/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
U 9A
ober . R ating AICD
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani S• �.
Chief, Long -Range ;ng
FROM: Cheryl A. TworSenior Planne ge Planning
DATE: April 28, 1992
SUBJECT: Rahn Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate 1888 Acres From AG -2 To AG -1
(LURA -91-07-0175)
It is requested that the data herein presented begiven formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 5, 1992.
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 Rahn,
as Trustee. The land includes approximately 888 acres, all of
which is within the AG -2 land use designation. Other than
approximately five 10 acre tracts, the entire 888 acres are owned
by Mr. Rahn. 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-.
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.
On September 26, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission, acting
as the Local Planning Agency, conducted a public hearing for the
Purpose of making a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners. At that meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted 6 to 0 to recommend the transmittal of the proposed land use
amendment request.
On November 12, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit the above referenced land use amendment to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), and announced their
intention to hold a final public hearing concerning this amendment.
- DCA Objections
Planning staff received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report on March 9, 1992. The DCA ORC Report
contained several objections to this proposed amendment.
Identified as inconsistencies with state law (9J-5, FAC and 163,
87
f °ter,
F__ - I
CLAY ® 51992 BOOK
F -S.), with the state comprehensive plan, and with the
comprehensive regional policy plan, these objections focused on
several areas. Specifically, DCA's objections were:
• The proposed amendment is not supported by an analysis of
the need for increased residential development.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land
Use Policy 13.3, in that there is inadequate
Justification that there was a mistake or oversight in
designating the subject property as AG -2 during the plan
preparation process.
There is no indication of coordination with the City of
Fellsmere regarding the proposed amendment,
(Intergovernmental Coordination Objective 1).
Besides the three specific objections referenced above, the ORC
Report cited inconsistencies with the state comprehensive plan and
the comprehensive regional policy plan. These
ectio
address the same issues as the three objections breferencedhowever above.
It is staff's position that addressing DCA Is three substantive
objections will also address its state and regional plan
inconsistency objections.
Planning staff has reviewed DCA Is objections and has revised the
analysis section of this staff report. As revised, the staff
report adequately addresses all of DCA's objections.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The subject property lies within the A-11 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
Platted as the Homewood Subdivision, this land cosists primacounty.
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.
Properties are also zoned A-1 and contain Southernand
atrwestern
cts f
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 desi
ation on theUse Map. The redesignation of this land to AG -2 ccurredure 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, desi
agricultural uses and residential development at a densitation y of oine
unit per 10 acres.
88
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 -11 Agriculture -1,
and L-11 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 (Fell'smere 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
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 of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
o Changes to Address DCA Objections
O Concurrency of public facilities
C 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.
Summary of Chanes to Address the DCA Objections
In order to address DCA's objections, planning staff coordinated
with the DCA staff. As a result of this coordination, staff has
identified revisions to the staff report which resolve DCA's
objections and retain the intent of the proposed amendment.
• DCA objected to the proposed amendment based upon its effect
on the county's residential allocation ratio. This objection
has been addressed by revision of the data and analysis
section of this staff report. Not only do those revisions
indicate that the proposed amendment will have a negligible
effect on the county's residential allocation ratio; but the
revised staff report also explains that DCA's ORC report
references incorrect population figures as a basis for the
allocation ratio objection.
• Another of DCA's objections related to the county's failure to
Justify its position that the proposed amendment satisfied the
oversight criterion of Future Land Use Policy 13.3. Staff has
addressed this objection by expanding the data and analysis
section of this staff report. As revised, the staff report
explains why there is a need for transitional densities
89
MAY 0 5 199
MAY 0 51992
Boa �6 P,% -E' 4
between -areas of higher residential densities and areas of
higher agricultural uses.
• DCA's third principal objection to the, proposed amendment
focussed on the lack of data and analysis to document that the
county had coordinated with -the City of Fellsmere regarding
this plan amendment request. While DCA correctly noted that
the staff report did not reference coordination with the City
of Fellsmere, it should be noted that county planning staff
did coordinate with the City during the review and analysis of
this amendment request. To address DCA's objections, planning
staff has revised the staff report to document its
coordination actions with the City of Fellsmere.
It is staffs position that the changes referenced above not only
address DCA.'s three principal objections to the proposed amendment
but also address ORC Report objections relating to state plan and
regional plan inconsistencies.
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: 1888 acres
2. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 1888 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural District,
(up to 1 unit/5 acres)
4. Existing Land Use Designation: AG -2, Agricultural -2, (up to
1 unit/10 acres)
5. Proposed Land Use Classification: AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to
1 unit/5 acres)
6. Maximum Number of Units for Proposed Plan Amendment: 1176
Units
90
® s s
-Transportation
A reviewof-. the traffic impacts that would result from the proposed
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service " better
not
impactslowered.
followssite information
determining used for g traffic
1. Residential Use Identified in
Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
y Detached
ing
2. For Single -Family Dwelling Units in ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: u10.0662/1 dwelling
ts
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%
3. 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)
4. a. P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Direction of Adjacent Roadway (CR
512): East
b. Total peak hour/peak season/peak direction Trips: 117
5. Traffic Capacity on this segment of C.R. 512 at a Level of
Service "C":
540 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
6. 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. 5120 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 (176) 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
91
f�(�na
MAY 0 51 92
MAY 0 5 999
Transportation (FDOT) Level o
capacity is the total capacity
volumes; this is updated daily,
project approvals.
500K 8
I Service (LOS) Manual. Available
less existing and committed traffic
based upon vesting associated with
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.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERNINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway Segment
Segment Road g Capacity
'r0 IAR "D"
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
1960
1965
2335
2345
2350
2355
2360
2365
2410
2420
2430
2440
2450
2460
2470
2480
2510
2905
S.R. Ala
S.R. A1A
S.R. AlA
S.R. AIA
S.R. AlA
S.R. AlA
S.R. AlA
S.R. AIA
S.R. AIA
U. S. #1
O.S. #1
Roseland
Roseland
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
Rd.
Rd.
O. Dixie Hwy.
O. Dixie Hwy.
O. Dixie Hwy.
O. Dixie Hwy.
o. Dixie Hwy.
O. Dixie Hwy
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
27th Ave.
43rd Ave.
So. Co. Line
So. V.B. City Lmts
17th St.
S.R. 60
N. V.B. City Lmtg=
Fred Tuerk Rd.
O. Winter Beach Rd
N. I.R.S. Line
C.R. 510
17th at.
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.
O.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 at.
45th at.
49th St.
65th St.
69th 8t.
So. Co. Line
0810 Rd.
4th St.
8th at.
12th St.
S. V.H. City Lmts
16th St.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
S. Co. Line
S. V.B. City Lmts
17th at.
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
O.S. #1
I-95
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City Lmts
Roseland Rd.
O.S. #1
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
O.S. #1
S.R. Ala
C.A. 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 8t.
49th St.
65th St.
69th St.
C.R. 510
.Oslo Rd.
4th at.
8th at.
12th St.
8. 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
Segment
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "D"
2910
43rd
Ave.
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
630
2915
43rd
Ave.
4th St.
8th St.
630
2920
43rd
Ave.
8th St.
12th St.
630
2925
43rd
Ave.
12th St.
16th St.
830
2930
43rd
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
830
2935
43rd
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
830
2940
43rd
Ave.
-26th St.
41st St.
630
2945
43rd
Ave.
41st St.
45th St.
630
2950
43rd
Ave.
45th St.
49th St.
630
3005
58th
Ave.
Oslo Rd.
4th St.
630
3010
58th
Ave.
4th St.
8th St.
630
3015
58th
Ave.
8th St.
12th St.
630
3020
58th
Ave.
12th St.
16th St.
630
3025
58th
Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
830
3030
58th
Ave.
S.R. 60
41st St.
830
3035
58th
Ave.
41st St.
45th St.
630
3040
58th
Ave.
45th St.
49th St.
630
3045
58th
Ave.
49th St.
65th St.
630
3050
58th
Ave.
65th St.
69th at.
630
3055
58th
Ave.
69th St.
C.R. 510
630
3120
66th
Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
630
3130
66th
Ave
26th St.
41st St.
630
3140
66th
Ave.
41st St.
45th St.
630
3150
66th
Ave.
45th St.
65th St.
630
3160
66th
Ave.
65th St.
69th St.
630
3170
66th
Ave
69th St.
C.R. 510
630
* Rural Arterial at Level of Service "C"
Roadway
Segment
ZZ -1 st'l
SzLet1nq
volume
Demand
vested
volume
Total
Segment
Demand
Available
Segment
capacity '
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
1010
665
50
715
605
1
Y
1020
655
39
704
616
1
Y
1030
805
28
833
227.
1
Y
1040
890
31
921
199
1
Y
1050
760
38
798
442
1
Y
1060
320
54
374
936
2
Y
1070
320
54
374
936
2
Y
1080
320
5
325
985
2
Y
1090
275
10
285
1055
2
Y
1335
1341
3
1344
926
7
Y
1340
1143
18
1161
1139
7
Y
1610
207
2
209
421
7
Y
1620
342 _
3
345
285
73
Y
1710
297
10
307
233
117
Y
1720
310
7
317
313
26
Y
1730
288
0
288
342
20
Y
1740
355
0
355
275
20
Y
1750
418
2
420
210
7
Y
1810
162
20
182
448
7
Y
1820
162
29
191
439
7
Y
1830
360
30
390
240
7
Y
1840
346
28
374
256
2
Y
1905
292
1
293
247
13
Y
1910
292
14
306
234
20
Y
1915
734
37
771
909
26
Y
1920
950
67
1017
743
26
Y
1925
972
93
1065
695
26
Y
1930
972
39
1011
1639
26
Y
1935
612
34
646
2004
20
Y
1940
878
24
902
1698
20
Y
1945
747
3
750
888
20
Y
1950
747
10
757
881
20
Y
1955
747
8
755
883
20
Y
1960
-509
4
513
1125
7
Y
1965
846
43
889
871
2
Y
2335
139
20
159
671
2
Y
2345
139
0
139
491
2
Y
2350
139
0
139
491
2
Y
2355
76
0
76
554
2
Y
2360
76
0
76
554
2
Y
2365
76
0
76
554
2
Y
2410
319
11
330
300
3
Y
2420
391
5
396
434
3
Y
2430
405
0
405
425
3
Y
2440
405
0
405
425
3
Y
2450
369
5
374
456
3
Y
93
BOOK
��,) F„,� "")4�
MAY
MAY 951992 cion, 66 F,N.i-AJ4
Nw4ftina Demand Total Available Positive
DoadeW ZzIoUng Vented Bement segment Project Coacuczmncy
SeMseat 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 .. Y
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
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 for the
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 176
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 2.37 cubic yards per
capita per year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the
active segment for the county landfill indicates the availability
94
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
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 8, 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 51000 cubic feet for each unit or 890,000 cubic feet for
the total 176 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, 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
95
FHi;c:J4 d
MAY 0 5 199
r
MAY W�V 2 BOOKA
86 ���I,E A. 4
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,
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.
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
96
_I
L.O.S.
Project
(acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
acres
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
.83
195
Community (North)
3.0
.50
24
Beach
1.5
.25
69
River
1.5
.25
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
96
_I
M
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 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 -21 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 AG -1 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.
- Residential Allocation Ratio
Any proposed land use amendment that would increase density must be
evaluated to determine the effect of additional dwelling units on
the county's residential allocatidn 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:
Proiected # 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 176, 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 designation. The
surrounding area is predominantly agricultural in use, and it is
projected that the agricultural use will remain as such for the
next twenty years.
97
HiP 0 6199`,
F,
MAS 0 5 1992
BOOK` a `D
While the DCA ORC Report indicated that the data and analysis for
the subject amendment request did not support the need for
increased residential development, this objection was partially
based upon incorrect population numbers referenced by DCA in its
ORC Report. By noting that the most recent projections by the
Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) show a projected
county population of only 140,800 by 2010 while the. county plan
shows a projected population of 177,000 for that year, DCA implies
that the county should lower not increase densities. However,
DCA's comparison is incorrect. Since the county's 177,000 number
reflects resident and seasonal population while the BEBR number
addresses only resident populations the comparison is inaccurate.
It is staff's position that the data presented above adequately
show that the amendment, if approved, would have a negligible
effect on the county's residential allocation ratio.
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
proposes to develop the property with rural residential development
at one (1) unit per five (5) acres, the proposed request is
consistent with policy 1.8 and the agricultural land use
designation policy.
Intergovernmental Coordination Objective 1
Pursuant to. Intergovernmental Coordination Objective 1, planning
staff wrote to the City of Fellsmere in August, 1991, requesting
comments on the proposed amendment, (Attachment 6). In 'addition,
planning staff sent a follow-up letter in April 1992, requesting a
response from the City. Since planning staff has received no
response from the City of Fellsmere, staff's position is that the
City holds no objection to the proposed amendment.
Potential Impacts on Environmental Qualitv
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 provisions 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 the conservation element 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.
98
M
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 of
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, the staff determined that 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 major difference
between the existing AG -2 land use designation of the subject
property and the proposed AG -11 the potential adverse effects in
terms of land use compatibility with adjacent properties would not
be significant. 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
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.
99
P 1992 BOOK
_I
MAY 0 5 19921
d00K 86 GE ctd
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.
At the transmittal hearing for this proposed amendment request, the
Fellsmere Farms Water Control District, the District's consulting
engineer, and the county public works staff all recommended against
the.proposed amendment based upon road and drainage problems. Both
the water control district and. the public works department
indicated that past experience shows that purchasers of the
proposed split lots will demand action by the county and district
to improve road and drainage conditions. It was their position
that doubling the number of lots without providing for
infrastructure creation and maintenance would make a bad situtation
worse.
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�,S-acre
tracts without adequate facilities if this redesignation were
approved.
Staff identified this issue and presented it to the Board of County
Commissioners during the transmittal hearing for the proposed
amendment. At that time, staff thought that the County could
change its land development regulations to require owners of large
tracts to provide at least minimal infrastructure improvements when
creating additional building parcels through lot splits. Based
upon that condition, the Board of County Commissioners approved
transmittal of the request.
Subsequent to plan amendment transmittal, planning staff, public
works staff, and county attorney staff coordinated with the
applicant's attorney to draft appropriate LDR language to ensure
infrastructure improvements when lot splits occur under
circumstances similar to those with the subject property. After
considerable effort, staff determined that such an amendment could
r. not be drafted. Neither staff nor the applicant's attorney could
identify LDR language which would address the infrastructure issue
but limit the applicability only to large tracts such as the
subject property.
As an alternative, the applicant's attorney pursued another option
recommended by staff. This involved establishing a property owners
association (POA) for the subject property, said POA having
authority and responsibility to make infrastructure improvements to
the site. As proposed by the applicant's attorney, the legal POA
documents would be drafted and held in escrow by the county
attorney, to be recorded after approval of the amendment request.
That process would avoid contract zoning prohibitions.
While staff agreed to this procedure, staff does not agree with the
substance of the proposed deed restrictions and POA covenants.
Planning staff, public works staff, and county attorney staff all
agree that, as drafted, the proposed legal documents will not solve
the property's infrastructure problems. It is staff's position
that the proposed documents are not sufficiently structured to
ensure that roads will be built and maintained and that drainage
will be accommodated.
100
E7 I
It is staff's position that the applicant wants to create 88 lots
without incurring the cost of any infrastructure improvements.
Without the proposed amendment, this cannot be done. Staff feels
that, if the amendment is approved and the lot splits occur, then
the county will receive numerous complaints from future residents
regarding roads and drainage problems.
Alternatives
Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and has identified a
major concern with the proposed change. In the following section,
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
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:
1. Deny this request to amend the Future Land Use Map from AG -2
to AG -1.
2. Approve this as requested by the applicant.
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. Also, staff has
found that the proposed amendment meets applicable concurrency
requirements and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Finally, staff feels that all of the DCA ORC report objections have
been addressed.
It is staff's position, however, that the infrastructure issues
associated with this request are significant enough to warrant
denial. Along with the Fellsmere Farms Water Control District and
the county public works staff, planning staff feel that the
proposed amendment should be denied.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners deny this request to -change the land use designation
of the 888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1.
101
� fy�
GO rr1uC • i
F,
MRI 51991 BOOK CS FA` •�c)
t �'• � • ,•S'••li•i7{ 't66':Stltl, J!/1!{'t{! Tlaltstltlt•16/!t.0�•,•i1• I•/f/17t!'7•NJ{ � \�i�•
a--&! -- it11f101Sfi Ilt•a 1~111 1~�'sfN3>ts {2%3•df1113•fl!• 1 /� ��
• •.•. ,• .••1 •:'• i►lr•�I.YNS9••'1{)illt !•IN•O•!!t !!•'1!M!t•1i9.'!!•Til,!•ast /alillg!•,�lt•t!•P)t•i!• ��
AG 2
1 • '� • • 'vwtl,tJ•rfJ,•J• •r•20At1 •a1'6sl16s•1•ss14/slsltN !*••Ot41/M2A•2•••a•0 •.
' • •- •♦1t6�ti>+t•Y•6• •6lA6t 1 1 , s•Mst1/06�6s •• •!t'•0t1101••,O••1::"%%Q1 • /
• ..1. Sawa
"� ` .• •.. a�.Ip.•17,srip2llsT• fllOMfl ltlaBass* is" Is" 031t•s !d!•00{1441603%04640-.•6
_ • • •� • • •'"; : • %,� ts6.1:•1.1s6116a • s6s196J
' i '•-••••••_'••-=•_-•-�.•.:a.,_�,, .:ta••�:�a f•!s'ss�0•W.ssgr&" sVs!aa!'6sua
6!•6
:61I,6H
.•-0. . .-,-. M& -4a*6•o.11N�6►- 6• - !66l111.1N0604>1,r6••,;'6!•u••S� •wK-!•K661N0 66,667 S0649.6
4s
r11
--
:
1 7
' • '• •i. '2 ^Ja'Till l.ltllttVsttl>1• tf13O/31 J21•JsdJNlfasIrs6lfs►•ts$ 4Y1q•111.1111l/t1•;16!'t•6 L—�
..r.., .:;,..::�C�1•a•/tin6a4-�-- -•� •!•- -•�--1•-�•-•-•►-'r-_ _•J-_r_+__a- ••- 3 /
66176! N/66g6? f61!1.011s• ss/tft4s6116s Js•17as1at4s1'Jlgt•s'1••J•7.
` !Y •:!`!: )Nt7�61l1it•�6111{t• lMlOg11 •
1t••614s4rss glH•s? 1.1• 3,'6•ANI a42r4316t4:•6s',646 ' 1
a" '••-•'!'1/: •t••'6: 6•,666iK1A66;660 61462 6.667:0" !ass 1sOH•,N• ••/ 1
• +,•i.•.ra •1: •4JS'0J•,tl1,f6',t/N16 M{•M!1 {21!!sM••++•-• •••,q• {MWN16i�t}16-61t1••y66!•6
•..�:.s
71Y77.316f6Ni •o — � •ss s6ws u;sa11•�,•,'s•6's•1
•• .'•� -�';:.,:; �c• y-•�-i; „-yip'- p -+ _��-1• �Lt•,s_' 1 Mtn! iA �d�:' p•
s-: S t:•:� -1 :• 1��' ' �•' 1 O•,\� •T O1 M \ 'l
• •:• 1•• ♦•• ••1 `•/ :�4.b, 1a w !i 7 JS_•1_ ♦.•,•1_L1_D_ .F1:•♦ZQ 1:_�_ ,
• _ i . �:`�,�� , � 1 � ♦6 �i .• • •'1 U` � 1 •� / � Iq1 1 � 1 O ♦� h i ♦•'�t♦••` / j/ ♦w ' ♦w ♦w
i'�•Ij~yt'.4 1 _ Pl'V 111` �1 �' ► 1�1 lld ' , �1w`/ wtil w 1 • '
• � '•• .►♦'ice{• •-„1-,,�, �i �,7 bq r�I r�� •;P�7 :�;�'Is'�'1�a7i1� '1's*'�','y�,���p�',�� ti i c
. t=.e .. • :i t• -.,s. ti ':• '� '� '► ti •i1 •►' 4 e •3! i•,`•r w ''`/ ''1? 210 1 • S -r
too
••,►� �. .�. .�1•, � •1.17, �• • , 'a I,
.t �•. �a•i�i�±i � b�*•_••�.1 �• �1 , - 1 •1 •••tWllt••N•!�•• �
/. • it w . � ►1� •,• ' 1
to
e- :• a ..: ►•.: �: �►•_: b •EN'S 1 14
Is on air
1 1
ttl•..► 1•tiK••,,• /•• • w FELLSMERE w
14189030 S T
1 ' - = -=' •, ” � •� 1,'�' is 1•• •
d ♦ •1.iP
1 •i • . I
' '� • • • _ �:•.,•r';t•:_ •�e .�, c1 MOM E W O00 •f+ •� •1* • 1 • .
1Ju X !11115 air
•:-• �•;�••'•� i t :
:
•, ; 113 1' Its Ile! 117 = lie 1 LU 120 121 ; 122 ; 123' I T.
213 / 216 217 i !le 1 i 220 1 221
1 I
- • • s •1• ��:, �s 4.• � � Z 1 1 1 222 1 223 6
' —
L
313 1. 3 316AG-2 :0 3201 321 3323
• 1 _ 1 +
Too
•
Co
414 415416 1 617 1 61e 1 • r 420 1 ' 1
1 421 422 j •423
.,� •
.ae_.71
616 fi17 j file fill 620 j 621 622 j 623
•-•
613 1 617 sle ' 1 1•
1 • " 612 • 1 6 616 61f 6=0 ; 621 622 623
1 71ti 713 7- , • , --1
,7— — —
• _.� �_ BJECT PROPERTY ,1
e
- AG -2 to AG -1 (888 acres)
102
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that
this a request just to change the Comp Plan. The zoning is in
place and would not need to be changed. He recapped that when this
land use amendment was transmitted to Tallahassee last November,
statements were made by staff of the Fellsmere Farms Water Control
District,' their consulting engineer and County Public Works
Director Jim Davis expressing concern about redesignating the
subject property given the infrastructure deficiencies which exist
on that particular tract. At the transmittal hearing in November,
1991, staff recommended approval of transmittal with the
recommendation that the Board direct staff to work with the
applicant and try to structure an amendment to the LDRs that would
require this particular applicant to make infrastructure
improvements with the lot splits. After transmittal, staff worked
extensively with Public Works staff and the County Attorney's staff
and met with the applicant a number of times on several options to
resolve the situation. We encouraged the applicant to establish a
property owners' association and a deed restriction as we felt
those legal documents could be structure and held in escrow by the
applicant's attorney or the County Attorney's staff and recorded
upon approval of this request. The problem we had in dealing with
the applicant's attorney in this particular situation is that we
could not get to the point where there were adequate provisions or
guarantees that roads would be created or upgraded and maintained
and that those provisions would be put into the legal documents.
That is the- major reason why staff is recommending denial.
However, staff does feel we have resolved most of the DCA's
objections to this Comp Plan amendment.
Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing Albert Kahn, gave a brief
recap of the history of this land -use amendment request, recalling
that at the transmittal meeting, it was felt that the best approach
to solving the infrastructure concerns would be for the applicant
to create road access easements with a property owners' association
responsible for maintaining them through assessment and lien
powers. He reviewed his letter to the Board dated May 4, 1992:
103
F,
MAY U 5 1992
D. MAO Ca
A W. vELL \
'y3r. COLLQ6. JR • n\�
OF COUNSEL
FACHAEL A GARAVAGLiA
*BOARD CERTFI :D REAL ESTATE LAWYER
Hon. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BOOK '1
Ft1UC
!,; I ITEM 9B-5
Collins Brown & Caldwep ...
a-�ED
ATTORNEYS AT LAW At �:, i
Pe-m,;nne!
756 BEAChdAND BOULEVARD
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32983 Pudic Works Y TO:
407 -Ml -4343 Community Dev. � x -46814
FAX N 407.2345213 Utilities VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32984
Finance
Other
May 4, 1992
Re: Kahn Request to Amend comprehensive Plan
to Correct Oversight
Dear Chairman Eggert -
1
attach the following documents, to which I will refer during the Board meeting on May 5:
1. Declaration of Covenants and Restrictions for Kahn Properties Property Owners'
Association, Inc.
r 2. Articles of Incorporation of Kahn Properties Property Owners' Association, Inc.
✓ 3. Correspondence from Marvin E. Carter, Consulting Engineer, Fellsmere Water Control
District. See e0pea8l>9 paragraphs 5 and 6.A.
4. Sketch of subject property with proposed easements.
The main points to be considered are as follows:
1. This property was platted into ten -acre lots by the Fellsmere Farms plats of reclamation
several decades ago.
2. Mr. Kahn has held title to these properties for over 30 years, and has been free to sell
five -acre parcels.
3. The land use dation of AG -1, one unit per five ages, was adopted by the County
in 1990, before DCA challenged the Comprehensive Plan.
4. Mr. Kelm could not participate in the compliance agreement with DCA, which resulted
in his Property being redesignated to AG -2, one unit per ten acres.
5. When we approached the staff staff agreed that the redesignation was a mistake, an
oversight: a transitional or buffer area around FeDsmere/Homewood should have been
maintained at one unit per five acres.
104
Hon. Carolyn Eggert, Chairman
May 4, 1992
Page Two
6. Staff still .maintains that the redesignation was a mistake or an oversight and should
be corrected.
7. Your staff report states: "An oversight was made regarding establishment of a
transitional area southwest and south of the Fellsmere/Homewood areas [Kahn
property]. Based upon its more detailed analysis, it is staffs opinion that a transitional
land use designation should be established in the areas southwest and south of the
Fellsmere/Homewood areas."
S. That is why staff agreed at a pre -application conference to recommend approval. did
recommend approval to this Board of County Commissioners; did recommend approval
to the Regional Planning Council; did recommend approval to the Department of
Community Affairs. -
9. Because other citizens with similar properties requested County assistance to maintain
access to their properties, when the Board approved Mr. Kahn's request, the Board
asked staff to look into a road improvement ordinance or other arrangement with Mr.
Kahn.
10. Staff was unable to create an ordinance they were satisfied with.
il. Mr. Kahn has volunteered to create road access easements with a Property Owners'
Association responsible for maintaining them, and which Association has assessment
and lien powers for the costs of maintenance. The road easements will be on the tract
lines, midway between the sublaterals (see sketch).
12. The documents creating the easements (to be recorded) also put each owner on notice
of his 'responsibility, and state in bold print that the County has no responsibility to
maintain or improve the roads.
13. This application meets all environmental, concurrency, consistency, compatibility, and
LDR tests.
14. This application satisfies the Fellsmere Water Control District, as confirmed by Mr.
Rodney Tillman, by pulling the roads away from the drainage ditches and by
establishing a P.O.A. to maintain them.
15. This request results in a net positive benefit to the County in two ways: it corrects the
oversight committed in haste to satisfy DCA, and it establishes the legal framework to
provide and maintain access roads in these properties.
BB:bh
Enclosures
�. Very truly yours,
V,. `--:
Bruce Barkett
105
Y ®5 �9� LOOK ► F,�,;�. rJ i?
MAY U 5 1992 BOOK 8b F' 'UE 358
Albert Kahn, applicant and owner of the 888 acres, stated that
he bought the subject property 33 years ago and has sold
approximately 300 acres since that time, which isn't exactly a boom
situation. In fact, he is having trouble selling 5-10 acres a year
in order to pay his taxes. Thirty-three years is a long time for
an investment, which is why he is asking for rectification of the
mistake that was made when the DCA objected to the 1 unit per 5
acres and cut the densities back to 1 unit per 10 acres. That is
now referred to as an oversight, but it is opinion that an
oversight is a mistake.
Chairman Eggert wished to comment on the reference to an
oversight. Having sat in on those discussions, it wasn't that this
matter was not talked about. They did talk about the fact that it
probably wouldn't develop very fast. The fact of the matter is
that it was discussed, and she did not feel you could call it an
oversight.
Director Keating pointed out that from a planning viewpoint,
staff doesn't have any problem with this tract going to a 1 unit
per 5 acre designation. It makes sense to have this step down in
density. However, an oversight did occur back when subdivisions
were allowed to be established without any infrastructure. As a
result, these 88 lots were created without any provisions ;for
roads. Director Keating emphasized that it has been staff's
position all along that the roads do not need to be brought up to
standards to be paved, just that some assurances are needed that
the easements or rights-of-way will be cleared and maintained.
After extensive debate on the pros and cons of acceptance of
the rights-of-way by the County and whether it would become the
County's responsibility to improve the roads, Commissioner Scurlock
pointed out that we are doing all these other wonderful things for
the county, but the main purpose of establishing county government
is to provide roads, bridges, and public safety.
Herman Harris stated that he has been an associate of Mr.
Kahn's since the beginning and recalled that when this master plan
was first put into effect, it only went as far as I-95. They
didn't think that Fellsmere even belonged to Indian River County.
When he brought that to their attention, they sat down and worked
with Park Lateral Canal, the natural boundary for this. Mr. Harris
noted that the whole question comes up on land west of Willow Road,
because most of the land that is west of Willow Road north of the
City of Fellsmere has retained its land use designation. He knows
that has been changed a number of times, however, because local
people objected to the density of 1 unit per 2-1/2 acres. They
knocked that out and the whole thing was changed. However, why
106
they changed the boundary from Park Lateral Canal to Willow Road is
beyond him. Mr. Harris just wanted to be sure that the Board
recognized that.
Attorney Barkett summarized his arguments. They have proposed
the easements and the documents to establish the framework to
provide access and maintenance. They have worked very closely with
Attorney Collins and have implemented almost all of his suggestions
in these documents. The requested land use amendment would result
in a double benefit by closing the loop around Fellsmere and
Homewood that should be closed in a 1 unit per 5 acre density and
by creating access easements and a maintenance entity where there
isn't one right now. The water control district's concerns are
satisfied and the County is not precluded from stepping in at some
point in the future, if it wants to do that, and having clear
easements to maintain. Attorney Barkett urged the Board to approve
this request.
Commissioner Wheeler questioned the cleared easements, and
Attorney Barkett explained that the way they have it now with the
property owners' association, the easements are created for the
benefit of the people because County staff has said over and over
that they did not want right-of-way and would refuse to accept
right-of-way. A solution to that would be that instead of
conveying title right now, they could dedicate the easements to the
property owners' association so that it wouldn't be necessary.to
get each owner to agree. If Mr. Kahn dedicates the easements to
the property `ownersI association, that association could convey the
rights-of-way to the County in the future if the County wants that. _
That way, you wouldn't have to go to each property owner, just to
the association's board of directors.
Attorney Vitunac advised that you could dedicate the easements
to the property owners' association with the right of extinction in
the county whenever the County files a certain document, and then
write a divestiture.
Attorney Barkett felt that would be a good approach, but he
would have to research it.
Lengthy discussion ensued about whether a property owners'
association would have the ability to assess the property owners
for new roads.
Commissioner Bird had a dilemma with this situation. He felt
getting the 60 feet right-of-way and getting these people off of
these drainage district roads is an improvement to the situation. _
He would like to accept that, but didn't know how to go beyond that
,as far as wording a Motion to accept the dedication.
107,
MAY 5
I
1 c r H
BOOKoma,
Attorney Vitunac advised that another choice would be for the
applicant to dedicate the title to the County but retain the right
to construct and maintain the road until such time that the County
accepts maintenance by formal act. That way, the County would have
title to the right-of-way but no maintenance responsibility, and
their association would have the legal right to construct and
maintain a road until such time as the County steps in, if ever.
Director Davis asked if the County would be liable if an
accident occurred on one of those roads, and Attorney Vitunac
advised that we would not be liable because we had never accepted
maintenance for the roads, just title.
There seemed to be some question as to whether having title
meant having liability, and Attorney Vitunac responded that it
would not. He was sure that the County would be enjoined in some
suits, but we would say that we never accepted maintenance of the
roads.
Chairman Eggert wondered if that would be the best approach,
and Director Davis preferred to see the right-of-way privately
dedicated with some central authority to construct and maintain the
rights-of-way until such time that the Board elects to receive it.
He pointed out that present dedication wording on a plat for a
private subdivision has the language that the rights-of-way are
dedicated privately to a property owners association.
Commissioner Bird felt that would be the best way to approach
it even though it is unlikely that a property owners association is
going to go in there and construct very many roads, and the
majority of the Board indicated their agreement.
Director Davis advised that there has been some negotiations
up to this point in time whether that should be a 30 -ft. or 60 -ft.
right-of-way. It is staff's opinion that 30 feet simply is not
adequate for a road and some drainage and that 60 feet would be the
bare minimum.
Ernie Caldwell, representing Berry Groves and Berry Holding
Corporation, wished to speak just to the land use issue. He could
appreciate this access issue, however, having served as a county
commissioner in Polk County for 12 years. That commission dealt
with this problem practically every week, but in 12 years he wasn't
sure they solved the problem either. If the commissioners wished,
he would be happy to talk with them privately and relay his
experience in dealing with access problems. He stated that Berry
Groves and Berry Holding Company does not object to the land use
change that is being proposed. Being in the citrus industry and
being farmers, they do want the Board to realize their right to
farm, but by the same token, they appreciate their land values and
108
_ M W
M
want them to be protected. That is not necessarily a contradiction
in terms, but he would say that people who move in adjacent to
their property need to recognize that they are farmers and that
there are related activities conducted on that' land. There may be
an occasion when they hear a pump running or a spray machine, but
that is just part of the citrus industry and their right to farm.
Mr. Caldwell reiterated that his purpose here today is simply to
say that they do not object to the proposed land use amendment.
There being no others who wished to be heard, Chairman Eggert
closed the Public Hearing.
Commissioner Bird felt he was basically in favor of the 1 unit
per acres and certainly in favor of the creation of the 60 -ft.
right-of-way, which he believed would improve the whole situation
as far as access. He would be in favor of it based on the language
given by Attorney Vitunac and Director Davis that the 60 feet be
dedicated to the property owners' association and with the proper
language stating that the County can take it at the County's
discretion in the future.
Attorney Vitunac asked Director Keating if the proper motion
would be to accept the Comp Plan land use redesignation from 1 unit
in 10 acres to 1 unit in 5 acres and have everything else as
conditions that we are not allowed to put on a Comp Plan change.
Commissioner Bowman didn't know how you could refer to a non-
existent property owners' association.
Assistant County Attorney Will Collins recalled that we looked
at this case with the Indian River Square situation just last month
and it seems there is some leeway in making conveyances of right- _
of -way conditional to zoning. He didn't know how to resolve it
because it was argued for a long time that this had nothing to do
with contract zoning, but Director Keating was arguing that it did.
He was a little unclear right now which way it goes.
Attorney Vitunac felt the motion should be to approve whatever
land use the Board wants. The statements have been made by the
applicant to do what he said he was going to do and about what we
hope he is going to do.
Attorney Collins explained that the proposed escrow agreement
sets up a property owners' association and provides for cross
easements, which means that the documents would have to be revised
to read that rather than cross -easements, the right-of-way would be
dedicated to the property owners' association with the right of the
County at some time to accept a conveyance from them. There would _
not be a requirement now, but if the property owners' association
chose to transfer that responsibility to the County and the County
chose to accept it, they would have that power. Attorney Collins
109
A
BOOK bb
recommended that Attorney Barkett revise his documents to do that.
Then, if any construction or maintenance responsibilities fall to
the County, we would have the M.S.T.U. option to assess the cost
back if they had not made improvements to County standards through
their own assessment powers.
Attorney Vitunac felt that what it comes down to is that the
Board should make a motion to approve whatever land use they think
is appropriate, and after that, Attorney Barkett will do whatever
he should do.
Attorney Barkett asked to be- told what the motion says for him
to do so that he could say whether he could do it because he wanted
to make sure. Referring to the document in front of the Board
today, the Property Owners' Association with the Declaration of
Covenants and Restriction, he stated that it is unquestionable that
they are willing to do that.
Attorney Collins understood the following as it relates to the
documents prepared by Attorney Barkett:
1) We are talking about 60 feet of road width rather than 30
feet of right-of-way.
2) As the documents are set up right now, they would be
granting cross easements to each member of the
association, and what is being suggested instead is that
the rights-of-way be dedicated to the property owners'
association so that if at some point in the future the
association wanted to approach the County to transfer
maintenance or construction responsibilities, the property
owners' association would be able to convey without having
to go back to each of those lot owners as easement
holders.
Attorney Barkett stated that would be agreeable as it would be
a simple amendment of just one line, and he added that the document
would be recorded this afternoon.
Commissioner Bird stated that with that understanding he was
ready to make a motion.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance
92-21, amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive
Plan for ±888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1 for property
located west and south of the City of Fellsmere, south of
CR -512.
110
_ M M
M
M
M
Under discussion, Commissioner Scurlock understood then that
all this other stuff is just in good faith, and Attorney Vitunac
confirmed that it would be in good faith.
Attorney Barkett wished to clarify that he is ready to record
the property owners' association's documents with the provision
that the easement is dedicated to the property owners' association.
Attorney Vitunac pointed out that if later in the day, the
applicant or his attorney has a change of heart and doesn't want to
do that, we cannot force him to do it.
Chairman Eggert asked if there is any other way to handle it,
and Attorney Vitunac advised that another way would be to postpone
this and get the documents in hand in escrow.
Attorney Collins advised that the documents are in escrow
right now, except for the change in a couple of provisions that the
Board is asking. The Board cannot delay this because we are under
statutory requirements to have the adoption hearing and transmit to
the DCA. The Board must act on this today.
Attorney Vitunac reiterated that the problem is that what the
Board wants is not in escrow right now, and the applicant could
decide later today not to change that escrow.
Attorney Collins noted that he was satisfied with the oral
agreement to modify the documents that is on the taped record of
today's meeting.
Chairman Eggert asked if everyone was satisfied with the oral
agreement, and Commissioner Bowman wished to hear the oral
agreement once more.
Attorney Barkett stated for the record that the oral agreement
is that the documents in front of the Board will create an easement
60 -ft. wide and that they are going to modify it so that the
easement is actually dedicated to the property owners' association.
The documents do not say anything about the width, they just have
two different legal descriptions and the appropriate one needs to
be attached. The Board already has the Articles of Incorporation
that establishes the property owners' association. The only change
from the documents that he submitted to the County is that the
easement would be dedicated to the property owners' association as
opposed to just created.
Attorney Collins clarified that the oral agreement we are
speaking of is that Attorney Barkett agrees under the terms of the
escrow to record the documents, and Attorney Barkett confirmed that
to be correct.
Attorney Vitunac added that the other thing that Commissioner
Bird asked for is that the County would have the right to take it
111
BUCK bb F;i�, J 0 ;?
VI AY' 0 5 19 9
over when it wanted instead of having it be given by the property
owners' association.
Attorney Barkett stressed that his client has not agreed to
that yet and that he didn't believe that was.part of Commissioner
Bird's motion.
Commissioner Bird stated that his motion was simply to approve
the land use amendment; however, he could not understand why Mr.
Kahn would have any reluctance to agree to the County having the
right to take it over when it wanted instead of having it be given
by the property owners' association.
Mr. Harris had a question on this because it was his
understanding that this property owners' association was going to
grant the easements as development goes from Ditch 24 to Ditch 23
and from Ditch 23 to Ditch 22, satisfying the water control
district, until the entire property was sold. Now it is his
understanding from the way it has been explained today that they
have to give an easement throughout the whole piece of property
which would preclude them if they had a buyer who wanted to buy the
whole piece. They would be very happy to find a buyer who wanted
to buy the whole piece. Mr. Harris asked if they would have to
make this commitment on the whole piece at one time, and
Commissioner Bird advised that it would be on the ±888 acres that
are affected by this land use amendment.
Mr. Harris understood that is based on a 60 -ft. wide easement
instead of 30 feet and that if they were to have a potential
purchaser for the balance of the property, he would be subject to
that easement.
Attorney Collins stressed that Mr. Harris must understand that
the easement is running in favor of the property owners'
association and that Mr. Kahn, as the association, could extinguish
it if it became advantageous to him.
Commissioner Scurlock explained that if they came in with a
development plan for the whole property, they would vacate all
those easements and establish new ones consistent with their new
plan.
Mr. Harris thanked the Board and staff for answering his
questions.
Chairman Eggert asked Mr. Kahn if the oral agreement still
stands, and Attorney Barkett asked if it just could be said that if
one owner came in with the whole plan of development, it would.be
likely that these easements could be extinguished because he would
have a whole plan of development. He asked if that was a correct
statement.
112
Commissioner Scurlock asked that Attorney Barkett not look to
him for an answer because he did not intend to vote for the motion.
Commissioner Bird explained that it is like a replat because
if'you replat a whole subdivision and someone comes in and buys a
whole piece before anything gets sold out, you can come in and
replat it and reconfigure your infrastructure.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION which is to adopt
Ordinance 92-21 amending the Comp Plan to redesignate
±888 acres from AG -2 to AG -1. The Motion was voted on
and passed by a vote of 3-2, Commissioners Bowman and
Scurlock dissenting.
ORDINANCE NO. 92-21
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ±888 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
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County
Comprehensive
Plan on
February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS,
the County
received
comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1991"
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
113
?10 K.(j:� fN'vt-mow
r-
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the State review pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 91 1992, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on May 5, 1992, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
O The land use designation of the following described
property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -
wit:
TRACTS 1929; 1930; 1931; 1962; 1963; 1964; 2029; 2030;
2031; 2062; 2063; 2064; 2120; 2130; 2131; 2132; 2133;
2134; 2135; 2136; 2137; 2138; 2155; 2156; 2157; 2158;
2159; 2160; 2161; 2162; 2163; 2164; 2229; 2230; 2231;
2232; 2233; 2234; 2235; 2236; 2237; 2238; 2255; 2256;
2257; 2258; 2259; 2260; 2261; 2262; 2263; 2264; 2329;
2330; 2331; 2332; 2333; 2334; 2335; 2336; 2337; 2338;
2355; 2356; 2357; 2358; 2359; 2360; 2361; 2362; 2363;
2364; 2429; 2430; 2431; 2432; 2433; 2434; 2435; 2436;
2437; 2438; 2455; 2456; 2457; 2458; 2459; 2460; 2461;
2462; 2463; and 2364, -
114
as shown on the plat of Fellsmere Farms Company as
recorded in plat book 184 page 107, currently located in
the public records of Indian River County, Florida.
Be changed from AG -2 to AG -1.
C The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability._
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by -the -Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this day of , 1992.
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 21
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 27 day of April 1992 for a public hearing to be held on the
5 day of May J. 1992 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Nay
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Nay
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: .
Z64'e—
Caroly35M. Eggertdothairman
115
MAY () 5 1992
mrlK 8
6 F° �jo 9
HuC
BOOK NA6Ee�
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
LAND USE PLAN
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach. Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER�'J�prit�l
STATE OF FLORIDA T icsA
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
62 gilw"=40�
billed to 56� ���r/���� ('�e✓vlriq!2!±�
was published In said newspaper in the issues)
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
dayof / A.D_./L
�V/ Business Manage
(S') Wolmy rubltc sans et Fter6ta
.. my Canminlen Ewan lima QQ. 10.4
1A, Preas•Journal, Monday, April 27, 1982
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE/
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AMENDMENT
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will
consider adopting an ordinance to amend the use of land within an
unincorporated portion of Indian River County as shown in the maps of the
advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, May
5, 1992, at 9105 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Sheet, Vero Beach, Florida. At
this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final
decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed
amendments are included in the proposed ordinance entitleds
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FLORIDA, AMENDING
THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +40
ACRES FROM AGA TO R FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF 58TH AVENUE, SOUTH OF 4TH STREET AND EXPANDING THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +-20 ACRES FROM L-1 TO HOSPITAL/
COMMERCIAL NODE BY ENLARGING THE US #1/37TH STREET
HOSPITAUCOMMERCIAL NODE FROM +-230 ACRES TO +-250
ACRES; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR +-888 ACRES FROM AG -2 TO AGA
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 CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY
AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing
regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Department located on the second Floor of the
County Administration • Building located at 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m: and 5100 p.m. on weekdays.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this
meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceeding is made
which Includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be
based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
Sys -s -Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
N y
Ath MIT
MOOn•t
Trr + raOBJECT }',.;•;.".'': r,.
• �; i • ••� PROPt?IiTY 7A`"a�iit"•:'
IJE. T PRO EHTY Bub eat Property e.s T ORO ERfYIx IN
_
116
�J
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV N HEAD CONCURRENCE:
r
obert M. Reati g,ICP
Community Developm t Di for
FROM: Sasan Rohani S ,A
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: April 27, 1992
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)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 5, 1992.
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, 19911 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.
On November 12, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed county initiated Comprehensive Plan
Amendment to the DCA.
On March 9, 1992, the county received
Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report
initiated Comprehensive Plan Amendment.
117
SAY 0 5 199 17
the DCA's Objections,
for'the proposed county
,
MAY 0 5199
DCA Objections and Comments
In its ORC report, the DCA identified two principal objections to
this proposed comprehensive plan amendment. In addition, the DCA
noted an inconsistency between the proposed amendment and the State
Comprehensive Plan. Of the two objections, one related to proposed
policy 1. 35, while the other related to the capital -improvements
element revision.
With reference to its objection to proposed policy 1.35 (Minor Node
Boundary Adjustment) of the Future Land Use Element, DCA stated
that the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the requirements
of S.163.3187,F.S., regarding comprehensive plan amendments.
Specifically, DCA's position is that all comprehensive plan
amendments, regardless of size, must be processed through the
regular comprehensive plan amendment process.
DCA's second objection was that the proposed revision of the
Capital Improvements Element was not consistent with policy 11.3 of
the Future Land Use Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. In
reference to that objection, DCA correctly noted that policy 11.3
requires the county, as part of its annual review of the Capital
Improvements Element, to conduct an assessment of the impact of new
development on hurricane evacuation times and the need for
improvements to evacuation routes in order to maintain or reduce
evacuation times.
Besides the referenced objections, the ORC report included three
minor comments -.on another portion of the proposed county, initiated
amendment. As comments, these statements cannot form the basis of
a non-compliance determination. However, the comments do indicate
a DCA finding that should be addressed.
Of the three comments, only one has policy implications. That is
the first comment. Relating to proposed revisions to policy 1.23,
this comment suggests modifications to the proposed policy that
would indicate that, besides including land within a node, the
county could also exclude land from a node. In addition, the
comment notes that one condition for node modification would be
unlikely to occur.
DCA's two other comments address inaccuracies in the staff report.
One correctly notes that a table number reference in the Capital
Improvements Element was wrong. The other comment indicates that
the staff report inappropriately identified DCA as the sole source
of a clustering mandate. That comment recommends that the staff
report note that the county incorporated clustering provisions in
its comprehensive plan not only to meet DCA requirements, but also
to satisfy comprehensive plan intervenors.
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, 2.41 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.
118
-1
M M
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 51000 plus acres of land.
The purpose of this policy is:
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 those 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.
119
BOOK.')
r
Policy 2.4 BOOK Ci P u
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.
New Policy 1.35 (Node Boundary Interpretation)
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 interpretation. When the County
encounters one of these minor problems, there is no established
mechanism, other than through the comprehensive plan amendment
process, to determine the exact node boundary line.
New Policy 1.36 (Agricultural/Residential Buffers
During the recent 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, County staff, the Professional
Services Advisory Committee and project 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 purpose of the water and sewer connection matrix 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.
120
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
water and 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 J 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 and other amendments initiated by
various applicants, certain 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.
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
121
MAY 0 199
BOOK
S F- '
,
��M
BOOK
wastewater treatment plants to effectively implement the clustering
provisions of various comprehensive plan policies.
Capital Improvements Element
As part of the Capital Improvements Element
_ comprehensive plan, the County adopted its 5
Improvements Program (CIP). This CIP was prepared
Since it is already 1991, the County must revise its
to reflect the appropriate five year period.
(CIE) of the
year Capital
for 1990-1995.
five year CIP
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
Improvements Element, as proposed for revision, is attached.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
This section includes both a summary of changes to address DCA's
objections and comments and an analysis of the proposed changes by
element. Consistency of the amendments with the comprehensive plan
and alternatives to the proposed changes will also be addressed.
Summary of Changes to Address the DCA's Objections and Comments
In order to address DCA's objections and comments, planning staff
coordinated with the DCA staff. As a result, staff identified
various revisions which will resolve DCA's concerns. These
revisions include changes to proposed policies and to the staff
report. It is staff's position that these changes will resolve
RCA's objections and retain the intent of the proposed amendments.
DCA's principal objection to this proposed amendment
focused on proposed policy 1.35. In its ORC report, DCA
noted that policy 1.35 would allow the county's plan to
,be amended in a manner inconsistent with state law.
To resolve DCA's concerns, county staff and DCA staff
drafted revised language to policy 1.35. While more
restrictive than the language proposed and transmitted to
DCA, the revised policy 1.35_ language still meets the
intent of allowing the county to make minor node boundary
interpretations without submittal of a comprehensive plan
amendment. Revised policy 1.35 is included in attachment
"A"
DCA's other objection related to the county's failure to
include an hurricane evacuation time analysis with the
proposed Capital Improvements Element amendment. To
address this objection, staff has expanded this staff
report to address the hurricane evaluation time analysis.
Staff has also addressed each of DCA's ORC report comments. These
have been addressed through the following means.
o Policy 1.23 has been revised to specify
County Commissioners will consider any
split land use designation and proposed
122
that the Board of--
parcel having a
for inclusion in
M M M
a node to determine whether the entire parcel should be
included in or'excluded from the node.
o The staff report has been revised to indicate that the
clustering provisions incorporated into the county's
comprehensive plan were prompted by amendments to resolve
plan intervenors' issues as well as to. meet DCA's
stipulated settlement agreement requirements.
o The staff revised the Capital Improvements Element to
correct the mis-labeling of Table 13.17.
It is staff's position that the referenced changes satisfy DCA's
concerns and adequately address the issues identified in the ORC
report.
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
have been useck 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 assess 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
123
F,
MM 0 51992
BOOK
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 adopt policy 1.23, as revised; or to adopt
policy 1.23 with additional revisions.
New Policy 1.35 for Node Boundary Interpretation
On its generalized 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 properties
or, due to the scale of the future land use map, the node boundary
does not clearly identify which parcels are included irr�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.
In cases of imprecise node boundaries or split parcels, the node
boundary should be clarified. At present, the county has only one
option to make node boundary interpretations. 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 interpretations are minor, involving only portions of
parcels, streamlining the process would benefit both applicants and
the county.
To accomplish this change, staff drafted a proposed amendment that
would allow minor administrative adjustments of node boundaries in
conjunction with the rezoning of affected parcels. Upon its review
of this proposed amendment, DCA determined that node "adjustments"
could not occur without formal plan amendments. DCA also
expressed concern that the proposed amendment did not indicate that
parcels split by node boundaries could be excluded from the node as
well as included within the node.
While DCA's objection to proposed policy 1.35 seemed to be
unresolvable, that proved not to be the case. Through
coordination, county planning staff and DCA staff modified proposed
policy 1.35 to make it acceptable to the state and useful for the
county.
The major change to proposed policy 1.35 involved changing
terminology from node boundary "adjustment" to node boundary
"interpretation." As an interpretation, the action would not
involve a change in the plan; therefore, a plan amendment would be
unnecessary. Because of the scale of the county's future land use
map, identifying a node boundary really is an interpretation.
124
M
Besides the adjustment/interpretation change, policy 1.35 was also
modified to more specifically state that parcels split by node
boundaries could be excluded from the node or included within the
node. As revised, policy 1.35 sets general criteria for inclusion
or exclusion.
It is planning staff's position that proposed policy 1.35, as
revised, satisfies DCA's objections and meets the county's
objectives. Staff supports the modified policy.
There are several alternatives available to the county with respect
to this issue. one is to take no action and not adopt new policy
1.35. Another option is to adopt proposed policy 1.35. A third
option would be to amend proposed policy 1.35.
New Policy 1.36, Aaricultural/Residential Buffer
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
buffer 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.
There are several alternatives available to the county. First, the
county can opt to take no action and not adopt this new policy
1.36. The second is to adopt this policy. Finally, the county can
revise the policy and adopt the revised policy.
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 all commercial/industrial land to nodes, the
county eliminated the MW (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
node and to remove the word corridor from policies 1.19 and 4.3 of
the Future Land Use Element.
The County's alternatives with reference to these proposed changes
are to adopt as recommended; revise and adopt the policies; or not
to adopt and retain the existing wording.
Policy 2.4
Policy 2.4, as worded, has incorrect terminology. This policy
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 adopting as
recommended, as revised, or not adopting.
Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
Water and Sewer Connection Matrix
125
I Y r10
F'
g 0 5 992
BOOK 86 FACE V
Several problems associated with the 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 2000 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 adopt the revised
connection matrix. Another is to adopt this revised connection
matrix. A third is to revise the matrix further.
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 various plan amendments
brought about by the county/DCA settlement agreement and by
settlements with plan intervenors, 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 the 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
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 adopt the revised policies 5.9 and
6.1. Another is to adopt revised policies 5.9 and 6.1. A third is
to revise policies 5.9 and 6.1 further.
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,
126
I
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.
c Hurricane Evacuation Time Analysis
As required by Future Land Use policy 11.3, the county must as part
of its annual CIE review assess the impact of new development on
hurricane evacuation times. This assessment meets that
requirement.
Hurricane evacuation is addressed within the Coastal Management
Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in that
plan element, the county displayed clearance times of less than 12
hours for category 3-5 storms. This was based upon the 1988 update
to the Treasure Coast Hurricane Evacuation Study.
The Coastal Management Element also noted that the proposed
replacement of the Merrill Barber Bridge, scheduled for 1993, could
reduce estimated evacuation times below 12 hours. Since the
programmed bridge replacement (with the corresponding increase from
2 to 4 lanes) is still scheduled for 1993, the capacity enhancement
of the evacuation system is now even closer to being completed.
On the demand side, estimates and projections are more difficult to
determine. Not only does growth on the unincorporated county
portion of the.barrier island affect hurricane evacuation; growth
in Vero Beach, Indian River Shores,— and Orchid affect evacuation
times. Even growth and development in Brevard and St. Lucie
Counties affect evacuation times in Indian River County.
While exact figures are not available, it is anticipated that,
between the 1990 date of the comprehensive plan and the present,
the population of the barrier island portion of the county (both
incorporated and unincorporated areas) increased by only 305'
residents. This is based upon a review of building permits issued.
Based upon the estimated increase of barrier island residents, the
impact on evacuation times will be minimal. Besides the minimal
impact represented by growth, several other factors are important.
First, the Barber bridge replacement is still on schedule and
imminent. Second, both FDOT and FEMA have programmed hurricane
evacuation studies to be done in the next year.
Based upon those facts, it is staff's position that no additional
capital improvements are necessary to accommodate hurricane
evacuation needs.
C Summary
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.
127
BOOK l� uF,1�;t;� .j,�
HIP 0 5 $99
BOOK U F'n�E=j S C'
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 evaluating 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.
The following table shows how
are related to Future Land Use
Correct
Mistake
L.U. Policy:
these comprehensive plan amendments
Policy 13.3.
Correct an Change in
Oversight Circumstance
5 -Year CIP 6 Other
��� s r _�
L.U.: Land Use Element S.S.: Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
CIE: Capital Improvements P.W.: Potable Water Sub -Element
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
128
w
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:
connection Matrix S.S. & P.W. 6.7 6.9• L.U. 2.1 2.2 2.3
Policies 5.9&6.1 S.S._& P.W. 6.2, 6.6. 6.9
U.11.
As proposed, all of the amendments will retain the plan's internal
consistency.
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 comprehensive plan amendments as identified in attachment
"A"
Attachments
1. Attachment "A", revisions to the plan
2. Application
3. Minutes.of September 26, 1991, Planning and Zoning Commission
meeting:
4. Minutes of November 12, 1991, Board of County Commissioners
meeting.
S. DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report
6. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance
Approved Agenda Item:
FOR:
BY: f
129
HAY 0 5 1991.
r-
-MAY 051
BOOK 8 F,;E •� --
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that in
their 90 -day review of the proposed changes, DCA had the most
problem with the change of making adjustments to node boundaries
without going through the Comp Plan amendment process. He didn't
think that had a chance of flying, but we have worked out a
negotiated settlement with the DCA whereby we are amending that
specific policy to refer to the adjustments as interpretations and
to indicate certain conditions where the node boundary is
interpreted where property may go out as well as come into the
node. We have made that one policy change. Director Keating noted
that one of two important changes relating to utilities is the one
recommended by the Professional Services Advisory Committee whereby
the utility connection matrix be changed from square footage to
gallonage. The other change relates to water and sewer outside the
urban service area to service cluster types of developments.
Director Keating stated that basically staff feels that all of
DCA -1s objections and comments have been adequately addressed. With
that, staff recommends approval.
Chairman Eggert wanted to be sure, in terms of total developed
acreage, that counting that land in at Humana Hospital in Sebastian
is covered under the way the proposed ordinance is worded, and
Director Keating confirmed that the revised definitions have both
total node acreage and developed acreage and adequately address the
issues that we had before.
Commissioner Scurlock was concerned about Policies 5.9 and 6.1
in Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element and the Potable Water Sub -Element.
He emphasized that Indian River County has pursued a policy that
says the provider of utilities in this county will be the County
and he has a concern that these two particular conditions are not
specific enough and that they allow package systems. It seemed to
him that this is inconsistent with the past number of years and
that this would be opening Pandora's Box again to private little
package plants, and we all know the history of that.
Director Keating stated that it is understanding that the
changes to policies 5.9 and 6.1 allow the extension of County
service lines outside the urban service areas if it is a
clustering. It also would allow the package treatment plants
pursuant to franchise agreements that would be developed by the
Utilities Department.
Commissioner Bird asked if that would be a satellite operation
to the primary operation, and Commissioner Scurlock responded that
he didn't believe there is any real clarity to this example.
Director Keating explained that it was staff's position that --
we would not have all the specificity in the Comp Plan, because it
130
r � �
--is covered under other County ordinances, particularly the utility_
ordinances that provide for the creation of franchises.
Deputy County Attorney Will Collins understood that the
purpose of policies 5.9 and 6.1 is to address situations like the
Coraci property where our regulations require clustering but where
individual wells and septic tanks potentially would cause pollution
to the St. Sebastian River. Policies 5.9 and 6.1 offers some other
non-polluting options such as extending central sewer or having
privately -owned, public treatment plants. That is the way it reads
now, but he believed we have another policy in there that says if
the centralized lines come within a certain distance, either 200
feet or a quarter of a mile, they are required to hook up these
plants to the public system.
Director Keating stated that it has been staff's understanding
that the franchise requirements would adequately cover this.
Considerable discussion ensued regarding whether the County
has an ability through the franchise to deny a developer's request
to construct a package plant.
Director Keating suggested adding language that would require
new package plants built outside the urban service area to be owned
and maintained by the County Utiliies Department, but the Board
indicated they had reservations about that.
Chairman Eggert asked what the Board's wishes were regarding
those policies -- continue with them, throw them out, or reword
them.
Commissioner Scurlock felt they need some significant thought,
but Director Keating pointed out that these Comp Plan amendments _
have to be sent to the State within 5 days. He felt the major
benefit we have is any type of development outside the urban
service area has to be Planned Development. With the Planned
Development process the County has a lot of control and the County
can impose specific regulations as to ownership of utilities or any
other criteria there. Whether it is a mixed use development, an
agricultural cluster, or a conservation district cluster, it has to
be through Planned Development (PD). Director Keating believed
that gives us a lot of control.
Commissioner Scurlock still felt that 5.9 and 6.1 do not
adequately address the issue.
Director Keating advised -that we have several options on this
issue. We are looking at the next round of changes to the land
development regulations and we can put some language in the LDRs _
that gives the County adequate control. He still felt that we have
all the control that is necessary through the Planned Development
process. He didn't anticipate there would be that many cases where
131
MAY 0 5 1992
MAY 0 5 1992 [BOOK 8
this will be used because there probably won't be very many
agricultural PD's and the requirements for the Mixed -Use District
option are very stringent. He felt we can look at it and work on
it in the interim knowing that people are not lined up to use these
right now.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, that the Board adopt Ordinance
92-22, amending the following elements of the
Comprehensive Plan: Land Use Element, Sanitary Sewer
Sub -Element, Potable Water Sub -Element, and Capital
Improvements Element.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bowman wished to make an
addition in the language under Policy 1.36. Where it says, "where
such land is characterized by active agricultural operations
involving citrus groves, orchards, field crops, truck farming", she
felt we should add, "livestock and other animal raising." With
regard to that same policy, she noted that the 50 -ft. setbacks and
the 6 -ft. opaque fence do not buffer a residence from noise, dirt
or anything of that sort.
Director Keating advised that this was a requirement the DCA
said we had to adopt when we were looking at the Poppel land use
change. They saw that we were intruding into an agricultural area,
and when we told them we already have these provisions in the LDRs,
they said it really needed to be in here too. These are
essentially the same requirements we have in the LDRs.
Commissioner Bowman expressed her displeasure with these
minimum requirements as she believed that is all that will be met
and the neighborhood will be stuck with it.
Commissioner Scurlock stated that before voting for the
Motion, he would like some assurances from our legal staff that we
will have an ability to address these issues in Policies 5.9 and
6.1.
Attorney Collins advised that the only assurances he could
give are that policies 5.9 and 6.1 will be coming back to the Board
for compliance agreement on the Coraci property and that we will
have time between now and then to tune and shape it up to the
Board's satisfaction. There may be a 9 -month hiatus where if one
of these came in, we might have to scramble for some LDR amendments
on the terms of allowing a package plant.
132
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION with the
modification of Policy 1.36 OF "livestock and
animal raising." The Motion was voted on and
carried 4-1, Commissioner Scurlock dissenting.
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 22
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN - RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
FOLLOWING ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: THE LAND USE
ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, THE POTABLE WATER
SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, AND
PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
.WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 12, 1991,
after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for, their review and comment, and
133
t�Of.IK 11' Fi vF .�Jk1;
MAY ® 5 1992
4
BOOP( 86 Pk F.B.���
ORDINANCE NO. 92- 22
° WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department -of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment for the State review pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments -(ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 9, 1992, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on May 51 1992, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)'(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendmentS to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 are hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
c Revision to policies 1.19, 1.23, 2.4, and 4.3 of the
Future Land Use Element, as shown on Attachment A.
c Creation of policies 1.35 and 1.36 of the Future Land Use
Element, as shown on Attachment A.
o Revision to policies 5.9 and 6.1 of the Potable Water
Sub -Element, as shown on Attachment A.
c Revision to Water and Sewer Connection Matrix, Tables
3.A.16 and 3.8.19, of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable
Water Sub -Elements, as shown on Attachment A.
c Update of the Capital Improvement Element, as shown on
Attachment A.
134
SECTION 3.
Codification
ORDINANCE NO. 92-_L2
The provisions of this ordinance shall be incorporated into
the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to
"section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections
of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict. All special acts of the
legislature applying only to the unincorporated portion of Indian
River County and which conflict with the provisions of this
ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION.5. Severability
It is declared to be the .intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments
are for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
Approved and adopted by -the -Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this day of , 1992.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 27 day of April 1992 for a public hearing to be held on the
5 day of May , 1992 at which time it was moved for
adoption by -Commissioner Bird , seconded by Commissioner
Wheeler , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird AMP
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Ayp
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Ayp
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Carolyn K. Eggertl hairman
ATTEST BY:
J � ' k'.�.e.
ATTACHMENT "A" SS.ON FILE IN ITS ENTIRETY AS PART. OF. THIS. ORDINANCE
135
BOOK b
MAY 0 5 1992
IMAM' 0 51992 aooK b F' „E 113
ISIS
DISCUSSION OF STATE SURPLUS PROPERTY AT THE S.W. CORNER OF SR 60
AND I-95
Commissioner Bird announced that he had a conflict of interest
on this item in that his company has listings on property
surrounding this property and has filed the necessary Conflict of
Interest form with the Clerk's Office. He thereupon left Chambers
until the conclusion of this item. (CONFLICT OF INTEREST FORM IS ON
FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD)
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/29/92:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Rea i , A
Community DevelopmerVe Director
FROM: Stan Boling, AICP -
Planning Director
DATE: April 29, 1992
SUBJECT: County Letter of "No Interest" for State Surplus Property
at the S.W. Corner S.R. 60/I-95
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 5, 1992.
BACKGROUND:
The State owns surplus property near the southwest corner of S.R.60
and I-95 as shown on the attached location map (tax parcel #03-33-
38-00001-0100-00004.0). A few years ago, the county utilities
service department had considered purchasing the property as part
of an effluent re -use project. Recently, the office of State
Representative Charles W. Sembler II requested that the county
verify by letter to the State Division of Lands that it no longer
has any interest in purchasing the subject property. Apparently
the State has a potential buyer for the property and wants to
ensure that the sale of the property would not disrupt any county
plans. County planning staff has coordinated with other county
departments and concludes that no departments have any interest in
county acquisition of the subject property.
ANALYSIS:
Staff members from applicable county departments have reviewed the
"subject property" maps which were FAXED to the county by
Representative Sembler's office. Staff members responded as
follows:
Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois: the subject
property is not under consideration by the Land Acquisition
Advisory Committee (LAAC) for acquisition.
136
® s �
� r �
Assistant Utilities Service Director Harry Asher: The subject
property is no longer wanted by the utilities department.
The Department has no plans to establish an effluent re -use
project in the vicinity of the subject site.
Public Works Director Jim Davis: the subject property is not
needed -for any county roads or drainage purposes.
Emergency Services Director Doug Wright: the subject property
is not needed for any county emergency services facilities.
T
Based upon these responses, staff concludes that the county has no
interest in obtaining the subject property for purposes of
conservation, utilities service, roads and drainage improvements,
or for emergency services.facilities.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the Chairman to send a letter to the State Division of Lands which
indicates that the county has no interest in purchasing the subject
property.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that Utilities Department
originally had an interest in this piece of property, but now have
stated they have no interest.
Administrator Chandler advised that because of the high
appraisals on that'property, we didn't feel it was worth pursuing,
and that was a couple of years ago.
Commissioner Scurlock understood then that the property has
been declared surplus; that the State has set a market value to
that; and that Utilities has analyzed that market value and
determined that it exceeds its worth and, therefore, finds no use
for the property.
Administrator Chandler confirmed that is staff's position from
a dollars and cents viewpoint.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Bird having declared a conflict of
interest) authorized the Chairman to send a letter
to the State Division of Lands indicating that
Indian River County -has no interest in purchasing
the surplus property at the southwest corner of
SR -60 and I-95.
137
M0K
fhu �. J
F_ 1
MAY 0 5 1992
APPROVAL OF INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH OSCEOLA COUNTY FOR MUTUAL AID
- EMERGENCY SERVICES
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/22/92:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Management Services
FROM: John Ring, Emergency Management Coordinator '&
Division of Emergency Management
DATE: April 22, 1992
SUBJECT: Approval of Interlocal Agreement for Mutual Aid between
Indian River County, Osceola County, and the Indian River
County Emergency Services District
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County`.Comui.ssioners
at the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION ADD CONDITIONS:
During late 1991, staff from the Department of Emergency Services
began communicating with the neighboring counties to formally
update and execute Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreements. On January 28,
1992, the Board of County Commissioners, also serving as the
governing body of the districts incorporated into the Emergency
Services District, approved a similar agreement with Brevard
County. Staff is now presenting to the Board for consideration an
Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreement with Osceola County.
�TERNATIVES ADD ANALYSIS:
The Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01,
Florida Statues, permits local government units to cooperate with
other local governments on a basis of mutual advantage. In this
agreement, the parties agree to provide fire and rescue services,
emergency medical treatment, and emergency management services for
the health, safety, and welfare of their respective citizens.
Staff feels the issues relating to the method of requesting
assistance, number of units responding, liability, costs, and on
scene coordination have been adequately addressed in the mutual aid
agreement and requests Board approval.
RZCOMMxNDATIOD:
Staff recommends approval of the Interlocal Agreement and requests
the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the agreement.
138
Commissioner Bowman had a problem with the way this agreement
was written and would like it edited by Assistant County Attorney
Sharon Brennan or another attorney.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously
approved the Interlocal Agreement with Osceola
County and authorized the Chairman's signature.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
OLD LIBRARY BUILDING RENOVATIONS - BUDGET AMENDMENT #035
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/28/92:
DATE: APRIL 28, 1992
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVI S
SUBJECT: OLD LIBRARY BUILDING RENOVATIONS
BACKGROUND:.
In late December of 1991, the Board authorized staff to hire an
architect and proceed to renovate the subject building with
intentions of housing county offices presently located in the 2001
Building.
Staff began negotiations with Pierce, Goodwin, Alexander, and
Linville (PGA&L), architect for the new courthouse and parking
garage. They agreed to look at the facility and provide an estimate
of all cost associated with the desired project.
In February of this year,*staff presented the Board a proposal for
asbestos abatement (required by law) of the subject building; that
was negotiated with contractors performing similar work on our new
courthouse project. This proposed contract was approximately $10,000
less than estimated in the original budget.
139
19
BOOK 06 F`ULJ_1J�
F_
MAY 0 5 1992,
In March the architect presented a estimated budget for the project
along with their anticipated fee. This cost was $279,250; some
$130,000 over staff's original estimate. The price included a
minimum of $23,250 for A&E fees which was almost $14,000 over the
original estimated fee.
The primary cause for this enormous increase was the " Change of Use"
as per City of Vero Beach Code. Staff knew this law prior to budget
preparation, but did not realize the cost associated with the change
until information was received from the architect.
Staff went back to the "drawing board" in an effort to reduce the
cost without effecting the scope of work. This was accomplished by
using in-house personnel to perform all labor they can, using
existing county contracts to purchase material along with installing
cost, and eliminating all cost that were not absolutely needed for
the project. A local architect was contacted and he agreed to
perform the necessary services for a fixed fee. of $10,000. This
reduced A&E fees by $13,250. Using this scenario, the architect's
original budget estimate was reduced by $147,075.
Our original time estimate was to have this project complete by June
of this year. The delay in time has caused the completion date to be
moved until October, 1992. With this delay, cost to continue lease
in the 2001 Building along with operational expense, is estimated at
$8,536.
ANALYSIS
A breakdown of total estimated cost is as follows:
Renovation Cost - $150,284
Additional Rent & Expense 8,536
Less Original Budget Funds (123,300)
TOTAL Short -Fall $ 35,520
Even with the increase in cost, staff feels it is in the County's
best interest to renovate the Old Library Building as originally
recommended. This is based on the economical state that presently
exists with regard to sale of old buildings and the anticipated long
range planning for new buildings. These renovations should increase
the value of this facility, especially with the exterior painting of
the building along with work on the parking lot.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff requests a budget amendment of an additional $35,528 to
complete the old library renovations as originally planned.
Commissioner Scurlock recalled that when we ran a cost
analysis on the options of whether to renovate the library or
continue to lease space in the 2001 Building, it was a number of
years before we reached a positive situation for the renovation.
He asked how this addition and change has impacted that original -
recommendation.
140
- General Services Director Sonny Dean advised that we would be
at the break even point in about 9 years, but that is based on an
estimate of how much the lease and expenses are going to increase.
Chairman Eggert requested that we go to local architects and
contractors to begin with when we have projects like this.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
Budget Amendment No. 035 in the amount of $35,520 to
complete the old library renovations as originally
planned.
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Bair
OMB Director /
General Fund
General Fund/Building & Grounds
L-
ul-lmv-bal-
31-220-519-
141
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
NUMBER: 035
DATE: June 16, 1992
BOOK 0fE Je��
F_
1992 BOOK 86 F"1U, A9 NEW COURTHOUSE PROJECT - CORNERSTONE REQUEST
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/27/92:
DATE: APRIL 27, 1992
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: NEW COURTHOUSE PROJECT - CORNERSTONE REQUEST
BACKGROUND:
The local Masonic Lodge, Number 250, F.& A.M. has made an official
request, to provide and lay a cornerstone with ceremonies at the new
courthouse. This event would take place during construction of the
building.
This is not an unusual request in that such stones have been laid in
public buildings for many years. The old Vero Beach High School,
Vero Beach Junior High, Highlands Elementary, Glendale Elementary and
Sebastian Elementary are some of the buildings in Indian River
County. Both, the new and old State Capital Buildings have such
stones. This writer is also familiar with county courthouses�'located
in other counties that permitted similar ceremonies during their
construction.
The ceremonies will be officiated by the Grand Lodge of Masons in
Florida.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Since this is the first such request received, staff requests Board
Action and policy in handling future requests similar to this.
Chairman Eggert explained that staff is asking for direction
in this matter since there is no written policy. She felt that in
the construction of the last three public buildings we have been
following a policy of having a plaque rather than putting in a
cornerstone. In discussions on a cornerstone for the new library,
and with the Friends of the Library being internal, the question
came up about what would happen if other community groups became
interested in participating in it also. They felt they didn't want
to open up the situation to having to choose a group of all the
community groups to do this kind of thing.
142
General Services Director Sonny Dean wasn't aware of any_
cornerstone on the existing courthouse. Several of the schools
have cornerstones.
Administrator Chandler felt the request should be denied
because he has a real concern about how you could delineate between
one organization and another.
Chairman Eggert was very appreciative of the Masons' offer.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that the big difference
between a plaque and a cornerstone is that a cornerstone contains
things from the community that have historical value. The reason
why the Masons have offered to do this is because they are masons
and traditionally they are the people who lay cornerstones. She
felt it is a very nice offer and that we should accept it.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the request by the local Masonic Lodge, Number 250,
F. & A.M. to provide and lay a cornerstone with ceremonies
at the new courthouse.
Administrator Chandler understood then that we will continue
as we have before and bring each request to the Board on an
individual basis.
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - ANITA PARK - 38TH PLACE WATER SERVICE
PROJECT
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/20/92:
DATE: APRIL 20, 1992
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST l�
2i�
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS S PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: ANITA PARR - 38TH PLACE WATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. uw-91-05-DS
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION IV
BACKGROUND
On September 24, 1991, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution III (91-149), which contained the
143
L'U��f`. �l�L✓ U1
1 a L � j.3'
h':. • Q
A
F,
MV ROOK � �J F'; GE
-preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project. The
Utilities Department has completed the construction of the project.
We are now ready to begin customer connections and request the Board
of County Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll.
(See attached minutes and Resolution III.)
,ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project cost of
$27,430.00, which equates to ± $0.1153 per square foot of property
owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $26,471.00, which
equates to a cost of $0.1116712509 per square foot of property.
All of the lots in this project are substandard or "undersized,"
according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan, and the
County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health, which
require that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a minimum
of 1/2 acre. If served by a public water system, the lot may be
reduced to 1/4 acre in size. Lots not meeting these minimum
standards are called "undersized lots."
REMEMDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 92-69, certifying "as built" costs for
installation of a waterline extension in Anita Park
(38th Place), and other such construction necessitated
by such project; providing for formal completion date,
+ and date for payment without penalty and interest.
144
1ws Built (Final Reso.) 4/23/92(legal)Vk/DC
RESOLUTION NO. 92-f;q
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION IN
ANITA PARK (38TH PLACE), AND OTHER SUCH
CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT
PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that the improvements for the property located
within the boundaries described in this title were necessary to promote
the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 24, 1991, the Board held a
public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be
assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 91-149, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built". cost now that the project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 91-149,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 91-149 is modified as follows: The completion date
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety. days after
pas sage of this resolution.
2. Payments
bearing interest at the rate of
9-3/4% per annum
may be
made' in
ten annual installments, the
first to be made
twelve
3.
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
91-149 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
145
BOOK bb F���t • d
MAY 0 5 12
BOOK FHUF
RESOLUTION 92-69
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall
stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens
against the property against which such assessments are made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
91-149, were recorded by the County on the public records of
Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie
evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Scurlock , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Wheeler ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird _ Aye
Commissioner Gary C.- Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 5 day of M a Y , 1992.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Carolfn K. Egge t
Je re . K . - Barton, Clerk Chairman
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
146
Indirn lliva CO. Approved We
Admin.
Lagal 11
..)
Budget
Utilities ' ZY"9 Z
Rick Mgr.
7-1
--DISCUSSION REGARDING RECYCLING AGENDA BACKUP MATERIAL
Commissioner Bowman noted the duplication in today's Agenda
backup material and questioned the need for having staff's
recommendation memo to the Planning & Zoning Commission included in
the packets, especially when it is almost identical to staff's
recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners. She suggested
that we start printing the backup material on both sides of the
page. In addition, she emphasized that the County has been pushing
recycling for two years now but she doesn't see us purchasing
recycled paper products.
Commissioner Bird suggested that staff submit shortened
versions of their recommendations from those submitted to the
Planning & Zoning Commission, giving a more concise picture and
printed on both sides.
The Board requested that in the future the Agenda be printed
on both sides and placed in a 3 -ring binder for each Commissioner
to follow.
Commissioner Bowman also noted that we are still using
tyrofoam cups instead of paper cups.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
Chairman Eggert announced that immediately upon adjournment
the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Solid
Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:03 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST;
Ve
J. K. Barton, Clerk
147
Caro n K. Eg , Chairman
BOOK PHIU I-)