Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/17/1992MINUTE&ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 1992 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman ( Dist. 2) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Kenneth R. Macht (Dist. 3) John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) 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 3.A LOYALTY OATH ADMINISTERED AND SEATING OF 3.13. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1) As Item L on the Consent Agenda, Approval of Surety Bond for Sheriff -elect Gary Wheeler. S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Report of Convictions, Month of Oct., 1992 B. IRC Bid #3042 / Surplus Sale #1 ( memorandum dated November 2, 1992 ) C. Purchase Authorization; CR 510 and SR A -I -A R -O -W Acquisition, Berkett Parcel ( memorandum dated November 6, 1992 ) D. Purchase Authorization; CR 510 and SR A -I -A R -O -W Acquisition, Quinn Parcel ( memorandum dated November 4, 1992 ) E. R -O -W; 5th St. SW, A. K.A•. Rebel Rd., Eddy Prop. ( memorandum dated November 2, 1992 ) NOV 171992 BOOK PAGE OV 17 1992 CS 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.) : PAGE F. Release of Utility Liens (memorandum dated November 5, 1992; 20 G. Cancelling Taxes on County Prop. Acquisition ( memorandum dated November 5, 1992) 21 - 25 H. Release of Easement Request By: James A. Nobil - Riverwalk II Subdivision ( memorandum dated November 10, 1992) 26 - 34 I. Final Plat Approval for the Ocean Way S/D ( memorandum dated November 10, 1992) 35 - 39 J. A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF THE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD 40 - 41 K. Purchase of Road Stabilization Materials ( memorandum dated November 10, 1992) 41A S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS Request by Frank Zorc to Discuss Possible Referendum Vote by IRC Taxpayers Before Funding Beach Renourishment - To Set a Public Hearing Date Only ( letter dated October 21, 1992) 42 - 48 B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Heskel Korine S L.K. Wilicock Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan E to Redesig- nate Approx. 15 Acres from L-1 to C/I, E to Rezone from RM -3 to CH and CL ( memorandum dated November 9, 1992) 49 - 72 2. Lawrence R. Koerner Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approx. .31 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone from RM -6 to CC ( memorandum dated November 9, 1992) 73 - 94 3. Trevor Smith and others Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approx. 1.86 Acres from L-2 to C/I, and to Rezone from RS -6 to CL ( memorandum dated November 9, 1992) 95 - 123 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None e 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS ---A. —COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ' Request for Matching Funds for the FY 1991-92 Transportation Disadvantaged Non -Sponsored Trip And/Or Capital Equipment Grant ( memorandum dated November 6, 1992 ) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS Sandridge Golf Course Amendment #5 ( memorandum dated November 10, 1992 ) H. UTILITIES I. Master Plan Sewer Service on South Roseland Road ( memorandum dated November 5, 1992 ) 2. Petition for Water Service in Wood Hollow / 32nd Crt. 6 32nd Ave., S.W. - South off 5th St., SW ( memorandum dated November 5, 1992 ) 3. Water Expansion Phase I - Contract 3 Change Order 1 and Final Pay Request ( memorandum dated November 9, 1992 ) 12. COUNTY .ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN CAROL IN K. EGGERT Orientation and Committee Assignments B. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS Appointment to Planning and Zoning Commission 0 PAGE 124 - 134 135 - 138 139 - 141 142 - 152 153 - 162 rPIp 17 1992 BOOK 88 F,Acr 04 -7 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (aont'd. ): ` C. ZOMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD D. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT E. COMMISSIONER JOHN W. TIPPIN 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT Award Bid #3036 / Fire Station No. 1 Addition ( memorandum dated November 10, 1992 ) B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT None 15. ADJOURNMENT PAGE 163 - 171 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. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES _ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. Tuesday, November 17, 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, November 17, 1992, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R. Macht; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and asked for a moment of silent prayer in memory of former Commissioner Patrick Lyons who died this past Sunday. Commissioner Bird led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. SWEARING-IN CEREMONY At 9:00 o'clock A.M., Judge L.B. Vocelle formally administered the Oath of office to newly elected Commissioners Fran B. Adams, Kenneth R. Macht, and John W. Tippin. ELECTION OF VICE CHAIRMAN The Chairman asked for nominations for the post of Vice Chairman, which was left vacant by retiring Commissioner Bowman. Commissioner Adams placed the name of Commissioner Bird in nomination, which nomination was seconded by Commissioner Tippin. Chairman Eggert asked if there were any further nominations. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously elected Richard N. Bird as Vice Chairman. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Chairman Eggert requested the addition as Item L under the Consent Agenda of approval of public official's surety bond for Sheriff -elect Gary Wheeler. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously added the above item to today's Agenda. NOV 71992 Boor. 88 Fact 0 r", NOV 17 '' ` BOOK 88 PnF 06 -1 CONSENT AGENDA Attorney Vitunac requested Item H be removed from the Consent Agenda for discussion. A Report of Convictions, Month of October, 1992 Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: Report of Convictions, Month of October, 1992 B IRC Bid #3042 - Surplus Sale #1 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/92: DA November 2, 1992 TO$ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRUt James R. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Servic FROM: Fran Boynton, Purchasing Manage✓ SUBJ: IRC Bid #3042/Surplus sale #1 BACKGROUND: The following equipment has been declared surplus to the needs of Indian River County. Equipment (3) Zebra Disk Drives (2) 8130 Data General Computers (1) LP2 Printer (4) Data General Terminals w/Keyboards (11) Round Computer Disk Packs (1) Hard Copy Terminal --DG (Printer) (1) Drum Printer 4 Cartons (16 bottles) Zeroz Imager 46 Black & Decker Metal Cutting Blades 10 Masonry Cutting Blades Parts (List Attached) Refrigerator ANALYSISt Department Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Department Sheriff's Department Purchasing Division Purchasing Division Purchasing Division Fleet Managment Fire Department Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of County Commissioners to declare this list surplus and authorize its sale. FUNDINGS The monies received from this sale will be returned to the appropriate accounts. RECOMMENDATION t This will be placed on the Surplus Property Sale open to the public as per State Statutes. 2 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously declared as surplus the above listed parts and equipment and authorized a Surplus Property Sale, as recommended by staff. C. Purchase Authorization: CR -510 and SR -AIA Right -of -Way Acquisition, Barkett Parcel The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/92: TO: James Chandler County Administrdtnr THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.] Public Works Direa and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM: Donald G. Finney, S County Right of Way Agent SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization; CR 510 and SR A -1-A Right -of --Way Acquisition, Barkett Parcel DATE: November 6, 1992 W I' K • K41611Mli • . Indian River County is planning to widen County Road 510 and install si gnalization at the intersection of CR 510 and SR A -1-A. The additional right-of-way needed to accomplish this project consists of the acquisition of 10 parcels. A Contract For Sale and Purchase was sent to each property owner at the appraised value of each of the parcels. Seven of the ten have closed. Mr. & Mrs. Barkett have agreed to sell at the $4,333.00 appraised value and have executed the Contract For Sale and Purchase which includes an additional $98.00 for the water assessment. There are no attorneys' fees. Staff requests the Board accept the $4,431.00 contract and direct the Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf. 3 L.__NUV l "i 1992 F11uK Fr- NOV 17 1,992 BOOK 89 F:grc 0 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted the $4,431 contract for the purchase of the Barkett right-of-way and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Sale and Purchase, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD D. Purchase Authorization: CR -510 and SR -AIA Right -of -Way Acquisition Quinn Parcel The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/4/92: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. �- Public Works Director and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA . County Right of Way Agent SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization; CR 510 and SRA -1-A Right -of -Way Acquisition, Quinn Parcel DATE: - November 4, 1992 Indian River County is planning to widen County Road 510 and install signalization at the intersection of CR 510 and SR A -1-A. The additional right-of-way needed to accomplish this project consists of the acquisition of 10 parcels. A Contract For Sale and Purchase was sent to each property owner at the appraised, value of each of the parcels. Six of the ten have closed. Mrs. Quinn has agreed to sell at the $12,380 appraised value and has executed the deed and closing statement being held.in escrow. s_ • i i • _�l IMP Staff requests the Board accept the $12,380.00 contract and direct the Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf. �L• Funding is available in Account No. 101-151-541-067.11. 4 M M M ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted the $12,380 contract for the purchase of the Quinn right-of-way and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Sale and Purchase, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD E. Authorization to Purchase Right -of -Way: 5th Street SW (Rebel Road), Eddy Parcel The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/92: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public" Works Director and Roger D. Cain, P.E. Ilt �- County Engineer FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA 1 County Right of Way Agent CONSENT AGENDA SUBJECT: Right -of -Way; 5th Street SW, A.K.A. Rebel Road, Eddy property DATE: November 2, 1992 Right-of-way is required on 5th Street SW on the east side of the 27th Avenue intersection. The 50' right-of-way partial taking was appraised at $21,196.45 by George Kmetz on July 20, 1992. The County offered to purchase the parcel at the appraised value. The property owner counter - offered to sell at $25,500.00. Staff considers the counter-offer reasonable if no other expenses are incurred for additional appraisals, attorneys fees, court costs or additional time to acquire the right-of-way. RECOMIVIEENDATION AND JND]Wr. Staff requests the Board accept the $25,500.00 contract and direct the Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's behalf. Funding is available in Traffic Impact Fee Account No. 109-214-541-067.58. 5 OV 17 1992 BOOK N(�II 1 7 tggp BOOK 8 8 PA'7 E 10 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously accepted the $25,500 contract for the purchase of the Eddy right-of-way and authorized the Chairman to execute the Contract for Sale and Purchase, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD F. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/92: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: November 5, 1992 RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 11/17/92 RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS The following lien -related documents are prepared in proper form for the Board to authorize the Chairman to sign them: 1. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from Anita Park Water Project: WOOD 2. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from Citrus Gardens Project: EARLEY 3. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from Phase I Water Project: TOMAS PRADO 4. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from Royal Poinciana Project: CRESWELL LOCKNER VERKLER SHAW WAGNER 5. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from State Road 60 Sewer Project: Map #40 - HERON CAY/PETRY/RAY (82 Darby Cay) 2 6. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from Summerplace Water Project: ATKINS 7. Partial Release of Special Assessment Lien from 12th Street Water Project: BARNEY BELFONTE BURKE CANTIN (2) FALLS FOLDS GIAMBARRESE GRAVES, JR. (2) GREENE HARBAUGH HOLLERS, JR. HUGHES JENKINS LANE (2) MAZURKEVICH McALARNEN MILLER MURPHY NOLAN PURINTON RAUSCH ROLLINS RYMER - SCREWS SIMPSON SPANGLER SPONAUGLE STANFORD TAYLOR TURNER. ZIEGLER ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the above listed lien -related documents, as recommended by staff. � d I w U) U U c� 0 '" LLw w� O (3 PARTIAL RELEASES OF ASSESSMENTS ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC IV RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 7 1992. W z oc 0 H Q z D 0 0 BOOK88 PAF 142 G. Cancelling Taxes on County Property Acquisition The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/92: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS A A ,e,d2. FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: November 5, 1992 RE: CANCELLING TAXES ON COUNTY PROPERTY ACQUISITION The County has recently acquired some land for right-of-way and utility purposes, and, pursuant to section 196.28, Florida Statutes, the Board of County Commissioners is allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property acquired for public purposes. Such cancellation must be done by resolution of the Board with a certified copy being forwarded to the Tax Collector. REQUESTED ACTION: Request Board authorize Chairman to sign and then forward to the Tax Collector a certified copy of the attached resolutions cancelling the taxes due upon lands the County recently acquired for right of way. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolutions 92-204, 92-205, 92-206, and 92-207, cancelling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly - owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. 8 Re: Utility Property Acquisition Parcel 21-30=38-00001-0000-00011.1 HANSON 11/S/92(143ga1)RESO/vk.38 RESOLUTION NO. 92- 204 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PUR- SUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to" make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of section 196.28, F. S . ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in O.R. Book 948, Page 2594, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for utility purposes, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i RRi n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17 day of November , 1992. Attest: ' Jeffrey K:' -Barton, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN/RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Caroly 'K. Eggex airman E BOOK �� F�,GE �� OV � '� 199 0 NnV 1 7 jqq? BOOK 11/s/nz(1aWM1)tsEso/v1s�39 Re: R/W 66th Avenue Part of Tract 12, Sec. 20/33S/39E LAMBETH CITRUS, LTD. RESOLUTION NO. 92- 205 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PUR- SUANT TO SECTION 198.289 FLORIDA STATUTES. 88 F. )F -7 14 WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the 'state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such, lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to - make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and . to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in O.R. Book 950, Page 2330, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for right of way purposes for 68th Avenue, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner B i r d , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17 day of November , 1992. Attest: < Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk C. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN /RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By Lid Caroly K. EggeOd gairman 10 11/B/92(l®gal)RE90/V3c�40 Re: R/W 88th Avenue N 1/2 Tract 9, Sec. 19/33S/39E LAMBETH CITRUS, LTD. RESOLUTION NO. 92-206 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PUR- SUANT TO SECTION 198.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to • make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of section 196.28, F.S. ; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current_, against the property described in O.R. Book 950, Page 2335, which was recently acquired, by Indian River County for right of way purposes for 88th Avenue, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i In i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as'follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17 day of November , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: By Caroly K. Egg Jeffrey K. Barton, Clem /. airma ., 11 NOV 7 1992 I1/8/92(lagal)RE90/VlcAy Re: R/W 66th Avenue .41 S 1/2 Tract 9, Sec. 19/33S/39E GOLDEN RIVER FRUIT CO. RESOLUTION NO. 92- 2n BOOK_ 88 PAGE 16-7 A RESOLUTION OFINDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY -OWNED LANDS, PUR- SUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the' state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that any and all liens for taxes., delinquent or current, against the property described in O.R. Book 950, Page 2337, which was recently acquired by Indian River County for right of way purposes for 66th Avenue, are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the authority of section 196.28, F.S. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as 'follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this _ 17 day of N n v p m h a r , 1992. Attest: Jeffr /196, rrto Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA By�� Carole. Egge hairman 12 . H. Release of Easement Request by James A. Nobil - Riverwalk II Subdivision The Board reviewed the following memo dated 2/10/92: TO: James Chandler County Administrator. DEP NT HEAD CONCURRENCE: o ert M. Ke ting, A CP Community Developm;e...ntt Di ctor THROUGH: Roland M. DeBloi- W -P I Environmental Planning•& Code Enforcement FROM: Charles W. Heath Code Enforcement Officer DATE: November 10, 1992 SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY: JAMES A. -MOBIL RIVERWALx II SUBDIVISION It is requested that the data herein presented be givent1ormal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 17, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by James A. Nobil, owner of the subject property, for the release of the 40 foot easterly marginal access easement and the northerly fifteen (15) foot utility easement of Riverwalk II Subdivision. It is the petitioner's intention to construct a retail sales complex on the subject property. The petitioner will formally dedicate new easements to the County prior to this abandonment being recorded, The current zoning classification of the subject property is CG, General Commercial District. The Land Use Designation is Commercial/Industrial. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company, florida Power and Light Company, Falcon Cable Corporation, the Indian River County Utilities Department and the Road and Bridge and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it is staff's Position that the subject easement may be released with the condition that the applicant dedicate new utility and marginal access easements to the County before a formal abandonment is recorded in the public records. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board, through the adoption of a resolution, release the northerly fifteen (15) foot utility easement and the easterly forty (40) foot marginal access, utility and drainage easement of Riverwalk II Subdivision, Plat Book 12, Page 36, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Staff recommends that the release of easements not be recorded until the applicant has dedicated new marginal access, utility and drainage easements to the County as described herein. 13 NOV 1992 i BOOK F: rE 1 r NOV 171992 bm Attorney Vitunac advised that the applicant has asked that we modify the legal -description by making it a little more inclusive. He is happy with it now and so is Public Works and Planning. There is a very minor change in the legal description from what is included in today's backup material and the Motion would include the release as amended. and ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-208, abandoning certain easements in Riverwalk II Subdivision to James A. Nobil. RECORD VERIFIED JEFFREY K. BARTON CLERK CIRCUIT COURT RESOLUTION NO. 92-208 INDIAN RIVER CO., FLA A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS IN RIVERWALK II SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12, PAGE 36, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below, WHEREAS, the retention of those easgments serves no public purposes-, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: This release of easement is executed by Indian River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor, to James A. Nobil, C/O Bruce Barkett, Attorney, his successors in interest, heirs and assigns, whose mailing address is P.O. Box 3686, Vero Beach, Florida 32964-3686, Grantee, as follows: Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and interest that it may have in the following described easements: 14 a Po - CD• C N 4- M the easterly forty (40) foot marginal access, utility, and drainage easement, and the northerly fifteen (15) foot utility easement, Riverwalk II Subdivision, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 12, Page 36, Section 21, Township 30 South, Range 38 East, and that non exclusive easement for ingress and egress as recorded in O.R. Book 761, Page 1873, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird adopted on the following vote: , seconded by Commissioner 17 Adams , and day of November , 1992, by the Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams _ Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17 day of November , 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA - n 0 C U X By .t-�-v I Caro n K. Eg; C airmani4''• Attest By Je ;K,, Barton C1;6..'7 <,, . Q • pp 66.'1 �14. '4'i/ !Y •Il' R 111 R' ; � - STATE OF FLORIDA i.. COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER)` I HEREBY CERTIFY, that on this day, before me, an officer duly authorized in the State and County aforesaid, to take acknowledgements, personally appeared Carolyn K. Eggert and Jeffrey K. Barton well know to me to be the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and Clerk, respectively, of Indian. River County, a political subdivision of the State of Florida, and they acknowledged executing the same. WITNESS my ind and official seal in the County and State last aforesaid this JR day of AeAwyvu. , 1992. My Commission Expires: 2 + P O State of Florida My Comm. Exp. Aug. 13,11;,33 CAU'Oui otary Publ c 15 NOV 171992 Boor, u F,,,_;� I. Final Plat Approval -- ocean Way Subdivision BOOK 8 F"•I,JF. 20 -7 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/20/92: TOs James E. Chandler _County Administrator DIVI ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: i ober M. Kdatihgl, A] Community Developmen Director THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: Christopher D. Rison On . Iv Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: November 10, 1992 SUBJECT: FINAL PLAT APPROVAL FOR 1'THE OCEAN WAY SUBDIVISION SD -90-05-008 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 17, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Ocean Way Subdivision is a proposed 12 lot residential subdivision of a 15.48 acre parcel of land located immediately north of the Windsor development on the west side of S.R. A.1 -A. The subject property is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units per acre) and has an L-1 Low Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units per acre) land use designation. The proposed density for the subdivision is 2.18 units per acre. On April 12, 1990 the Planning and Zoning Commission granted preliminary plat. approval for the Ocean Way Subdivision. The developer, Andrew Machata, obtained a Land Development Permit for the subdivision and completed the necessary subdivision improvements. The developer is now requesting final plat approval for the subdivision. The applicant has submitted the following: 1. A plat in conformance with the originally approved preliminary plat; 2. A copy of -the Certificate of Completion for Required Subdivision Improvements. ANALYSIS: The required subdivision improvements have been completed by the developer and the developer has obtained a Certificate of Completion from the Public Works Department. The developer is not required to submit a Warranty/Maintenance Agreement and post security as the subdivision's improvements are to be privately dedicated to the property owners and not dedicated to the county. The developer has complied with the appropriate requirements to obtain final plat approval. -. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the Ocean Way Subdivision. 16 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously granted final plat approval for Ocean Way Subdivision, as recommended by staff. J. Resolution Accepting the Certificate of the County Canvassing Board ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-209, accepting the Certificate of the County Convassing Board. RESOLUTION 92-209, WITH CERTIFICATE OF COUNTY CONVASSING BOARD ATTACHED, IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD RESOLUTION NO. 92-_L01 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING THE CERTIFICATE OF THE COUNTY CANVASSING BOARD. WHEREAS, on November 3, 1992, the County held a referendum of the qualified electors on the question of whether Indian River County should authorize the issuance of General Obligation Bonds or Notes of the County in one or more series in an amount not -to -exceeds $26, 000, 000 to finance the cost of acquiring environmentally significant land to protect water quality, open spaces, and wildlife habitat; and WHEREAS, after the ballots were counted, the results were certified by the County Canvassing Board, which consisted of County Judge James B. Balsiger, Supervisor of Elections Ann Robinson, and Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners Carolyn K. Eggert, and the Certificate, which shows that ;the referendum did pass, was turned over to the Board of County Commissioners, 17 IU 171992 boOK rNOV 17 19q? eMOK 88 Frit 49"2 7 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board hereby officially acknowledges receipt of the Certificate of the County Canvassing Board' in connection with the above referendum. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Bird , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i P p i n , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 17 day of November 1992 , . Att 1 Jeffrey BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, LORIDA By 11-4,o4j / np C lyn K. E rt rClerk �ton, ?�'rman . Indian River Ca Approved Date Admin. yI'G I/// V9L LA�ai tl- y- Buou-:i Risk Mgr. 18 K. Purchase of Road Stabilization Materials The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/10/92: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TO: James E. Chandler, . County Administrator', FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director ctp SUBJECT: Purchase of Road Stabilization Material DATE: November 10, 1992 FILE: road.Agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Ed Hall, Contractor for Rosewood Court Subdivision located north of 16th Street east of Kings Highway, has offered to sell to the County approximately 7,000 c.y.`:of road stabilization material which is being excavated from a stormwater management tract within the development. The County currently has an annual contract with Stewart Industries in Fort Pierce (approximately 15 miles from County facilities) for road stabilization material to be picked up by the County at a cost of $1.25/ton or $1.78/c.y. The cost to purchase the material from Mr. Graves is $1.25/c.y. which.is a cost savings of $.53 per cubic yard. In addition, the savings of the cost of a 30 mile round trip pick-up to Ft. Pierce would further reduce the net cost to the County. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives and as follows: Alternative No. 1 Approve purchase of the road stabilization from Ed Hall at a cost of $1.25 per cubic yard. Alternative No. 2 Deny approval to purchase the material. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby authorization is given to purchase approximately 7,000 c.y.. of road stabilization material at $1.25/c.y. Funding to be from Road and Bridge Division budgeted funds. (Fund 111-214) 19 NOV I 'l 199 auoK �, c Fr— NOV 17 issz ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, Commissioner Tippin, the Board authorized the purchase from Ed Hall 7,000 c.y. of road stabilization $1.25/c.y., as recommended by staff. BOOK SECONDED by unanimously of approx. material at 88 FOUL 24 L. Approval of Surety Bond for Gary C Wheeler - Sheriff -Elect ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the public official surety bond for Gary Wheeler, Sheriff -elect. COPY OF BOND IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD REQUEST BY FRANK ZORC TO SCHEDULE A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS POSSIBLE REFERENDUM VOTE BY IRC TAXPAYERS BEFORE FUNDING BEACH RENOURISHMENT The Board reviewed the following letter dated 10/21/92: October 21,;.1992 IRC1021 Indian River County Commission 25th. Street: County Administration Vero Beach, Florida. RE: Request for new ordinance.' PURPOSE; To provide the taxpayer/voters in the county the right and privlege to vote for or ;against use of any (local, state or federal), tax dollars for beach renourshment and or sand pumping, in Indian River County. RATIONALE; The beach issue has been one of the longest and most controversial issues in many years. Multi millions of tax dollars have been requested for such projects, which provide only a temporary solution in most cases. Many county residents were disappointed when they were unable to vote on the two beach referendums held in the City of Vero Beach on this major taxpayers issue. SCOPE OF ORDINANCE; A. If the Citizen to;payers, vote NO by majority, any requested krnourshment or sand pumping project will not be approved. B.the vote is YES, the County Commission retains the option to aurize the project or not. a"tal JWU XC Interested Parties Attachments. General Information 20 After giving a brief history of the beach renourishment controversy in the City of Vero Beach and presenting arguments for the need of a county -wide referendum before funding beach renourishment, Frank Zorc urged the newly -seated Commission to schedule a public hearing to discuss the matter. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously scheduled a public workshop for Thursday, January 7, 1993 at 7:00 o'clock P.M. in Commission Chambers. PUBLIC HEARING - RORINE AND WILLCOCR REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMP PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROX. 15 ACRES FROM L-1 TO C/I AND TO REZONE FROM RM -3 TO CH AND CL 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: 4 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florlda 329 r 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, aper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that Q a 31-3 der j0 90. .�'� ,��'��-i_ •z� billed tm_LXd4e was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) /o Sworn to and subscribedbeforeme this 1� day of A A.D- /?ZoZ Business Manager (SEAT.) — Nods► Pak 3"ft of Bhrme W CWMWW ftk" j=2q. t"3 AA689i/�6 21 OV 1 `� 1992 eooK 88 F,,:r � se is id st a td Ir :o g It d e d a d s� t BOOK 88 PAGE 26 ;,,.NOTICE OF. CHANGE OF LAND. USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of land within the unincor- porated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the pro- posal will .be held on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build - Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the State Department of Com- munity Affairs for their review. The proposed amendments are in- cluded in the proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 01 COM- MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (77TH STREET TO 69TH STREET) FROM +-180 ACRES TO +-195 ACRES; BY EN- LARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUS- TRIAL NODE (57TH STREET TO 49TH STREET) FROM +-257 ACRES TO +-257.31 ACRES; AND BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 01 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (VERO BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8TH STREET) FROM +-213 ACRES TO +-214.86 ACRES, AND PROVIDING 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 applications 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 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS. 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. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must cgntact the county's'Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordi- nator at 567-8000, Extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting.. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Subject L-2 Property rd ST CII % L-1 i ST 22 T CA Subject N Property C/1 X XZ o r 0 c M-1 .in Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first series of public hearings before the Board of County Commissioners on the current three land use amendment requests. If the Board approves the transmittal of these applications to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use and rezoning that particular property. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end at that point, but the applicant can resubmit after one year. Director Keating reviewed the following staff recommendation that the Board deny transmittal of this land use amendment to the DCA and deny the request to rezone: TO: James E.,Chandler County Administrator KDEP WENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Obert M. Keating,, ICP THRU: Sasan Rohani S •2 Chief, Long -Range lanning FROM: John Wachte Staff P1 er, Long -Range Planning DATE: November 9, 1992 RE: Heskel Korine and L.K.:.Willcock Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and -*.to Redesignate Approximately 15 acres from L-1 to C/I, aiid to Rezone from RM -3 to CH and CL (LURA 92-07-0122) -- It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 17, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 15 acres. The subject property is located on the east side of U.S. Highway #1, between 71st Street and 73rd street. It consists of two separately owned parcels. The 8.8 acre northern parcel is owned by Heskel Korine, and the 6.3 acre southern parcel is owned by L.R. Willcock. 23 0V 1 '� 1992 goo F 4, 4 °1 BOOK 88 F,VH 28 The request includes changing the land use designation of both parcels from L -1, -Low -Density Residential (up to 3 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, and rezoning both parcels. The southern parcel is proposed to be rezoned from RM -3, Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) to CH, Heavy Commercial District, while the northern parcel is proposed to be changed from RM -3 to CL, Limited Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property with commercial uses. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to the state Department of Community Affairs for their review. If transmittal is denied, the related rezoning request must be denied, since a property's zoning must be consistent with its land use designation. If, however, transmittal is approved, then action on the rezoning must be delayed until final adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment. On October 22, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential District, and is vacant land. The southern parcel has been previously cleared, while the northern parcel has not. Across U.S. Highway #1, to the west, is vacant, uncleared land zoned CL, Limited Commercial District, and OCR, Office, Commercial,- a _Residential District. Property to the south is also vacant. It is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial District. To the east of the subject property is a citrus grove owned by Earring Point Groves. Most of this land is zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The exception is a small area in the southwest corner of the property which- is zoned RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential- District. Property to the north of the subject property consists of the Copeland's Landing West subdivision. This subdivision is zoned RM - 3, Multiple -Family Residential District, although some RS -3, Single -Family,,' Residential District, property exists along the eastern -most part of.the site. The Copeland's Landing West subdivision is a Planned Residential Development approved for 28 dwelling units on 10 acres. While no units have been built, a Land Development Permit for the project has been issued by the county. Infrastructure is in place, but the improvements have not yet been inspected. East of Copeland's Landing West are groves and three subdivisions (Copeland's Landing Phase I, Phase II, and Riverside) in various stages of development. , Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and property to the east are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential, on the county future land use map. The L- 1 designation permits residential densities up to 3 units/acre. Land north of the subject property is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential. The L-2 designation permits residential densities up to 6 units/acre. Properties west and south of the sdbject site are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, which permits commercial and industrial zoning designations. 24 Environment The northern parcel of the subject property contains native upland hardwood/cabbage palm hammock. The southern parcel of the property has been previously cleared for agricultural production. A review of U.S. Fish -and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory Maps (1984) indicates that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on site. A Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) drainage outfall ditch runs between the parcels. Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM) depict the subject property as being within three different flood zone categories: Zone X - outside of the 500 -year floodplain; Zone X - within the 500 -year floodplain but not in a designated flood hazard area; and Zone AE, within the 100 -year floodplain Special Flood Hazard Area (base flood elevation eight feet NGVD). The 100 -year flood plain (Zone AE) is located 'on the east -central portion of the site, constituting approximately one third of the overall subject property. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area (USA) of the county. Wastewater lines extend to the site from the North County Wastewater Plant. Water lines do not extend to the site. The subject property is located in'the North County Water Service Area. Transportation System The property abuts U.S. Highway #1 to the west and 73rd Street to the north. U.S. Highway #1 is classified as an urban principal arterial road on the future roadway -thoroughfare plan map. This segment of U.S. Highway #1 is a four -lane paved road with approximately 120 feet of existing public road right-of-way. It is programmed for expansion to 6 lanes and 240 feet by 2010, Seventy- -third Street is a .two-lane paved road with approximately' 50 feet of existing public road right-of-way. It is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and . • potential impact on environmental quality. This section will also consider alternatives for development of the site. 25 Nov 17 192 BOOK r-.ov 17 1992 Concurrency of Public Facilities eooK 88 F "Uc 30-7 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 and Land Development Regulations also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable 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. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Property: 2. Size of Area to be Redesignated and Rezoned: 3. Existing Zoning Classification: 4. Existing Land Use Designation: S. Proposed Zoning Classification: 6. Proposed Land Use Designation: 7. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: ±15 (1-4.53 ) acres ±15 (14.53) acres RM -3, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) L-1, Low -Density Residential - 1 (up to 3 units/acre) CH, Heavy Commercial District and CL, Limited Commercial District C/ I,, Commercial - Industrial Node. 45 Dwelling Units (DU) 8. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 145,300 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). 26 - Transportation A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the property indicates that the existing level.' of service "D" or better on U.S. Highway #1 and other impacted roads would not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is as follows: Existing Land Use and Zoning 1. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 45 DU X 5.86 trip ends/DU (based on the ITE Manual) = 264 2. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: `"*' 45 DU X 0.55 trip ends/DU (based on the ITE Manual) = 25 a. Inbound: 65% (based on Local Measurement) or 16 b. Outbound: 35% (based on Local Measurement) or 9 Proposed Land Use and Zoning 1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center 2. For structures 100,000 - 300,000 square feet (based upon the ITE Gross Leasable Floor Area category): a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 62.59/1000 gross square feet b. 5-6 p.m Peak Hour Outbound Trip Ends: 11% (ITE Manual) C. 5-6 p.m. Peak our Inbound Trip Ends: 10.3% (ITE Manual) 3. Formula for Determining Total New Trip Ends: Total Square Footage X Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) a. Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: .145,300 X 62.59/1000 = 9,094 b. Total P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season/Inbound Trip Ends: 9,094/2 X 10.3% = 469 C. Total P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season/Outbound Trip Ends: 9,094/2 X 11% = 500 d. Percentage New Trips: 70% (based on the ITE Manual) i. New Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9,094 X 70% = 6,366 ii. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season/Inbound Trip Ends: 469 X 70% = 328 iii. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak.Season/Outbound Trip Ends: 500 X 70% = 350 4. Peak Direction of U.S. Highway #1, from 69th Street to Old Dixie Highway: Southbound 5. Traffic Capacity on U.S. Highway #1, from 69th Street to Old Dixie Highway, at a Level of Service "D": 2,650 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 6. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of U.S. Highway #1: 747 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 27 L_NOV J71992 r - Nov $ 7 1992 Foa 88 FAa 32 The number of /Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning is 264. This was determined by multiplying the 45 DU's (most intense use), by ITE's factor of 5.86 Average Daily Trip Ends/DU. The number of peak hour/teak season/inbound trip ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning is 16. This as determined by taking 658 (local measurement) of 45 DU's (most intense use), multiplied by ITE's factor of 0.55 peak hour trip end@/DU. Similarly, the number of peak hour/peak season/outbound trips associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning is 9. This was determined by taking 358 (local measurement) of 45 DU's (most intense use), multiplied by ITE's factor of 0.55 peak hour trip ends/DU. The number of new p.m. peak hour outbound trips associated with this request was determined by multiplying ITE's factor of 62.59 Average Weekly Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 gross square feet by 145,300 square feet (the most intense use) to get the total daily trips. Dividing the total daily trips by 2 to get the 24 hour outbound volume, applying the ITE Shopping Center Use p.m. peak hour outbound factor (11%),, and multiplying that number by 708 ( based on the ITE Manual) to ensure that only new trip ends are counted, indicates that the total p.m. peak hour outbound trips for the proposed use will be 350. A similar methodology was used to project p.m. inbound trips. Instead of the 118 factor used for outbound trips, a 10.38 factor was used to estimate p.m. peak hour inbound trips. Using the same methodology referenced above, the inbound trips were then assigned to segments on the network. The result of this analysis was two sets of project peak hour volumes for each impacted roadway segment on the network. Since one set of volumes represents inbound trip ends and the other represents outbound trip ends, the peak hour volume for each direction for each segment was determined. The capacity analysis for each segment was then done by taking the project trip ends for the segment's peak direction and assessing whether or not this volume was less than the segment's available capacity. Under the proposed land use designation, the greatest peak hour/peak season impact will be the 350 trips generated in the outbound direction. This total is 341 more than the 9 outbound trips generated by the most intense use of the site under the current land use designation. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 341 more new peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than would be generated by the most intense use of the site under the present land use designation. Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, these trips were then assigned to roadways on the network. 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 G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; .this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. .7 28 � r The traffic capacity for the segment of U.S. Highway #1 adjacent to this site is 2,650 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Servide "D", while the existing peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume on this segment of U.S. Highway #1 is 747 trips (peak hour/peak Beason/peak direction). The additional 341 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of U.,S. Highway #1 to approximately 1,088. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that U.S. Highway #1 and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service; Impacted roads 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. IA The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with this proposed amendment. As indicated in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to accommodate the projected traffic"associated with the request. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Roadway Segment Segment Road From To capacity 1325 1330 U.S. 1 U.S. 1 12th Street S. VBC Limits 2370 1335 U.S. 1 S. VBC Limits 17th Street 17th Street 2270 1340 1345 U.S. 1 S.R. 60 S.R. 60 Royal Palm P1. 2270 2300 1350 U.S. 1 U.S. 1 Royal Palm P1. Atlantic Blvd. Atlantic Blvd. 2300 1355 1360 U.S. 1 N. VBC Limits N. VBC Limits Old Dixie Hwy. 2300 2300 1365 U.S. 1 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy. 41st Street 2300 1370 U.S. 1 41st Street 45th Street 45th Street 49th Street 2650 1375 1380 D.S. 1 U.S. 1 49th Street 65th street 2650 2650 1385 U.S. 1 65th Street 69th Street 69th Street Old Dixie Hwy. 2650 2650 1390 1395 U.S. 1 U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy. Schumann Dr. 2370 1400 U.S. 1 Schumann Dr. C.R. 512 C.A. 512 2370 1405 1720 U.S. 1 N. Seb. City Limits N. Seb. City Limits Roseland Road 2300 2300 1730 C.R. 512 C.R. 512 I-95 C.R. 510 C.R. 510 630 1740 1750 C.R. 512 W. Seb. City Limits W. Seb. City Limits Roseland Road 630 630 1810 C.R. 512 C.R. 510 Roseland Road U.S. 1 630 1820 C.R. 510 C.R. 512 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 58th Ave. 630 1830 1840 C.R. 510 C.R. 58th Ave. U.S. 1 630 630 1940 S.R. 60 60 II.S. 1 27th Ave. S.R. AlA 20th Ave. 630 1945 1950 S.R. 60 S.R. 60 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 2600 1638 1955 S.R. 60 Old Dixie Hwy. 10th Ave. 10th Ave. 1638 1960 2040 S.R. 60 16th Street U.S. 1 27th Ave. U.S. 1 Indian Riv. Blvd. 1638 1638 2050 2060 16th Street 16th/17th Street 20th Ave. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 830 970 2250 12th street Old Dixie Hwy. 20th Ave. U.S. 1 970 2260 12th Street Old Dixie Hwy. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. 1 830 2360 2330 Old Dixie Hwy. Old Dixie Hwy. 65th Street S. VBC 69th Street 830 630 2335 Old Dixie Hwy. Limits 16th Street 16th Street 830 2345 2350 Old Dixie _ Old Dixie HHS 41st Street 45th S.R. 60 45th Street 830 630 2355 Old Dixie Hwy. wy• Street 49th street 49th street 630 2365 3030 Old Dixie Hwy. 69th street 65th Stmt C.R. 510 630 - 3035 58th Ave. 58th Ave. S.R. 60 41st Street 41st Street 630 830 45th Street 630 29 Nov 1'� 1997 Fr- NOV J 7 1992 BOOK �� FA;� '3 47 Roadway segment Capacity Segment Road From To LOS "D" 3040 58th Ave. 45th Street 49th Street 630 3045 58th Ave. 49th Street 65th Street 630 3050 58th Ave. 65th Street 69th Street 630 3055 58th Ave. 69th Street C.R. 510 630 3120 66th Ave. S.R. 60 26th Street 630 3130 66th Ave. 26th Street 41st Street 630 3140 66th Ave. 41st Street 45th Street 630 3150 66th Ave. 45th Street 65th Street 630 3160 66th Ave. 65th Street 69th Street 630 3170 66th, -Ave. 69th Street C.R. 510 630 Exist in Demand Total Available Positive Roadway ested Segment_ Segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand 'Determination 1325 1526 58 1584 786 10 Y 1330 1341 57 1398 872 15 Y 1335 1341 56 1397 873 25 Y 1340 1143 57 1200 1100 45 Y 1345 1143 72 1215 1085 65 Y 1350 1309 81 1390 910 75 Y 1355 1309 34 1343 957 100 Y 1360 1309 74 1383 917 120 Y 1365 1309 41 1350 1300 150 Y 1370 1309 33 1342 1308 150 Y 1375 747 39 786 1864 200 Y 1380 747 30 777 1873 250 Y 1385 779 36 815 1835 250 Y 1390 815 68 883 1487 75 Y 1395 950 74 1024 1346 52 Y 1400 945 26 971 1329 34 Y 1405 887 109 996 1304 15 Y 1720 310 47 357 273 5 Y 1730 288 24 312 318 10 Y 1740 355 13 368 262 15 Y 1750 418 24 442 188 25 Y 1810 162 54 216 414 5 Y 1820 162 33 195 435 15 Y 1830 360 31 391 239 20 Y 1840 346 28 374 256 15 Y 1940 878 51 929 1671 5 Y 1945 747 41 788 850 10 Y 1955 747 31 778 860 20 Y 1950 747 33 780 858 15 Y 1960 509 27 536 1102 35 Y 2040 463 33 496 334 5 Y 2050 851 30 881 89 5 Y 2060 851 19 970 100 10 Y 2250 400 13 413 417 5 Y 2260 527 23 550 280 10 Y 2330 441 56 497 333 5 Y 2335 139 39 178 652 10 Y 2345 139 15 154 476 20 Y 2350 139 10 149 481 30 Y 2355 76 9 85 545 40 Y 2360 76 5 81 549 50 Y 2365 76 4 80 550 100 Y 3030 414 31 445 385 3 Y 3035 414 20 434 196 5 Y 3040 414 16 430 200 5 Y 3045 202 23 225 405 10 Y 3050 175 10 185 445 10 Y 3055 189 30 129 411 15 Y 3120 180 5 185 445 5 Y 3130 180 7 187 443 5 Y 3140 180 6 186 444 5 Y 3150 126 3 129 501 5 Y 3160 126 1 127 503 10 Y 3170 139 8 147 483 15 Y Water The site is within the urban service area; however, water lines do not extend to the site at this time. Prior to the consideration of this request by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the county which 30 M M M states that the developer agrees to connect to the county water system at the time of development. A retail commercial use of 150,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 45 Equivalent Residential units (ERU), or 111250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. When the subject property connects to county lines, it will be serviced by the North County Water Plant. The proposed plant will have a capacity of 21000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. - Wastewater The subject property is serviced by the North County Wastewater Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 45 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 11,250 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 galloho/ERU/day. The North County Wastewater Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 867,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 150,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 750 waste generation units (WGU) or 2,222 cubic yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste/year. While WGU's are units of measurement which can be applied to either commercial or residential uses, WGU's must be considered in terms of residential units in order to correspond to the county's solid waste level of service standards. According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGU/unit. With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards/person/year and the county's average of two persons/unit, each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 people (2/1.6 = 1.25) and 2.9625 cubic yards of solid waste/year (1.25 X 2.37). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the proposed land use amendment, staff utilized the following formula: Total number of WGUs X 1.25 X 2.37 (750 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 2222 cubic yards/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 3 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the proposed amendment. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development on the subject property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be approximately 468,270 square feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required to retain approximately 31 Nov 17199L BOOK G`q C BOOK 88 F'A , 54,500 cubic feet of runoff on-site for a 25 year/24 hour storm event as calculated based on total square footage of .impervious _surface, soil characteristics, pre -development runoff rate, and any discharge rate adopted by an appropriate drainage district. With the soils characteristic of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 28.4 cubic feet/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 28.4 cubic feet/second and requiring retention of the 54,500 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. Concurrency for drainage, roads, `solid waste, and parks has been determined to be adequate for the proposed amendment. With the execution of the referenced developer's agreement for water and wastewater, the concurrency test will be satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with 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, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the action 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 several specific comprehensive plan policies. A review- of this requested change reveals major inconsistencies with these policies. - Future Land Use Policy 13.3 The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive Plan 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 plan; an oversight in the approved plan; or a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. It is staff's position that this land use amendment request does not meet any of the three criteria as stated above. 32 - M When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned commercial uses to commercial nodes. These _nodes were designated various sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed suitable for commercial development. The subject property was considered at that time and was not included in the original node configuration. Therefore, it is staff's position that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan. - A common rationale given by applicants to justify a land use change for property fronting U.S. Highway #1 and other arterial roads is that residential development of such a parcel is unfeasible. Applicants often use this reasoning to argue that designation of such property as residential constitutes a mistake in the approved plan. Historically, however, residential development has been feasible along the east side of U.S. Highway #1, and it still is. In fact, single- and multiple -family development exist in numerous places along U.S. Highway #1 in Indian River County. Changing past policy and amending the plan for. -this request would affect other residential parcels abutting U.S Highway #1. In fact, it would affect other residential parcels that have frontage along any major road. Circumstances are not substantially different for most of these parcels, and their residential designations do not constitute mistakes in the approved 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. In this case, there have been no new uses established in proximity to the subject property since the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan. The circumstances affecting the subject property are generally the same as they were when the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. Therefore, the third criterion of policy 13.3 has not been met. While preparing the Comprehensive Plan, the county looked at each commercial node and determined node size based upon the amount of existing development and potential growth projected for the next twenty years within the general market area of the node. The county then adopted the node boundaries. For any of these node boundaries to be changed through a Comprehensive Plan amendment, a change in circumstance affecting the amount of developed land in that node would need to occur. In fact, Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element specifically addresses that issue. - 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 708 of the land area (less rights of way) is developed or approved for development with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise warranted. Otherwise -warranted includes but is not limited to: • substantial changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node; • instances when expansion of a node is necessary to accommodate a use (such as a regional mall) which. has substantial land area requirements and no alternative suitable site is available in existing nodes; • instances when expansion of a node is necessary to include existing adjacent non -conforming uses that cannot otherwise be eliminated; • instances when 608 to 708 of a node is developed and: 33 NV J'i 1992 BOOK 88 FAGS 0 BOOK 88 MUE .138 7 1. expansion of the node is necessary to accommodate expansion of an existing use when no other adjacent land in the. node is suitable and the land proposed for inclusion has the same owner as the expanding use; 2. a node boundary splits a parcel rendering it unsuitable for development, and the Board of County Commissioners finds that inclusion of the parcel in the node is more appropriate than exclusion of the parcel from the node. 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. When the subject request was submitted, staff undertook an analysis to determine whether or not the request met the 708 development criterion to qualify for node expansion. Staff proceeded with 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. Using this method, staff determined that the total acreage in the node was 180 acres. Once the total node acreage was established, staff needed to determine the percent developed 'with non-agricultural and non- residential uses. Again, the staff used the Property Appraiser's information to do this. Based upon tax and use codes, staff determined which parcels were developed with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, and then calculated the acreage of these parcels. Using this method, staff determined that the total non - agriculturally and non -residentially used, developed acreage in the node was '16.11 acres. With only 16.11 acres in the node developed with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, the node is considered to be approximately 88 developed. This percentage indicates that there is no- need to increase the amount of commercial/industrial designated lands in this portion of the county. Since 88 is much less than 708, this amendment request is inconsistent with policy 1.23. Another consideration relating to the proposed request is the amount of commercially designated land already existing within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County. Currently, the county has 5,300 acres of commercially and industrially designated land. Of that, only 2,800 acres of the commercial/ industrial land is projected to be needed for the county by the year 2010, leaving ±2,500 excess acres of commercial/industrial land. This fact indicates that no additional commercial/industrial land is needed at present. - Future Land Use Policy 1.21 The proposed land use change would also be inconsistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21. This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate strip commercial development and urban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Staff feels that a change in the subject property's land use designation would contradict Future Land Use Polic121 by creating a long, narrow, unbroken strip of commercially designated land. Additionally, this land is not substantially different from other residentially zoned land along U.S. Highway #1. Granting this request would provide an impetus for other Property owners to submit comprehensive plan amendment requests for a commercial/industrial land use designation. The result would be strip commercial development all along the east side of U.S. Highway #1. This directly contradicts Future Land Use Policy 1.21. 34 M - M Compatibility with the Surrounding Area _The.potential impact of the subject request upon surrounding land uses is an important issue concerning this property. The subject property is -located across 73rd Street from Copeland's Landing West. This is an approved, but as yet unfinished, Planned Residential Development subdivision. Additionally, the area adjacent to and east of the subject property is designated for low density residential development. A land use change for the subject property would have two negative impacts upon ,existing and proposed residences in the area. First, there would be a lack and residential development. land use and zoning district question that the resulting adjacent residential areas. neighborhood quality of life. of compatibility between commercial Given the* type of uses allowed by the requested for the site, there is no uses would be incompatible with the It would be an intrusion into the The second negative impact from "the proposed land use amendment involves more than the property itself; it relates to all residentially designated areas along U.S. Highway #1. These areas would be affected, because the requested change would provide an impetus for other property owners to request that their land use designation be changed to commercial/industrial. The result would be commercial/industrial land use designations all along the east side of U.S. Highway #1. This would cause compatibility problems along the east side of U.S. Highway #1. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality In addition to a review of compatibility with surrounding uses and consistency with the comprehensive plan, environmental impacts of the proposed change have also been reviewed. In implementing the policies of the county comprehensive plan, LDR Chapter 929 requires that 15% of the native upland plant community existing on site be preserved via the establishment of a conservation easement in conjunction with site development. The 15% may be reduced to 10% if the native preserve area is one contiguous "clump", rather than a linear buffer strip or multiple, noncontiguous areas. County regulations allow the option of a fee - in -lieu payment instead of a set-aside, based on the assessed value of the subject property. The upland set-aside requirement would apply to the subject property under the proposed commercial designation as well as under the present residential zoning and land use category. Therefore, from the regulatory standpoint, the proposal would not affect the minimum amount required by the county for native upland protection. The subject property has not been surveyed for rare or endangered plant or animal species. An environmental survey will be required prior to site development, under either the present or proposed zoning and land use designation. If the environmental survey reveals the presence of listed rare or endangered species, the applicant would be required to coordinate with jurisdictional wildlife agencies to ensure compliance with all applicable federal, state, and local requirements concerning such species' (and habitat) protection. 35 No La I��Z BOOK Development of the Subject Property BOOK 88 F'GE 40 At approximately 6.3 and 8.8 acres, both parcels comprising the subject property are large enough to subdivide. The southern parcel could accommodate up to 18 single- or multiple -family homes, while the northern parcel could accommodate 26. The parcels are also large enough to provide a buffer from U.S. Highway #1. Berms, walls, fences, and/or vegetative buffers could be used to shield _homes on the site from the lights, traffic, and noise 'of U.S. Highway #1. The feasibility of this kind of development is demonstrated by the many single- and multiple -family homes and developments along U.S. Highway #1. Some examples of these are Garden Grove, Grove Isle, Vista Royale, and Vista Garden. Numerous other uses, especially recreational uses, are also permitted on the subject property, given its present land use and zoning designations. Conclusion The subject property is in an area designated for low density residential development. This allows single- and multiple -family homes, either of which would be feasible on the site. Although the current residential designation is compatible with the approved and projected residential developments to the north and east, the requested designation is not compatible with surrounding uses. In addition, the requested designation conflicts with Future land Use Policies 1.21, 1.23, and 13.3. For these reasons, neither staff nor the Planning and Zoning Commission supports the request to change the site's current land use designation. Recommendation Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny transmittal of this land use amendment to the Department of Community Affairs and deny the request to rezone. Attachments 1. Land Use Designation Amendment Application 2. Rezoning Application 3. Future Land Use Location Map 4. Zoning Location Map 5. U.S. Highway #11 77th Street to 69th Street, Commercial/ Industrial Node Boundary Map 6. Unapproved minutes of the October 22, 1992 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 7. Transmittal Resolution Inman Rim Co. AiWoved Date Admim 5tZ 0, // /a 2 Legal j,U C_ Budget Dept Risk Mgr. Approved Agenda Item: For:%�- By: 5 2111'= 36 M M Director Keating summarized that because this request is inconsistent with Future Land Use Policies 1.21, 1.23 and 13.3, staff feels it should be denied transmittal to the DCA. Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Michael O'Haire, advised that he is representing two separate owners of two separate parcels of property. Mr. Willcock's property on the south is 6.3 acres and Mr. Korine's property to the north is 8.8 acres. He emphasized that of the two miles of frontage on U.S. #1 north of Winter Beach, his clients' parcels are the only parcels not having .some sort of commercial use. He felt it was obvious that these two parcels fell through the cracks when the Comp Plan was adopted, but staff's position, is that there was no oversight in leaving these parcels zoned residential. To the south of Mr. Willcock's property is the Ocean Spray packing house and immediately to the south is Ocean Spray's effluent field. To relegate Mr. Willcock's and Mr. Korine's property to residential use is to tell them they can continue to pay taxes on their property when there is no feasible use for it. Attorney O'Haire argued against staff's reasoning that these 15 acres are feasible for residential development and comparing them to the large developments of Vista Royale, Vista Gardens and Grove Isle which were built off U.S. #1 to the south. He stressed that no one here today would envision this property as residential use. He admitted that it is strip commercial but the property along U.S. #1 north of Vero Beach is all strip commercial and these two parcels are the last remaining remnants of residential property in that strip of commercial. The owners cannot use that property for residential and no one is going to purchase that property if it remains residential zoning. Nobody in their right mind would invest their money in purchasing residential property in this location fronting on U.S. #1. More importantly than that, nobody would want to live there if somebody were foolish enough to invest in residential construction in this location. Attorney O'Haire wished to add that at the Planning & Zoning hearing he modified the application to CL from CH at the request of the land owner to the north who owns the CL frontage. He implored the Board on behalf of his two clients to go ahead and forward this request to the DCA and approve the change in the land use plan and grant the rezoning subject to that change being final. Commissioner Bird asked why these parcels were left in residential under the Comp Plan, and Director Keating explained 37 NOV i ,i 1992 BOOK 88 PAGE 41 r NOV 171992 BOOK 88 F'rE 4127 that we looked at how much area we needed in each node to accommodate the market and we also looked at existing commercial uses and certain constraints such as the narrowness between U.S. #1 and Old Dixie Highway. These parcels were not included in the commercial node because they were large enough to accommodate residential development, they did not have an existing commercial use, and they were not needed in the node based on the estimates of the size of the node. Director Keating disagreed with Attorney O'Haire's argument that U.S. #1 should be strip commercial because no new residential has been built along there in the last 20 years. He emphasized that staff is not advocating driveways off of U.S. #1 to access single-family homes, but is projecting a subdivision roadway off of 73rd Street establishing an internal development pattern. A residential development might front on U.S. #1, but the property is big enough to support a berm wall and other buffering. There are certain design options with the Planned Residential Development (PRD). Chairman Eggert emphasized that this was not an oversight because she recalled that this matter was debated back and forth, and Commissioner Adams remembered that the P&Z talked about Light Commercial rather than Heavy Commercial. Director Keating explained the differences between Heavy Commercial and Light Commercial, one being that CL can have no use larger than 40,000 square feet. The CL is a buffer between the heavier types of commercial. Outside storage is allowed only in CH. Commissioner Bird felt that this is not an easy call since the Board has tried diligently to avoid strip commercial along U.S. #1. Residential has worked on the southern end of U.S.#1, but here the owners do not have a large section or the depth. He felt Attorney O'Haire makes a point in saying that this property really has no use for residential. Commissioner Macht asked about the environmental conditions on the RS -3 property northeast of the subject property, and Attorney O'Haire explained that the property to the east is in groves and it is anticipated that use would continue for quite some time. A MOTION MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Chairman Eggert, that the Board approve staff's recommendation of denial, failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners Tippin, Adams, and Bird dissenting. 38 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board by a vote of 4-1, Commissioner Macht dissenting, adopted Resolution 92-210, approving the transmittal of the proposed lan�d.- use amendment to the DCA for their review. Commissioner Tippin noted that we had very little public input P' on this, and Commissioner Macht suggested that we review the Comp Plan. Director Keating explained that the Comp Plan is revisited every 5 years, the next time being in 1995. RESOLUTION NO. 92-210 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13,11990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1992 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local* Planning Agency* held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 22, 1992 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board of County Commissioners deny transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 17, 1992, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and Nov 171992 BOOK v� rh�lJf r-r.OK F�1G�4 NOV 171992 Bo 1 RESOLUTION NO. 92-210 WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment. Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from L-1, Low -Density Residential - 1 (up to 3 units/acre) to Commercial/ Industrial Node for ±15 acres located on the east side of U.S. 1 between 71st Street and 73rd Street. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Rird and seconded by Commissioner TiRoin and upon being put to a.vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye _ 'flac� Commissioner Fran Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Ken Macht Nam y Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 17 day of November 1992. ATTEST: Je re. K Bart n, Clerk D .C., u\v\j\cpr s.k&.w 40 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY :x .xez'� _ja.ACarolyn)1. Egger Chairman Indian Alm Ca Approved Date Admin. I /a Legal C_ Budget N/A Dept. Rlsk Mgr. N�� PUBLIC HEARING - KOERNER REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROX. .31 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE FROM RM -6 TO CG Attorney Vitunac announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as follows: P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, 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 newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that billed t was published in said newspaper in the Issue(s) /0, Sworn to and i v ``Cd subscribed/Jbeeffore me this ZIPVZ�_ day of Ae1'`r ,C c' A.D Business Manager (SEAL) Nolap POW !W* d IYrN� gM WLVV"jM2q.%M �IRdg9/bb 41 NOVL_ I it 1992 BOOK 88 PvE 45 se is id at a �d u :o 9 It d a d a d a t BOOK 88 FADE 46 Mu 1c M1 Rf'a NOTICE*,OF CHANGE OF LAN© USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian Riven County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of land within the unincor- porated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the pro- posal will be held on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the State Department of Com- munity -Affairs for their review. The proposed amendments are in cluded in the proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COM- MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (77TH STREET TO 69TH STREET) FROM +-180 ACRES TO +-195 ACRES; BY EN- ' LARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUS- TRIAL NODE (57TH STREET TO 49TH STREET) FROM +-257 ACRES TO +-257.31 ACRES; AND BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (VERO BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8TH STREET) FROM +-213 ACRES TO +-214.86 ACRES, AND PROVIDING 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 applications 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 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be madd 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. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for • this meeting must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordi- nator at 567-8000, Extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman t Subject L-2 Property c/1 73rd ST X CAG N Subject N Property CII �-•-; 4.. SUBJECT C/1 L-1 o:i : �. PROPERTY ��.0 r F. a M-1 ST 1 42 I Community Development Director Robert Keating presented the following staff recommendation for approval of the Koerner request: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE obert . Keat g, A THRU: Sasan Rohan/,jrLong-Range Chief, Longlanning FROM: John WachteStaff Plann Planning DATE: November 9, 1992* RE: Lawrence R. Koerner Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approximately .31 acres from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone from RM -6 to CG (LURA 92-07-0143) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 17, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 0.31 acres. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of U.S. Highway #1 and 53rd Street and is owned by Lawrence R. Koerner. The request includes changing the land use designation from M-1, Medium -Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to CG, General Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property with commercial uses. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to the state Department of Community Affairs for their review. If transmittal is denied, the related rezoning request must be denied, since a property's zoning must be consistent with its land use designation. If, however, transmittal is approved, then action on the rezoning must be delayed until final adoption of the comprehensive plan amendment. On October 221 1992,the Planning and 1 to recommend the transmittal of the request to the state Department of review. 43 1, . Zoning Commission voted 4 to proposed land use amendment Community Affairs for their Boa 8 8 F,•+Gc 47 Existing Land Use Pattern BOOK pnH 48 The subject property is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District, and is vacant, cleared land. To the north of the subject property, the land is zoned CG, General Commercial, and is presently used as a golf course and driving range. A regional mall is planned for the property to the north and northeast of the subject property, and Indian River County has adopted a resolution approving the DRI and the conceptual plan for the regional mall. If, however, a site plan is not submitted for this mall by June 30, 1993, the county can revisit the DRI Approval and redesignate the _property northeast of the subject property... (east of the golf course and driving range) to a residential land use category. Across U.S. Highway. #1, to the west, is vacant, uncleared land zoned for light industrial use. The land to the south and east, like. the subject property, is zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. The area to the east is presently used for groves. Eventually, Indian River Boulevard will be extended through this area to 53rd Street. The intersection of Indian River Boulevard and -53rd Street will be approximately 1000 feet east of U.S. Highway #1. South of the subject property is a residentially zoned parcel containing a non -conforming use; this use is an antique shop. This building is located less than three feet from the subject property's southern property line. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and property to the south and east are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential, on the county future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential densities up to 8 units/acre. Properties to the west and north are designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial node, which permits commercial and industrial zoning designations. Environment The subject property has previously been cleared. Vegetation existing on site now consists largely of Brazilian pepper and mowed grass area. There are no wetlands on the site. The subject property is designated "Zone X" on Flood Insurance Rating Maps (FIRM), indicating that it is outside of the 100 - year flood plain. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county; however, water and wastewater lines do not extend to the site. The subject property is located in the North County Water Service Area and the Central Wastewater Service Area. Transportation System The property abuts U.S. Highway #1 to the west and 53rd Street to the north. U.S. Highway #1 is classified as an urban principal arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of U.S. -Highway #1 is a four -lane paved road with approximately 120 feet of existing public road right-of-way. It is Programmed for expansion to six lanes and 240 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. Fifty-third Street is classified as an arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 53rd Street is a two-lane paved road with approximately 50 feet of existing public road right-of-way. It is programmed for expansion to four lanes and 118 feet of public road right-of-way when the extension of Indian River Boulevard is complete. 44 ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. This section will also consider alternatives for development of the site. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, 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 and Land Development Regulations also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable 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. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Property: 2. Size of Area to be Redesignated and Rezoned: 3. Existing Zoning Classification: 4. Existing Land Use Designation: 5. Proposed Zoning Classification: 6. Proposed Land Use Designation: 45 ±0.31 acres ±0.31 acres RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) M-1, Medium -Density Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre) CG, General Commercial District C/ Is Commercial - Industrial Node BOOK 6 w,E 4 7. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: 2 units K Ur -7 ROG �� FSur 50 S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Designation: 30100 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). - Transportation A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on U.S. Highway #1 and other impacted roads would not be'lowered. The site information used for determining traffic is as follows: Existina Land Use and Zoning 1. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 2 units X 5.86 trip ends/unit (based on the ITE Manual) = 12 2. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 2 units X 0.55 trip ends/unit (based on the ITE Manual) = 1 a. Inbound: 82% or 1 (based on Local Measurements) b. Outbound: 18% or 0 (based on Local Measurements) Proposed Land Use and Zoning 1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center 2. For structures u 10,000-,.- p to square feet (based on locally measured trip generation data): a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 98.5/1000 gross sq. ft. b. 5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends: 15.6/1000 gross sq. ft. 3. Formula for Determining Total Trip Ends: Total Square Footage X Vehicle Trip Rate (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) a. Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 3,100 X 98.5/1000 = 306 b. Total P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 3,100 X 15.6/1000 = 48 c. Percentage New Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 60% (based on Local Evaluation) d. New Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 0.6 X 306 = 184 e. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 0.6 X 48 = 29 - Inbound: 50% (based on ITE Manual) or 15 - Outbound: 50% (based on ITE Manual) or 15 4. Peak Direction of U.S. Highway #1, from 49th Street to 65th Street: Southbound 46 5. Traffic Capacity on U.S. Highway #1, from 49th Street to 65th Street at a Level of Service "D": 2,650 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 6. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of U.S. Highway #1: 747 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning is 12. This was determined by multiplying the 2 units (most intense use) by ITE's factor of 5.86 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. The number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trip ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning is one. This was determined by taking the percentage of inbound trips, 82% (local measurement of inbound trip ends), multiplied by the sites peak hour trip volume of 1. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use is 306. This was determined, by multiplying 3,100 square feet of Shopping Use (most intense use) by a locally measured factor of 98.5 Average Daily Trip Ends/1000 square feet. The number of P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use is 48. This was determined by multiplying 3,100 square feet of Shopping Use (most intense use) by a locally measured factor of 15.6 Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 square feet. Local evaluation has determined that 60% of the trips associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use will be new trips. Therefore, 608 of the 306 Average Weekday Trips, or 184, will be new trips. Similarly, 60%, or 29, of the 48 P.M. Peak Hour -Trips associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use will be new. 1 According to ITE, 50%, or 15, of - the 29 New P.M. Peak Hour Trips will be outbound, and 508, or 15, will be inbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use will generate 15 new p.m. peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips. This is 14 trips more than the one generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning. 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 G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of U.S. Highway #1 adjacent to this site is 21650 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Service "D", while the existing peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume on this segment of U.S. Highway #1 is 747 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 14 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of U.S. Highway #1 to approximately 761. 47 NOV 17 1992 BOOK 88 F -AGE 51 1� BOOK 88 P,h,F 52 Based on staff analysis, it was determined that U.S. Highway #1 and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service. Impacted roads 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 this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Roadway Segment RoadFrom 68 883 To Segment Capacity LOS "D" 1390 1385 O.S. O.S. 1 1 Old Dixie Hwy. Schumann Dr. 2370 1380 O.S. 1 69th Street Old Dixie Hwy. 2650 1375 O.S. 1 65th street 69th Street 2650 1370 U.S. .1 49th Street 45th Street 65th Street 49th 2650 1365 1360 O.S.'1 1300 41st Street Street 45th Street 2650 2650 1355 O.S. O.S. 1 1 Old Dixie Hwy. 41st street 2300 1350 O.S. 1 N. VBC Limits Old Dixie Hwy. 2300 1345 O.S. 1 Atlantic Blvd. N. VBC Limits 2300 1340 O.S. 1 Royal Palm P1. Atlantic Blvd. 2300 1100 2 Y S.R. 60 - Royal Palm Pl. 2300 Existing Demand Total Available Positive Exist ng Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 1390 1385 815 68 883 1487 2 Y 1380 779 747 36 30 815 = 1835 4 Y 1375 747 39 777 786 1873 1864 4 15 Y 1370 1365 1309 33 1342 1308 12 Y Y 1360 1309 1309 41 74 1350 1300 10 Y 1355 1309 34 1384 1343 917 957 8 5 Y 1350 1345 1309 81 1390 910 3 Y Y 1340 1143 1143 72 57 1215 1085 2 Y 1200 1100 2 Y - Water The site is within the urban service area; however, water lines do not extend to the site at this time. Prior to final consideration Of this request by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to connect to the county water system at the time of development. A retail commercial use of 3,100 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 0.93 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 232 gallons/day. This -is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. When the subject property connects to county lines, it will be serviced by the North County Water Plant. The proposed plant will have a capacity of 2,000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. 48 - Wastewater The site is within the urban service area; however, wastewater lines do not extend to the site at this time. Prior to final consideration of this request by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to connect to the county wastewater system at the time of development. When the subject property connects to county lines, it will be serviced by the Central County Wastewater Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 0.93 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 232 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The Central County Wastewater Plant currently has a remaining capacity of more than 537,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 31100 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 15.5 waste generation units (WGU) or 46 cubic yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste/year. While WGU's are units of measurement which can be applied to either commercial or residential uses, WGU's must be considered in terms of residential units in order to correspond to the county's solid waste level of service standards. According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGU/unit. With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards/person/year and the county's average of two persons/unit, each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 people (2/1.6 = 1.25). and 2.9625 cubic yards of solid waste/year (1.25 X 2.37). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the proposed land use amendment, staff utilized the following formula: Total number of WGU's X 1.25 X 2.37 (15.5 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 46 cubic yards/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 3 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the proposed amendment. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development on the site will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property is not within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be approximately 10,019 square feet. 49 NOY i q ` T12 BOOK FacE 53 NOV 17 1997 BOOK 88 F,tiGE 54 In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required to retain a of runoff on-site for a 25 approximately 1,825 cubic feet based on total 's footage hour storm event as calculated characteristics quare footage of impervious surface, soil pre -development runoff rate, and any discharge rate adopted by an appropriate drainage district. With the soils characteristic of the site, it is estimated that the pre - development runoff rate is 1 cubic foot/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 1 cubic foot/second and requiring retention of the 1,825 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements- apply only to residential development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. Concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste, and parks has been determined to be adequate for the proposed amendment. With the execution of the referenced developer's agreements for water and wastewater, the concurrency test will be satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with 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, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify 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 for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 13.3, 1.231 and 1.24. - 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 plan; - • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. 50 M Based upon its analysis, the staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets the criteria as stated above. On February 13, 1990, when the current Comprehensive Plan was approved, the plan assigned commercial uses to commercial nodes. These nodes were designated various sizes to reflect commercial demand within the -general market area of the node. Additionally, these nodes were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed suitable for commercial development. While the subject property was considered in the aggregate with other properties and was not included in the original node, a case could be made that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan. In fact staff's original position was that no mistake of oversight had occurred. Based upon Planning and Zoning Commission input, staff now feels that the current land use designation of the subject property does reflect a mistake or oversight. The specific mistake or oversight reflects the failure to consider the small size of the subject property and the constraints of developing a parcel of this size in this location residentially. Staff feels that if the subject property had been evaluated separately during plan development that the parcel would have been designated C/I. 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. In this case, the proposed expansion of Indian River .Boulevard to 53rd.Street constitutes a change that will affect this parcel directly. While the construction of Indian River Boulevard was programmed prior to plan adoption and therefore does not constitute a change, the proposed improvement of the 53rd Street/U.S. Highway #1 intersection is a change whose magnitude and effect on the subject property was not recognized during plan adoption. This expansion will have a substantial negative impact on any potential residential development on the subject property. Therefore, the third criterion of policy 13.3 has also been met, and the subject request is consistent with policy 13.3. - 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 701 of the land area (less rights of way) is developed or approved for development with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development. The intent of Policy 1.23 is toestablish specific criteria for node expansion. Without such =criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 701 standard then is a measure of whether a node needs to be, expanded. When the subject request was submitted, staff undertook an analysis to determine whether or not the request met the 701 development criterion to qualify for node expansion. Staff proceeded with 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. Using this method, staff determined that the total acreage in the node was 257 acres. Once the total node acreage was established, the next step was to determine the percent developed with non-agricultural and non- residential uses. Again, the staff used the Property Appraiser's information to do this. Based upon tax and use codes, staff determined which parcels were developed or approved for development with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, and then calculated the acreage of these parcels. Using this method, staff determined that the total non -agriculturally and non -residentially developed or approved to be developed acreage in the node was 101.8 acres (24.3 acres developed and 77.5 acres approved for development). 51 L_NOV 17 1992 BOOK 88 P �E 55 NOV 17 lo -o BOOK 8 8 FnuE 5.6 Based upon this analysis, it was determined that the total non - agriculturally and non -residentially developed land in the node constitutes approximately 39% of the node acreage. This is less than the 708 standard set by policy 1.23. However, policy 1.23 states that a node that is less than 708 developed may be 'expanded if otherwise warranted. Policy 1.23 specifically states that otherwise warranted may include certain conditions. One such condition is as follows: Expansion of a node is necessary to accommodate a substantial change in circumstances affecting a property adjacent to the node, where said change has had the effect of making the Property unsuitable for residential use. Such change could include establishment of an adjacent, incompatible use, or a significant change in adjacent development patterns due to an act of government such as road development and expansion. Since the extension of Indian River Boulevard, the widening of 53rd Street, and the expansion of the 53rd Street/U.S. Highway #1 intersection constitute substantial changes in circumstances affecting the subject property, and these changes have had the effect of making the property unsuitable for residential use, the subject request is consistent with policy 1.23. - Future Land Use Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its former designation if construction on the site has not commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement. This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that demand for additional C/I designated land is present before requests to expand nodes are approved. It also allows for the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of demand for more C/I'designated land. In this case, policy 1.24 will provide an incentive for the property to be developed if it is redesignated C/I. Compatibility -with the Surroundina Area It is staff's position that the subject property will be difficult to develop either residentially -,,or commercially because of its size. With a commercial land use designation the subject property would be compatible with most surrounding property. The land to the north and west of the subject property is designated for commercial and industrial uses on the county's future land use map, and commercial uses are already established on the adjacent properties to the south and north of the subject property. The principal impacts of commercial development on the subject property will be on the residentially designated land, presently used for groves, to the east of the subject property. There are, however, several circumstances which would serve to mitigate the potential impacts associated with this request. The first relates to the size of the parcel itself. Because the subject property is so small, development on it will be correspondingly small. Therefore, the impacts associated with commercial development on the subject property, such as traffic generation and noise, will also be relatively small. Also, since the adjacent residentially designated property is presently undeveloped, the site design for that property can address the existence of an adjacent commercial use. 52 M - sI M Another mitigating factor is the county's LDR requirement that all commercial development adjacent to residential development is required to provide buffering. The provision of adequate buffering is, however, difficult on small sites such as the subject property. With narrow, dense buffers and with proper design, _a commercial use on the subject property can achieve relative compatibility with the adjacent residential property. The final mitigating factor relates to site design. Since all commercial development is required to undergo site plan review, potential impacts can be further minimized with site design. For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment can be expected to be compatible with adjacent property. Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality In addition to a review of compatibility with surrounding uses and consistency with the comprehensive plan, environmental impacts of the proposed change have also been reviewed. Since the subject property contains no wetlands or. -native upland plant communities, and the property has been previously cleared, it is staff's determination that the proposed land use designation change would have no adverse impacts on site environmental conditions. Development of the property, in fact, would probably enhance the site, since any development would result in the removal of nuisance exotic plant species (Brazilian pepper), as required by county land development regulations and comprehensive plan conservation policies. Development of the Subject Property Under the current residential land use designation and zoning either a single-family home or a duplex could be built on the subject property. At 0.31 acres or 13,504 gross square feet, the site has the minimum lot area required under the current RM -6 zoning for both single- and multiple -family development, and the property's dimensions (100 feet X approximately 135 feet) are sufficient to accommodate the required setbacks for both single - and multiple -family homes. For the subject property, these setbacks are 25 feet along U.S. Highway #1, 53rd Street, and the rear property line, and 10 feet along the other property line. With the county height limitation of 35 feet, a second story could be built if more room were needed. A fence or vegetative buffer could shield any residences on the property from the road and commercial development. , With its present land use designation and zoning, the property could also be developed for other uses such as a Bed and Breakfast, a residential treatment center, a church, and others, all of which are special exception uses in multiple -family zoning districts. If the requested land use change and rezoning were granted, the required building setbacks would be 25 feet along U.S. Highway #1 and 53rd Street and range from 10 to 25 feet along the other two property lines, with the setback width in these areas dependent upon the buffer option chosen. Given the setback requirements and considering drainage and parking regulations, staff has estimated that the site could support a building with up to 2,400 square feet of floor area. A retail use on the site would result in a smaller building than an office use, if both maximized site development. With general commercial zoning and property size constraints, the most likely use of the property under the proposed land use and zoning would be a convenience store. Other possibilities would be a stand-alone retail establishment or a small office. With any use, however, the property size will require an efficient site design. Conclusion The requested land use designation is compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan, and meets all applicable concurrency criteria. The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for commercial uses, and the request has met all applicable criteria. For these reasons, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission support the request. Recommendation Based on its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve transmittal of this land use amendment to the Department of Community Affairs. 53 L_NUV I Y 1992 800K 88 PAuE � NOV 17 199-7 BOOK 88 Gr 58 Commissioner Bird anticipated that the DCA will question why we are rezoning this little corner when there is such a vast amount of residential behind it. Commissioner Adams recalled that the P&Z went over this very carefully as to how this property could be used before making a 4-1 recommendation for CG. Chairman Eggert wondered if maybe we should be looking at it on a broader scope in the interest of some flexibility. Director Keating noted that the tract to the east is large enough to develop residential and we don't anticipate a problem there. In addition, this does address an existing condition that has been there for awhile. Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, noted that the graphics do not show that immediately adjacent there is a non -conforming use, a grove service and a heavy equipment barn. On paper it may look inconsistent, but on the ground it is not inconsistent. Commissioner Macht cautioned that we might be painting ourselves into a corner if we don't take a more comprehensive look at the individual properties along the arteries, especially if we have flip-flopped back and forth from one to another. Chairman Eggert agreed that we should take a broader look in this area because of 53rd Street. She emphasized that we must look at what is going to happen there and on the north side. Commissioner Bird agreed that it is going to be a major intersection and probably will warrant some detailed studies. However, at this point we have the big question out there on whether or not the shopping mall will go forward. If that fails, we really need to go back and readdress that area. Director Keating advised that the shopping center developer has to submit a site plan by May, 1993 and either have the site plan approved or start construction by December, 1993. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-211, approving transmittal of a land use amendment to the IRC Comprehensive Plan to the DCA for their review. 54 RESOLUTION NO. 92-211 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY. AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1992 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local -Planning Agency -held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 22, 1992 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 17, 1992, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY'COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre) to Commercial/Industrial Node for i0.31 acres located at the southeast corner of 53rd Street and U.S. 1. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and seconded by Commissioner Adams and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert AyP Commissioner Fran Adams AyP Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Ken Macht AyP Commissioner John W. Tippin AyP The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 17 day of November 1992. BOARD 07 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Z 4 '0 1. Caroly K. Egqe , Chairman ATTEST: L Jeff ey .art , Clerk / .C. u\v\j\cpres.lrk 55 L!NOV t( 199Box 88 F.* 5-9 -7 BOOK SS 60 PUBLIC HEARING - TREVOR SMITH, ET AL REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 1.86 ACRES FROM L-2 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE FROM RS -6 TO CL The hour of 9:00 A.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly advertised, as follows: 4 FOMMUNIIY P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, 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 newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that Q 'e c .3�-3 "' CC billed t 6444 ­ was GGt�r aliYc�+ ft was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) OL "X.,&o/o. / 9 9 07— Sworn Z Sworn to and subscribed before beeffore me this day of i v ``fi+�r�G�– A.D Business Manager (SEAL) I d Meuse CrMo.leM�d IYrM� 56 se is id et a 4 sr A B it d a d NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of land within the unincor- porated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the pro- . posal will be held on Tuesday, November 17, 1992, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build - Vero Beach Florida. At this public . Build - Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, • hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the State Department of Com-` munity Affairs for their review. The proposed amendments are in- cluded in the proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COM-.. MERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (77TH STREET. TO 69TH _ STREET) FROM +-180 ACRES TO +-195-ACRES; BY EN- LARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUS- TRIAL NODE (57TH STREET TO 49TH STREET) FROM +-257. ACRES TO +-257.31 ACRES; AND BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (VERO BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8TH STREET) FROM +-213 ACRES TO +-214.86 ACRES, AND PROVIDING 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 applications 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 a:m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS. 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. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordi- nator at 567-8000, Extension 408 at least 48 hours it •advance of meeting. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman Subject L-2 Property C/1 73rd T Chi N ` � Subject XX7�' Property c/1 _SUBJECT c/1 PROPERTY O M-1 S r ,L _ ` a 57 OV - It1992, BOOK 88 61 L BOOK 62 Community Development Director Robert Keating presented the following staff recommendation that the Board deny transmittal of this land use amendment to the DCA and deny the request to rezone: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert r. Reatin , Al THRU: Sasan RohanP', Chief, LongPlanning FROM: John WachteStaff Planng-Range Planning DATE: November 9, 1992 RE: Trevor Smith and others Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approximately 1.86 acres from L-2 to C/I, and to Rezone from RS -6 to CL (LURA 92-07-0160) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 17, 1992. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 1.86 acres. The subject property is located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway between 8th Street and 9th Street. It consists of six parcels, each separately owned. The owners are Trevor Smith, Phyllis Smith, Robert W. Wood, Beth Wood, Michael Jaholkowski, Ruby L. Albritton, and Susan L. Thomas. The request includes changing the land use designation from L-2, Low -Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CL, Limited Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property with commercial uses. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to the state Department of Community Affairs for their review. If transmittal is denied, the related rezoning request must be denied, since the property's zoning must be consistent with its land use designation. If, however, transmittal is approved, then action on the rezoning must be delayed until final adoption 'of the comprehensive plan amendment. In January 1991s, Trevor Smith, the owner of the northern -most parcel of the subject Property, applied to have his parcel's land use designation changed to C/I. After consideration of this 58 request, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request. On May 21, 1991, the Board unanimously followed that recommendation and denied transmittal of the request to the Department of Community Affairs. With respect to the present request, the Planning and Zoning Commission, 'on October 22, 1992, voted 3-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the land use amendment request to the state Department of Community Affairs.for their .review. Although.a majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the amendment request, Section 103.02.12 of the County Code of Laws and Ordinances states that any matter or application considered by a board or commission with more than 5 members must receive four or more votes for passage. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission has seven members and the subject application received only three affirmative votes, the favorable recommendation technically failed. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District. Two of these lots are vacant. The other four are developed with single-family homes. The parcel across 9th Street, to the north of the subject property is zoned CL,_ Limited Commercial, and contains a small retail plaza. To the west of the subject property are lots within the Ridge Acres Subdivision. This neighborhood is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, and contains single-family homes. The properties across 8th Street, south of the subject property are within the Reams Glen Subdivision. This neighborhood is also zoned RS -61 Single -Family Residential District, and contains single-family homes. To the east, across Old Dixie Highway, the land is zoned CH, Heavy Commercial. Most of this area, however, is used as a mobile home park (a non -conforming use). Knight and Mathis Company's metal f0bricating plant, along Old Dixie Highway near 9th Street, is also in this area. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential, on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential densities up to 6 units per acre. All properties to the west and south are also designated L-2. Properties to the east and north are designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial. which permits commercial and industrial zoning designations. Environment The property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan; no wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. Existing vegetation on undeveloped portions of the property consists largely of nuisance exotic Brazilian pepper and Australian pine. A few scattered native trees are on the overall property as part of single-family home landscapes. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard areas. 59 NOV 171992 eo®K �., � 6� L A r NOV I 1992 Utilities and Services BOOK The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Water Plant. Wastewater lines extend to the site from the City of Vero Beach Wastewater Plant. Transportation System The property abuts Old Dixie Highway to the east, 9th Street to the north, and 8th Street to the south. Old Dixie Highway is classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Old Dixie Highway is a two-lane paved road with approximately 80 feet of existing public road right of way. Old Dixie Highway is programmed for expansion to 4 lanes and 100. feet of public right of way by 2010. Eighth* Street is classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 8th Street is a two-lane paved road with approximately 80 feet of existing public road right of way. Ninth Street is a two-lane paved local road with approximately 60 feet of existing public road right of way. The northern -most property also abuts 10th Avenue which is a two- lane unpaved local road with approximately 70 feet of existing public road right of way. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. This section will also consider alternatives -for development of the site. . Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, 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 and Land Development Regulations also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable 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. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 60 the requested zoning district or land use designation. For commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Property 2. Size of Area to be Redesignated and Rezoned: 3. Existing Zoning Classification: 4. Existing Land Use Designation: 5. Proposed Zoning Classification: 6. Proposed Land Use Designation: 7. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under existing Land Use Designation: ±1.86 acres ±1.86 acres RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) L-2, Low -Density Residential - (up to 6 units/acre) CL, Limited Commercial District C/I, Commercial - Industrial Node 12 dwelling units (DU) S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 18,600 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual) - Transportation A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on Old Dixie Highway and other impacted roads would not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is as follows: 61 0V : 7 199 eooK 88 fa�� Existing Land Use and Zoning 1. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 12 DU X 9.55 trip ends/DU (based on the ITE Manual) = 115 2. P.M. Peak Hour Trip ends: 12 DU X 1 trip/DU (based on the ITE Manual) = 12 a. Inbound: 65% or 8 (based on Local Measurements) b. Outbound: 35% or 4 (based on Local Measurements) Proposed Land Use and Zoning 1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center 2. For structures 10400 to 20,000 square feet (based upon locally measured trip generating data): 61 0V : 7 199 eooK 88 fa�� �,j ov 171992 BOOK 88 P,� E 66 a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 108.5/1000 gross sq. ft. b. 5-6 p.m. -Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends: 20.5/1000 gross sq. ft. 3. Formula for Determining Total New Trip Ends: Total Square Footage X Vehicle Trip Rate (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) a. Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 18,600 X 108.5/1000 = 2,018 b. Total P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 18,600 X 20.5/1000 = 381 c. Percentage New Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 65% (based on Local Evaluation) d. New Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 0.65 X 2,018 = 1,312 . e. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 0.65 X 381 = 248 - Inbound: 53% (based on ITE Manual) or 131 - Outbound: 47% (based on ITE Manual) or 117 4. Peak Direction of Old Dixie Highway, from 8th Street to 12th Street: Northbound 5. Traffic Capacity on Old Dixie Highway, from 8th Street to 12th Street at a Level of Service "D": 830 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 6. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of Old Dixie Highway: 504 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under .the present zoning is 115. This was determined by multiplying the 12 DU's (most intense use) by ITE's factor of 9.55 Average Daily Trip Ends/DU- The number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trip ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning is eight. This was determined by taking 65% (local measurement) of 12 DU's (most intense use) multiplied by ITE's factor of 1 peak hour trip end/DU. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use is 2,018. This was determined by multiplying 18,600 square feet of Shopping Use (most intense use) by a locally measured factor of 108.5 Average Weekday Trip Ends/1000 square feet. The number of P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use is 381. This- was determined by multiplying 18,600 square feet of Shopping Center Use (most intense use) by a locally measured factor of 20.5 Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 square feet. Local evaluation has determined that 658 of the trip ends associated with the most intense use of the subject -property under the requested land use will be new trip ends. Therefore, 65% of the 2,018 Average Weekday Trip Ends, or 1,312, will be new. Similarly, 65%, or 248, of the 381 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use will be new. 62 According to ITE, 47%, or 117, of the New P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends will be outbound, and 53$, or 131, will be inbound. Therefore, the most intense use*of the subject property under the requested land use will generate 131 new p.m. peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips. This is 123 more than the eight generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the present zoning. 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 G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of Old Dixie Highway adjacent to this site is 830 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Service "D", while the existing peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume on this segment of Old Dixie Highway is 504 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 123 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of Old Dixie Highway to approximately 627. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that Old Dixie Highway and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service. Impacted roads 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 projected traffic associated with the request..' TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Roadway Segment Road From To segment Capacity LOS "D" 1305 U.S. 1 S. County Line Oslo Road 2300 1310 U.S. 1 Oslo Road 4th St. 0 IRB 2220 1315 U.S. 1 4th St. 0 IRB 8th Street 2270 1320 U.S. 1 8th St. 12th St. 2270 1325 U.S. 1 12th St. S. VBC Limits 2370 1330 U.S. 1 S. VBC Limits 17th at. 2270 2030 16th St. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 830 2040 16th St. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 830 2050 16th St. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy: 970 2060 16th/17th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. 1 970 2110 17th St. U.S. 1 Indian Riv. Blvd. 1990 2230 12th St. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 830 2240 12th St. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 830 2250 12th St. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 830 2260 12th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. 1 830 2305 Old Dixie Hwy. S. County Line Oslo Road 630 2310 Old Dixie Hwy. Oslo Road 4th St. @ IRB 830 2315 Old Dixie Hwy. 4th St. 0 IRB 8th St. 830 2320 Old Dixie Hwy. 8th St. 12th St. 830 2325 Old Dixie Hwy. 12th St. S. VBC Limits 830 2330 Old Dixie Hwy. S. VBC Limits 17th St. 830 2550 Oslo Road 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 630 63 BOOK F.l;t NOV 1Y 1992 r- BOOK FF,r NOV 17 1992 �� 68 2560 Oslo Road 27th Ave. 20th Ave.- 830 2570 Oslo Road 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 830 2580 Oslo Road Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. 1 830 2810 20th Ave. Oslo Road 4th St. @ IRB 630 2820 20th Ave. 4th St. @ IRB 8th St. 630 2830 20th Ave. 8th St. 12th St. 630 2840 20th Ave. 12th St. S. VBC Limits 1760 4840 8th St. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 630 4850 4860 8th St. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 830 4870 8th St. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 830 8th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. 1 830 4940 4th St. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 630 4950 4960 4th St. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 630 4970 4th St. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 630 4th St. Old Dixie Hwy. U.S. 1 630 Existing Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 1305 1102 56 1158 1142 7 Y 1310 1526 43 1569 651 10 Y 1315 1526 42 1568 702 7 Y 1320 1526 44 1570 700 14 Y 1325 1526 58 1584 786 10 Y 1330 1341 57 1398 872 4 Y 2030 337 32 369 461 4 Y 2040 463 33 496 334 7 Y 2050 - 851 30 881 89 7 Y 2060 851 19 870 100 7 Y 2110 680 19 699 1291 4 Y 2230 225 13 238 592 5 Y 2240 400 11 411 419 11 Y Roadway Existina Existing Demand Total Available Positive Segment Volume Vested Volume Segment Segment Project Concurrency Demand Capacity Demand Determination 2250 2260 400 527 13 413 417 17 Y 2305 180 23 65 550 245 280 385 17 9 Y 2310 2315 427 432 20 447 383 17 Y Y 2320 504 29 28 461 532 369 298 31 61 Y 2325 441 46 487 343 28 Y Y 2330 2550 441 265 56 20 497 333 14 Y 2560 265 , " 17 285 282 345 548 2 4 Y 2570 360 41 401 429 5 Y Y 2580 2810 414 144 15 429 401 4 Y 2820 274 56 18 200 292 430 338 2 4 y 2830 310 10 320 310 4 Y Y 2840 4840 297 193 4 23 301 1459 2 Y 4850 342 19 216 361 414 469 5 9 y 4860 4870 342 351 33 375 455 16 y Y 4940 216 38 17 389 233 441 397 16 Y 4950 315 23 338 292 2 4 Y Y 4960 4970 315 26 341 589 7 Y 450 14 464 166 7 y - Water A retail commercial use of 18,600 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 5.58 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,395 gallons per day. This is based upon a level of service standard of 250 gallons per ERU per day. Water is available from the South County Plant. Lines run near the subject property along Old Dixie Highway, 8th Street, and 9th Street. The South County Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,500,000 gallons per day. Prior to consideration of this request.by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the county which states -that the developer agrees to connect to the county water system at the time of development. This satisfies the potable water concurrency test for the subject property. M - Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 5.58 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,099 gallons per day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 197 gallons per ERU per day. The City of Vero Beach Wastewater Plant currently has a remaining capacity of more than 1,850,000 gallons per day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. Prior to consideration by the Board of County Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to connect to the county wastewater system at the time of development or when the county wastewater system is available. This satisfies the wastewater concurrency test for the subject property. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes, pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For an 18,600 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 93 waste generation units (WGU) or 276 cubic yards of solid waste per year. A WGU is a waste generation unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste per year. While WGU's are units of Measurement which can be applied to either commercial or residential uses, WGU's must be considered in terms of residential units in order to corresvond to the countv's solid waste level of service standards. According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6,WGU's per .unit. With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards per person per year and the county's average of two persons per unit, each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 people (2/1.6 = 1.25) and 2.9625 cubic yards of solid waste per year (1.25 X 2.37). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the proposed land use amendment, staff utilized the following formula: Total number of WGU's X 1.25 X 2.37 (93 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 276 cubic yards 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 3 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Any development on the subject property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property is not within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards do apply. With the most intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface for the proposed request will be approximately 60,766 square feet. In order to maintain the applicant will be required of runoff on-site for a 25 based on total square �Nov i'r,ss2 county's adopted level of service, the to retain approximately 6,750 cubic feet year/24 hour storm event as calculated footage of impervious surface, soil 65 -- BOOK 88 P,, GE 6- r-NOV17199 BOOK 88 PIF 70 characteristics, pre -development runoff rate, and any discharge rate adopted by an appropriate drainage district. With the soils characteristic of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 4.4 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 4.4 cubic feet per second and requiring retention of the 61750 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. Concurrency for drainage, roads, solid waste, and parks has been determined to be adequate for the proposed amendment. With the execution of the referenced developer's agreements for water and wastewater, the concurrency test will be satisfied for the subject request. Consistency with 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, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the action 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 several plan policies. A review of this requested change reveals major inconsistencies with these policies. - Future Land Use Policy 13.3 The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a Comprehensive.Plan land use amendment. These criteria are: an oversight in the approved plan; a mistake in the approved plan; - a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject Property. The staff believes that the proposed land use amendment does not meet any of the three criteria. M Prior to the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 19901 the subject property's land use designation was mixed use. The 1982 Comprehensive Plan explains that the mixed use district designation is for areas with no dominant land use pattern. Old Dixie was identified as one such area because of its mix of residential, commercial and industrial uses. For all such mixed use areas, the 1982 Comprehensive Plan provided that zoning would control land use. This plan also stated that the zoning should be established based upon the predominate land uses in the area. For the Old Dixie area, this has historically resulted in residential zoning on the west side of Old Dixie Highway and non-residential on the east. One exception to that pattern is the area north of the subject property, across 9th Street, which is an extension of the 12th Street/Old Dixie commercial area. Even in this case, 9th Street has served as a hard, man-made, 60 -foot wide buffer and dividing line between commercial and residential areas. With the adoption of the revised Comprehensive Plan, the mixed use district land use designation was eliminated. Areas formerly designated as mixed use were designated as either residential or commercial/industrial in the new plan. Because the west side of Old Dixie Highway, south of 9th Street, including the subject property, was zoned for and developed as single-family residential, the new land use plan designated this area as L-2 for low density residential uses. Since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted, no changes have occurred which would warrant amending the plan for the subject property. Therefore, the criteria referenced in Future Land Use Policy 13.3 have not been met. This fact was reinforced in 1991. In January of that year, Trevor Smith, the owner of the northern -most parcel of the subject _property, applied. to have his parcel's land use designation changed to C/I. On April ll,, 1991, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request. On May 21, 1991, the Board unanimously followed that recommendation and denied transmittal of the request to the Department of Community Affairs. There have been no changes in circumstances affecting the subject property since this action was taken. Historically, residential development has been feasible on the west side of Old Dixie, and it still is. In fact, single-family residences exist on the west side of Old Dixie to the south of the subject property almost the entire length of the road. Changing past policy and amending the plan for this request would affect every other parcel on the west side of and abutting Old Dixie Highway. Circumstances are not substantially different for other such parcels south of 8th Street on the west side of Old Dixie Highway. Parcels on the west side of Old Dixie and south of 8th Street are also located across the street from commercial areas. Since other parcels on the west side of Old Dixie are characterized by circumstances similar to the 'subject site, it is anticipated that approval of the subject request would result in comprehensive plan amendment requests for those other parcels. A domino effect could then occur with the entire west side of Old Dixie being designated as commercial. The subject request has, in fact, proved this domino effect. In 1991, only one lot owner requested a C/I land use designation. The present request, however, increases the area proposed for redesignation to the entire block of Old Dixie Highway from 9th Street to 8th Street. 67 w POCK 10!/ 1997 jr. pr�NOV 17 1992 - Future Land Use Policy 1.21 BOOK 88 Pa IGF 72 The proposed land use change would also be inconsistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21. This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate commercial strip development and urban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. It is staff's position that a change in the subject property's land use designation would conflict with Future Land Use Policy 1.21. The proposed land use change, as well as the predicted domino effect, would result in strip commercial development along Old Dixie Highway. Under the requested designation, there are two alternatives for development of the subject property. The first alternative would involve developing each lot separately. The second alternative would involve consolidating the lots and developing one commercial building on the site. In each circumstance, strip commercial development would result. - Future Land Use Policy 1.23 Future Land Use Policy 1.23 allows for the expansion of commercial/ industrial nodes that meet certain criteria. Among thes,.,, criteria is the requirement that 70% of the total land area (less rights-of-way) be developed with, or approved for development of, non-residential and non-agricultural uses. In this case, the subject commercial/industrial node meets these criteria. According to staff analysis, approximately 69% of the node is developed. While this development percentage is sufficient to meet policy 1-.23 requirements, consistency with this one policy does not compel the county to expand the node if doing so conflicts with other policies of the Comprehensive Plan. In this case, expanding the node to include the subject property conflicts with Future Land Use Policies 1.21 and 13.3. The 70% criterion allows for node expansion, but only in a manner that would not promote strip development. Expanding nodes in linear patterns is indicative of strip development, while expanding nodes in a compact manner is usually not strip development. Another consideration relating to the proposed request is the amount of commercially designated land already existing within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County. Currently, the county has over 5,300 acres of commercially and industrially designated land. Of that, only 2,800 acres of the commercial/ industrial land is projected to be needed for the county by the year 2010, leaving #21500 excess acres of commercial/ industrial land. This fact indicates that no additional commercial/ industrial land is needed at present. - Future Land Use Policy 10.1 Future Land Use Policy 10.1 states that land uses which are non- conforming with the Comprehensive Plan or the LDR's should gradually be eliminated. The requested (CL) zoning district includes a requirement that lot widths be a minimum of 100 feet. If the requested land use and zoning were granted, two of the six parcels would be non -conforming in their current configuration. These parcels have less than the minimum lot width allowed by the LDRs. Therefore, granting this request would conflict with policy 10.1 by creating, instead of eliminating, non -conforming uses. C:f3 J" AP Compatibility with the Surrounding Area The potential impact of the subject request upon surrounding land uses is an important issue concerning this property. The subject property is located adjacent to the Ridge Acres Subdivision, a single-family residential community with homes on both sides of unpaved 10th Avenue. A land use change for the subject property would have three negative impacts upon the single-family residences in the area. First, there would be a lack of compatibility between the single- family development and the subject property. Given the type of uses allowed by the requested commercial land use designation and the limited depth of the subject property, there is no question that these uses would be incompatible with the adjacent single- family homes. Because of the narrow width of the subject property, it would be difficult to install an adequate buffer on-site to protect the adjacent residential area from the noise, lights, and other effects associated with commercial uses. These uses would be an intrusion into the residential neighborhood. While the land use to the north and east of the subject property is commercial/industrial, physical separation and buffering are provided by 9th Street and Old Dixie Highway. The second negative impact from the proposed land use amendment involves more than the property itself; it relates to the entire area south of the site along Old Dixie Highway. The entire area would be affected, because a change in land use designation allowing commercial development on the subject property would provide an impetus for other property owners to submit comprehensive plan amendment requests for a commercial/industrial land use designation. The result of this would be a domino effect, with commercial/ industrial land use designations all along the west side of Old Dixie Highway. As a result, compatibility problems would develop with other parcels to the south of the subject property and west of Old Dixie Highway. The third negative impact from the request involves the potential intrusion of commercial traffic into the Ridge Acres area. With a _change in the land use designation of the subject property, traffic flow through the Ridge Acres Subdivision via 10th Avenue could occur. This would result in adverse impacts upon surrounding homeowners. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality In addition to compatibility and consistency reviews, staff has also assessed the potential environmental impacts of the proposed change. It is staff's position that the proposed zoning and land use change would have no significant adverse impacts on the environmental quality of the subject property, in that no native uplands or wetlands exist on site. In accordance with LDR Chapter 929, all nuisance exotic vegetation must be removed in conjunction with site development. M NOV J 7 1992 Poor 73 r"- Oo®K �J V Pa�F 74 NOV 17 1992 Development of the Subject Property Each lot comprising the subject 'property is appropriate for a single-family home as allowed under the current land use designation and zoning. Single-family homes are already on four of the six lots. The northern -most parcel could comfortably accommodate a house on the western half of the lot, facing 10th avenue. Vegetation and/or a fence could buffer this property from commercial uses to the north and east. The other parcels are surrounded by residential uses. These parcels face land that is commercially designated but used as a Mobile Home Park, a residential use. If the owner was so inclined, the southern -most parcel could accommodate a house facing 8th Street -and the single-family neighborhood to the south. Alternatives There are three alternatives which the Board of County Commissioners can take concerning this request. The first is to deny transmittal -of this amendment to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). Staff supports this alternative. The second alternative is to approve transmittal of this amendment to the DCA for their review. The third alternative is to deny transmittal of the land use amendment, but rezone the land to a more intense use allowed under the present, L-21 land use designation. Practically, this would allow multiple -family zoning, such as RM -6, without allowing an increase in density. If the property owners consolidate their separate parcels, an RM -6 zoning designation would allow multi- family development on the subject property. Conclusion The subject property is located in an area designated for low density single-family residential development. With its present zoning and land use designation, the subject property is compatible with the surrounding single-family development. With the requested zoning and land use designation, it would not be. Historically, Old Dixie Highway has been the boundary between residential land uses on its west side and commercial land uses on its east side. In evaluating this request for a land use amendment and rezoning, the staff has determined that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. There was no oversight or mistake in the approved plan, nor has there been a change in circumstances affecting the subject property, which would warrant _approval of a comprehensive plan amendment. In addition, approval of the subject request would promote strip commercial development along the west side of Old Dixie Highway. Despite the Planning and Zoning Commission's 3-2 vote in favor of the proposed land use amendment, staff does not support the request to change the site's current land use designation for the reasons stated above. Recommendation Based on its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny transmittal of this land use amendment to the Department of Community Affairs and deny the request to rezone. 70 IN s � _I Director Keating explained that the subject property was designated for Mixed Use in the old Comp Plan, which meant that there was a mixture of uses and that the land use was going to be driven by the zoning in the new Comp Plan. Old Dixie Highway generally has been the boundary between residential on the west side and commercial on the east side. Commissioner Bird inquired about the improvements that are planned for Old Dixie Highway in that area, and Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that we are planning to 3 -lane Old Dixie between 1st Street SW and SR -60, about a 3 -mile strip. We have $150,000 earmarked to begin engineering, probably at the end of this fiscal year. We will be looking at getting some consulting design services. The problem we have on Old Dixie is right-of-way availability. A lot of our projects are driven by purchasing right-of-way, and when you go to rezone properties, that has a tremendous effect on the value of the right-of-way. Commissioner Macht asked how much right-of-way would be needed in front of the subject properties, but Director Davis didn't know the exact needs for this particular location. He explained that we are looking at an 80 -ft. corridor of right-of-way for Old Dixie Highway. In some areas, we have 50 feet and in some areas we have even less, so it could mean as much as another 15-20 feet of frontage off the subject properties. Commissioner Adams asked the depth of Trevor Smith's northern- most piece, and Director Keating advised that it is 158 feet and the narrowest part of all the property is 110 feet. Commissioner Adams recalled that the P&Z looked at a buffer with CL which requires a minimum of 20 feet. Our buffering requirements are such that you can have a narrower buffer if you provide more density, but 20 feet is the minimum. Commissioner Bird felt that Public Works would like to see an elimination of so many curb cuts on Old Dixie. Unfortunately, in this situation where you have individual lots zoned either commercial or residential, they are grandfathered in. Unless they were all combined into some overall project, as multi -family residential might give you the ability to do, you are still going to have 6 curb cuts there. Chairman Eggert opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett advised that this application is being brought by Trevor & Phyllis Smith, Robert & Beth Wood, Michael Jaholkowski, Ruby L. Albritton and Susan L. Thomas. 71 BOOK 88 J 5 r-rNOV 17 1997 BOOK 88 PA76 Chairman Eggert advised that a copy of the letter from Robert & Beth Wood would be inserted in the Minutes of this meeting. Robert and. lith Wood 420 1.2t.h Ill.. SD, Vero Branch, 111r 3:!'962 November 1:3. i1492 County Commissioners 11340 25th St. Vero Beach, FL B2960 RE: Rezoning of Pro.gerty between 8L)i and ,►th street on tike Dixie Nwy. Dear Commissioner: Plense give us a momeent: of your t, imp. First, let, ti:o i ritrrirltvT -e ourse.l ves. I ( Bob Wood) own Lew Wooc1 and Associates :tnrl my wife (140,11 Wory-J) wor. kr, with me in this fami.i.v awned btisirrnsc.i. W, -t are R 3rd r-iierat.ion Licensed master plumbing rnntr;#Aor. Lew Wood aTid Ar (-.)ei;0-.es lias bi,�Pri serving. south Florida since 1949. We have beery ire btisi.ii4TF3s in Vera He.ach for the past 1.3 yeF�rH. We own the nort liwest r,-orner of 8t -h st:rr,et .-inti Old f ii.x i r- al otig With thcu, next ajst-Aning lot and houso to the ririr•th. We wniild Like v­ry mitt)► to havn this property rezoned so t.liat our of f i.re could he re lora I.er t . Tlils would be a miich more convenient location for uiir cies!-, mier s. We- lived In the house al. 835 011-1 lrixiR while wr? were k.ii bling niir new home. After living t:herP for ever 1 year, We. caTi pAt•: ona.l].y at.te.rat, this is not a desirable residential. t)rorerty.' 'Liue to (Ain Lraffic• flaw from l.:th through 13th street i.ncliiding: r?xhaust: fumes from pent. -,Le st.opiiig* at the .light., cares bottles thrown in ttio yard, and the danNPr• of the nary:. (.-omi.i)g through your, house and yard as they were always running Him' ] ight, m-rl:i.nrs .it e0pe-Cially unsafe for chiteirPri .;rrr.l pats. When .oil Im-k at- t-he� a,i�.rining commercial properties, it's very Ii.ard to believe thlB tract is still residential. We urge you to personally take a drive by this j►ropert:.y. . Nit yourselves in our "shoes" and consider .for a moniPTit, tli i t: you own this property. Would you want to own any of the homes and/or prr;pertie3s for residential side?nt:ial use. Thank you for you time. October 22, 1992. Thank you, Robert and Beth Wood We hope that we c -in 'conn. on Nrour niipport ori P.S. We would .tile t(-) Hia.nk Fran (Adams fnt- her sirF-port, for approval with ttie Planning and Zoning board. 72 W - Attorney Barkett emphasized that we are dealing with only 1.86 acres here and that any kind of large scale residential development on these individual lots is not possible. He circulated - photographs -of the existing commercial uses in the area, noting that the existing mobile home park is a non -conforming use because the zoning there is heavy commercial. He pointed out that the Comp Plan calls for Old Dixie Highway to be 4 lanes by the year 2000. After giving a brief review of the history of the area, he emphasized that no new residential structures have been built there in years. The uses that have happened are all commercial or industrial. No one wants to live there. The people who are there now do not want to live there; they feel it is not safe because of the heavy traffic on Old Dixie Highway. He felt that 8th Street is the physical barrier to stop the encroachment of commercial, not 9th Street. Attorney Barkett advised that Mr. & Mrs. Smith have been here before; they had an old residence on their property and were brought before the Code Enforcement Board. Mr. Smith tried to get financing to fix up the property, but could not because no lender would touch it with the residential zoning. The Smith's appeared before the P&Z last year with the request for heavy commercial zoning on their 1/3 -acre parcel. They were told by the P&Z Commission that heavy commercial use all around warranted some relief, but not heavy commercial because of the Ridge Acres Subdivision, and that perhaps some alternative should be applied for. That is why they are here today with a request for Limited Commercial. Mr. Tippin noted to Mr. Smith at that P&Z meeting that perhaps the way to do this would not be by a single lot application, but rather a combined effort with his neighbors. That is what happened. All of the neighbors who front on Old Dixie Highway in that area have brought in a larger application. Attorney Barkett pointed out that the P&Z Commission is recommending that the Board approve the transmittal of this application to the DCA. The applicants have met their burden; they have done what they have been asked to do. Attorney Barkett emphasized that it is not reasonable to expect single-family development at this location and that it is not financially possible to rehabilitate the structures there. He could understand that the residents in Ridge Acres love to have this property buffering them from Old Dixie Highway, but it is not fair to his clients to have their property used as a buffer. As it stands now, their property cannot be used for commercial and it is not feasible for residential. Attorney Barkett stressed that the applicants have met their burden in coming before the Board with an 73 LNGV 17 1992 8001( 88 E tj 4 r- NOV 17 199 BOOK 88 P'V;r 7 application they were given to believe should receive favorable consideration. Commissioner Bird asked if a buffer would be required if this were rezoned to Limited Commercial, and Director Keating advised that a Type C buffer would be required in the rear. Commissioner Macht asked if there are some zoning options available if the land use is changed, and discussion turned to the options available with Office Commercial Residential (OCR) or Professional Residential Office (PRD). It was noted that OCR allows more retail than PRO. Karl Brubaker, resident of Ridge Acres, first read aloud a letter from Dell Walker supporting the opposition of the residents in the surrounding neighborhood to the proposed rezoning to commercial. Mr. Brubaker pointed out that new homes have been built on the west side of Old Dixie Highway, and circulated pictures of homes built recently, including one built within the last 6 months just south of 2nd Street fronting Old Dixie Highway across from commercial property. He felt that to say there has not been any residential built within recent years is incorrect. In addition, Mr. Brubaker commented that all the property owners trying to rezone purchased their property speculating that it would go commercial at some time in the future. However, they bought their property knowing it was zoned residential. Mr. Brubaker emphasized that this is an existing neighborhood and he has lived there 34 years. As far as traffic goes on Old Dixie Highway, commercial use generates more daily trips than residential. Another drawback to the rezoning is that the nearby residences will depreciate in value. With regard to new residential going up, the property across from 10th Avenue can be used for a new residence. Tenth Avenue has a lot of children. Across the street is zoned commercial, but the mobile home park is there and it is a well -kept park. It would be detrimental to both established neighborhoods to have commercial there. Mr. Brubaker pointed out that in one of the photographs being circulated, there is a dumpster within arms length of the residential property line. In addition, Mrs. Watson's house would have commercial on two sides. In conclusion, Mr. Brubaker maintained that it is not necessary to rezone the subject property and that you cannot separate 10th Avenue from the subject property. He urged the Board to stop commercial at 9th Street and keep their neighborhood quiet. Susan Thomas, 837 Old Dixie Highway, stated that they bought their home in a wooded area in 1963 and raised three children there, but now no one wants to buy their house. Her son doesn't even want to raise his family there. Her property is the largest 74 piece on Old Dixie Highway, and she hoped the Board would look at the entire length of Old Dixie Highway. She wanted to stress that she didn't buy her property to make a profit; she bought it for the - reason of making a home for her three children. She didn't feel the property was- suited for residential any longer because the area is all fenced in and children have to play in their own yards. She understood the objections of the nearby residents and their desire to see their property buffered from Old Dixie Highway, but she believed they are too close to Old Dixie Highway to buffer anything. She urged the Board to rezone their property to commercial. Trevor Smith, owner of the most northern piece of the subject property, strongly objected to Mr. Brubaker's remark that all the property owners have purchased this property for gain or speculation. He emphasized that this property has been in his family for 24 years. His sister lived on the property for many years; she had 3 children, but it became very difficult to live there and she moved to another residential area. He tried renting the home out, but people didn't want to rent there with all the traffic and commercial use. As time went on, the house was vandalized and the Code Enforcement people said to either fix it up or take it down. However, he could not get any loans to fix up the residence and opted to knock his house down. Mr. Smith noted that he has been paying -taxes for 3 years on this vacant lot that cannot be used for anything as long as it remains in residential zoning. There are nice homes back in Ridge Acres, but they have the opportunity to come out on 10th Avenue whereas all of the owners on Old Dixie only can get onto Old Dixie. He urged the Board to approve the transmittal of their land use amendment request to Tallahassee. William Larson, 10th Avenue in Ridge Acres, maintained that the area is still feasible for residential. He pointed out that the northern -most lot does come to 10th Avenue, and across the street from his lot are two undeveloped lots where he understands the owner plans to build a new home on the two lots. In addition, there is a new subdivision around on 9th Street. Mr. Larson felt that everyone realizes that the west side of Old Dixie Highway is residential and that the east side is commercial. He believed that if this property is rezoned, the next group could come in and continue the commercial all the way down Old Dixie Highway. He urged the Board to stop the advance of commercial on the west side of Old Dixie Highway. Vance Walker, 10th Court, advised that his son owns Lot #30 in 10th Court and has a 20 -ft. easement. If this is rezoned, he 75 NOV i l 1992'BOOK BOOK -,AGE NOV 171992 expected 10 more feet would come off that easement. He urged the Board to deny the rezoning. Beverly Brubaker stated that she lives on the corner of 10th Avenue and 8th Street. She pointed out that the area has become commercial north of 9th Street where there is a big parking area, and she understood that if this property is rezoned, they plan something similar. Mrs. Brubaker expressed her worry about the buffering on her corner and asked that the Board not give commercial zoning to the lot on 10th Avenue. Gus Kern, 856 10th Avenue, felt that if this property is rezoned, he will have commercial right next to his bedroom. He believed Mr. Trevor Smith wouldn't be in the spot he is in now if had spent his time fixing up that house. Mrs. Watson, corner of 8th Street and Old Dixie Highway, emphasized that if this property is rezoned, she would have commercial on two sides of her residence. She urged the Board to deny the commercial zoning request. Brenda Smith, 855 Old Dixie Highway, advised that she has lived there on her brother's property for it years and believed there must be some relief for those residences directly facing Old Dixie Highway. Bob Wood, 420 12th Place SE, explained that he lived along Dixie Highway for one year and does not feel it is suitable for residential any longer. He believed residential is not consistent with the existing uses and would like to locate his plumbing business there. He urged the Board to approve the rezoning request. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the Public Hearing. Commissioner Adams felt this is not an easy issue for anyone and that somehow we have to work together. She recalled that the primary concern of the P&Z was buffering and they discussed the matter at length. It disturbed her greatly to see a photograph of a dumpster within arms length of residential. The P&Z went over this twice and suggested it not be rezoned for just the one lot on the corner, that they come back as a group because it does entail a great cost. Commissioner Macht felt the arguments on both sides are good, but that the arguments made by Mr. Brubaker are persuasive. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, that the Board deny the 76 transmittal of the land use amendment request to the DCA in Tallahassee. -. Under discussion, Commissioner Bird explained that he seconded the Motion in order to state his feelings that single-family residential use probably is not the long term use of the subject property. Attorney Barkett pointed out that if the Board denies transmittal of the requested land use amendment, the applicants cannot request another land use such as Office Commercial Residential (OCR) until a year has passed. Commissioner Bird felt that OCR would be considered more acceptable. COMMISSIONER MACHT WITHDREW HIS MOTION AND COMMISSIONER BIRD WITHDREW HIS SECOND. The Commission agreed to transmit the Comp Plan amendment with the understanding that when it comes back to the Board for rezoning no greater zoning than OCR will be considered. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 92-212 approving the transmittal of the land use amendment request to the DCA in Tallahassee with the recommendation that the land use be changed to a lower intensity such as OCR. RESOLUTION NO. 92-2_t? A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1992 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 22, 1992 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 3-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below, and 77 NOV 17 1992 MOO 88 F'a E ,9i. �' .8 �ar,� �� NOVr- 17 1992 Boa � WHEREAS,. the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 17, 1992, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1: The above recitals- are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan from L-2, Low -Density Residential - 2 (up to 6 units/acres) to Commercial/Industrial Node for ±1.86 acres located on the west side of Old Dixie Highway between 8th Street and 9th Street. The forgoing Resolution was offered by •Commissioner Adams and seconded by Commissioner Tipoi n and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Aye Commissioner Fran Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Ken Macht Ate_ Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 17 day of November 1992. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER CO�UNNTY, FLORIDA BY:Z/l. Carol V K. Egg" Chairman MATCHING FUNDS FOR FY 1991-92 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED NON - SPONSORED TRIP AND/OR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT GRANT The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/6/92: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP flA4K Community Development Director DATE: November 6, 1992 RE: REQUEST FOR MATCHING FUNDS FOR THE FY 1991-92 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED NON -SPONSORED TRIP AND/OR CAPITAL EQUIPMENT GRANT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 17, 1992. - 78 DESCRIPTIONS & CONDITIONS' Since June 15, 1990, the Board of County Commissioners has functioned as the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) fpr. transportation disadvantaged activities in Indian River County. *In its capacity as the DOPA and with recommendations from the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB), the Board of County Commissioners reviews transportation disadvantaged grant applications and, if appropriate, authorizes their submittal to the state Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC). One such application annually considered by the Board is the non - sponsored trip and/or capital equipment grant. The applicant for this grant is the county's Community Transportation Coordinator (CTC) - the Council on Aging. Since becoming the DOPA for Indian River County, the Board of County Commissioners has authorized the submittal of three "trip equipment" grant applications. These were the FY 90-91 application, the FY 91-92 application, and the FY 92- 93 application. Each of these applications required local funds to match state grant monies. On September 20, 1990s the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and recommended the approval of the Trip/Equipment Grant for fiscal year 1990-91. Because the FY 90-91 grant involved funding of veterans transportation, the Board of County Commissioners appropriated $6,692. The $6,692 constituted the cash portion of the local match, while an additional $6,692 in local matching funds was provided by the Council on Aging as in-kind services. The state grant amount for FY 90-91 was $40,154. Since the request for funds for the FY 90-91 local match was made after the beginning of the fiscal year, the source of the $6,692 provided by the Board of County Commissioners was general fund contingency. Subsequently, the Council on Aging submitted a trip equipment grant application for FY 91-92. This application was reviewed by the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) on September 18, 1991. The total amount of that grant application was $72,453; with the state contribution being $54,340 (75%) of the total funds, and the remaining balance (25%) consisting of local match ($9056 cash and $9,057 in-kind). Although a $9,056 cash match was identified in the Trip/Equipment grant application, no funding source was delineated. Based upon a positive recommendation from the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board, the Board of County Commissioners approved the application for submittal to the state Transportation Disadvantaged Commission (TDC) which then approved the grant. Having received the FY 91-92 grant funds from the state, the Council on Aging is now obligated to provide the cash portion -of _the.required local. match. The Council on Aging is requesting that the Board of County Commissioners appropriate $9,056 from its general fund contingency account to provide the cash portion of the local match for the FY 91-92 trip equipment grant. ANALYSIS m The purpose of the trip grant funds is to provide both non - sponsored trips for the transportation disadvantaged and capital equipment to,be used for services provided to the transportation disadvantaged. Specifically, FY 91-92 trip equipment grant funds have been used to provide trips to qualified non -sponsored transportation disadvantaged clients in the county. It,' is estimated that the FY 91-92 :grant funds will provide for approximately 6,000 trips. 79 BOOK M F";E NOV l 1992 / NOV 17 1992 8 47 When the Council on Aging submitted the FY 1991-92 trip equipment grant application to the Board of County Commissioners for approval, there was no specific request for funding from the Board of County Commissioners for the local match. Therefore, no funds were allocated for this purpose by the Board in its FY 1991-92 or FY 1992-93 budget. The Board, however, did include an amount of $158,822 for the Council on Aging°in its FY 92-93 budget. Since the Council on Aging has various sources of funding and given that the Council on Aging did not request funding from the Board of County Commissioners for the cash match, county staff assumed that the Council on Aging had sufficient funds to provide the local cash match. According to the Council on Aging, they have no funds to provide the local cash match for the FY 91-92 trip equipment grant. For that reason, they have requested that the county provide the $9,056 cash match. Since no funds were budgeted by the Board of County Commissioners for the Council on Aging trip equipment grant local match, the only source of funds, if the Board were inclined to provide the local cash match, would be general fund contingency. Providing the requested funds would involve a budget amendment and a funding allocation. Being less than two months into the 1992-93 fiscal year, the contingency fund must still provide for unexpected, non - budgeted expenditures for ten more months. There is no question that the funding requested by the Council on Aging would be money well spent. As indicated by various studies, there is a substantial amount of transportation disadvantaged unmet need. There is, however, an established budget process through which all county funding requests are expected to go. Not only does this ensure that each request is evaluated on its merit in relation to others; it also provides an opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to incorporate all projected expenses in its approved budget.. ALTERNATIVES The Board of County Commissioners has two principal alternatives. These are: 1. Appropriate $9,056.00 from the county's general fund/contingency account and provide the local cash match for the FY 91-92 trip/equipment grant; or 2. Decline to provide the requested funding, requiring that the Council on Aging find an alternate funding source for the local match. RECOMMENDATION _The. staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider the Council on Aging's request and, if appropriate, provide the $9,056 local cash matchptor the trip equipment grant. The staff further recommends that the Board inform all agencies that all known expenditures must be approved through the established budget process. 80 M go ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved staff's recommendation to approve the Council on Aging's request for a $9,056 local cash match for the trip equipment grant and authorized staff to do a budget amendment in that amount and bring it back to the Board. SANDRIDGE GOLF CLUB - NEW 18 HOLES - AMENDMENT NO. 5 The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/10/92: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Sandridge Golf Course New 18 Amendment No. 5 DATE: November 10, 1992 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to provide professional surveying, civil and structural engineering, and additional related miscellaneous services in all phases of the Sandridge Golf Course New 18. The attached amendment provides for upgrading the maintenance barn wash -down and fueling facility. The Indian River County Health Department will no longer allow wash -down areas to be discharged in swales. The amendment also provides for new fuel tanks and soil bins in the maintenance area and closure of all fuel tanks at Sandridge that are to be abandoned. The compensation due the Consultant for the attached amendment is $13,615. This, added to the current contract amount of $91,308 will result in a new contract amount of $104,923. RECOMMINDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Amendment No. 5. Funding is from Account No. 418-000-169-018.00-WIP Sandridge Phase II. 81 1 NOV �.7 0992 BOOK F'" E Q5 -61 F NOV 171992 BOOK 8.8 Fa;E 8 ON MOTION by Commissioner Commissioner Bird, the Board Macht, SECONDED by unanimously approved Amendment No. 5 for Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. in the amount of $13,615.00, as recommended by staff. AMENDMENT NO. 5 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD MASTER PLAN SEWER SERVICE ON SOUTH ROSELAND ROAD The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/92: DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 1992 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. McC N AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJE NEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF TY SERVICES SUBJECT: MASTER PLAN SEWER SERVICE ON SOUTH ROSELAND ROAD BACKGROUND We have received the preliminary draft of our Wastewater Master Plan. The Utilities Department staff has reviewed the Master -planned collection system and agrees with the consultant as to force main locations throughout the County. In the Wastewater Master Plan update, there is a 6 -inch force main that will run from the Kashi Ranch on Roseland Road approximately 8,000 feet south to County Road 512. The purpose of this line is to serve the area southwest of -the City of Sebastian on the west side of Roseland Road. ANALYSIS The Kashi Ranch on south Roseland Road is preparing to expand its facility to over 35 units and will need to connect to sewer. Since this is a Master -planned line, its construction is to be paid for from the impact fee fund. The Kashi Ranch has previously reserved 65 ERUs in the North County Sewer Project and will pay additional impact fees as required for development. The Department requests that we be authorized to begin in-house design of the project and proceed immediately with construction. The estimated construction and engineering cost is $153,000.00 (see attached preliminary cost estimate). RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize commencement of this project as outlined above and approve the expenditure of no more than $12,750.00 in engineering and surveying services combined. 82 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized commencement of the project as outlined in -staff's recommendation and approved the expenditure of no more than $12,750.00 in engineering and surveying services combined. PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN WOOD HOLLOW/32ND COURT AND 32ND AVENUE, SW - SOUTH OFF 5TH STREET, SW The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/5/92: TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NOVEMBER 5, 1992 FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED JAMES D. CHASTA AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS SE S PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT OF LITY SERVICES SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN WOOD HOLLOW/32ND COURT AND 32ND AVENUE, SW - SOUTH OFF 5TH STREET, SW INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -37 -DS BACKGROUND A petition has been received for a water main extension for Wood Hollow/32nd Court and 32nd Avenue, SW, to supply potable water to its residents. We are now coming to the Board of County Commissioners to seek approval to begin design of the above project. (See attached petition and plat map.) ANALYSIS Four of the 32 lots in this subdivision are on 5th Street, SW and are already on County water. The remaining 28 lots shall benefit from this project. -The 21 property owners signing the petition represent 75% of the properties to be served. All of the lots in this project presently have septic tanks and wells, with which the property owners have concerns regarding potential health hazards. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment project. This project is to be paid through the assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route. In the interim, financing will be through the use of impact fee funds. Design services will be provided by the Department of Utility Services. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the above -listed project, in order that they may proceed with the design engineering work in preparation for the special assessment project. 83 ®y .'1 1992 �ooK Fr,E 87 r RO®K NOV J 71992 ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the above -listed project, and authorized staff to proceed with the design preparation for the special recommended by staff. engineering work in assessment project, as 88 F -n - WATER EXPANSION PHASE I - CONTRACT 3 WITH BOYCE COMPANY - CHANGE ORDER 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/9/92: DATE: NOVEMBER 9, 1992- TO: 992TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. JPIO DIRECTO ITY S VICES s PREPARED H. D. "D " OST , P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WATER EXPANSION PHASE I - CONTRACT 3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -02 -DS CHANGE ORDER 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST BACKGROUND Construction of the subject project has been completed, and the contractor, Boyce Company, of St. Petersburg, Florida, has made application for final payment. The pay request includes a reduction of $15,144.48 as reflected on Change Order 1. The cost reduction is due primarily to 1) utilizing dual services in lieu of some single services, and 2) using 1 1/2" service lines in lieu of 2" service lines. ANALYSIS All Indian River County requirements have been met, and DER clearance has been received. The original contract price was $229,283.61; the final contract price is $214,139.13, including the Change Order. The contractor has previously been paid $187,108.72; this leaves a remaining balance of $27,030.41. RECOMMENDATION The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of 1) the attached Change Order, and 2) the payment request of $27,030.41 as payment in full for services rendered. 84 ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Change- Order No. 1 and Final Payment Request of $27,030.41, as recommended by staff. CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAYMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD ORIENTATION AND COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/16/92: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: November 16, 1992 RE: ORIENTATION Chairman Eggert has asked me to briefly discuss the Sunshine Law and similar laws that are essential to the office of County Commissioner. Attached are copies of: The Sunshine Law The Public Records Law The Public Meetings Law Code of Ethics/ Financial Disclosure A memo re Lobbying A memo re Gifts and Honoraria Art.II, Sec.8, Fla. Constitution Chapter 119, Florida Statutes Chapter 286, Florida Statutes Section 112.313, Florida Statutes County Attorney's Office County Attorney's Office Our office is available to answer any questions you may have concerning these statutes and would be happy to give an opinion concerning any particular fact situation. Rather than go over all of the information at this time, Attorney Vitunac said he would be happy to answer any questions the Board may have now or after the meeting. He did wish to call the Board's attention to the following memo: 85 BOOK 88 p'�r r— BOOK 88 Pa,E 90 NoV x.71992 TO: Robert Keating - Community Development Director FROM: W e. William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: December 18, 1991 SUBJECT: Notice to Applicants Regarding Lobbying of Board Members Pursuant to Board direction at the 12/17/91 meeting, I would advise that you provide a notice to all applicants for permits. from your department in essentially the following form: "A recent court case has held that lobbying of board members outside of regularly scheduled meetings may nullify development approvals. You should have no contacts with the Board of County Commissioners, Planning and Zoning Commission, or Board of Adjustment, or Building Code Board of Adjustment and Appeals regarding the following: Special Exceptions Variances Site Plans Subdivision Plats You, are free to contact your representatives regarding rezoning and comprehensive plan amendments outside of the -public hearing process . * This is due to the distinction that rezonings and comprehensive plan amendments are essentially changing the rules under which development occurs and are considered legislative in nature. The prohibited areas of lobbying involve situations where the rules are established and the boards make findings as to whether or not you satisfy all the criteria of the rules." WGC/nhm Discussion ensued regarding changing the meeting times from daytime to evenings, and Chairman Eggert expressed her opposition to it. She noted that even though you think more people will come to a meeting in the evening, they don't. However, as situations come along, evening public hearings are scheduled. Committee Assignments Chairman Eggert made the following committee assignments: 86 w CAROLYN EGGERT Affordable Housing Advisory Committee Agency on Aging District IX (State) Law Library Community Development Block Grant Advisory Economic Opportunities Council Emergency Services District Advisory Committee - Chairman Gifford Housing Improvement Committee Council of 100 Liaison - Interim Macht Metropolitan Planning Organization Primary Care - Public Health Department Building Committee Public Library Advisory Committee Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council - Alternate to Adams DICK BIRD Advisory Committee for the Center for Business Development Indian River Arts Council Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee Metropolitan Planning Organization Parks and Recreation Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council - Alternate to Tippin Upper St. Johns Recreation Advisory Council Upper St. Johns Technical Advisory Committee. Vero Beach Bicycle Path Committee Vero Beach Recreation Committee FRAN ADAMS Ad Hoc Manatee Protection and Boating Safety Committee Beach Restoration and Preservation Committee Emergency Services District Advisory Committee Historic Resources Committee Metropolitan Planning Organization Sebastian Watershed Action Committee Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (Alternate to Tippin) Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program Committee 87 KEN MACHT Children's Services Advisory Committee Courthouse Advisory Committee Indian River Emergency Outreach Board Land Acquisition Advisory Committee Council of 100 - Interim Audit Selection Committee JOHN TIPPIN Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Planning Council Indian River County Council on Aging Medical Examiner Budget Committee Metropolitan Planning Organization 19th Judicial Circuit Conflict Committee Solid Waste Disposal District (to be elected at future meeting) Tourist Development Council Treasure Coast Council of Governments Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council DISBAND Fairgrounds Advisory Committee Finance Advisory Committee Liaison - Emergency Management Liaison - Utility Department North County Fire District North County Fire Advisory Board Riverfront Development Advisory Committee South County Fire District South County Fire Advisory Board Transportation Planning Committee REORGANIZE Firearms Range Committee SUNSET HRS District 9 Interim Planning Group Indian River County Indigent/ Primary Care Task Force NOV 171992 aooK 88 FvF � NOV 17 1992 BOOK 88 Pv;'E 94-7 , APPOINTMENT TO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously appointed LeRoy Hiers to the Planning & Zoning Commission. Commissioner Bird felt this is an excellent selection as Mr. Hiers has represented North County extremely well on another committee. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene sitting as the Commissioners of the Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:05 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: J. Barton, Clerk 88 Carol K. Eggexwchairman