HomeMy WebLinkAbout5/25/1993� MINUTESORTTACHED�
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, MAY 25, 1993
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5) James E. Chandler, County Administrator
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (Dist. 4) _ _
Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2) y
Kenneth R. Macht (Dist. 3) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
dr 9Ir 9k sir tk ak dr 91r ak t 9k ak it sir k 9F tk sir � 9k ak Be vk t1k 91r 11r ak tk ak �Ir atr tk �Ir dir tk ilr tk �Ir �Ir 4r 91r iF 11r tk 1k tk tk
9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Item 5.A. Special Recycling Award to Charles Vitunac.
Item 11.H.4. Rescheduling of Phase 3 Water Assessment Public
Hearing.
Item 13.C.1. Resolution Regarding Sponsorship of the Beach
Nourishment Project.
Item 13.D.1. Appointment of Alternate Representatives to the
Affordable Housing Committee.
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
Retirement Plaque Presented to Donald F. Heltzman
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Regular Meeting of April 13, 1993
B. Regular Meeting of April 27, 1993
C. Regular Meeting of May 4, 1993
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Proclamation Designating June 6-12, 1992 as National
Garden Week in Indian River County
B. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated May 17, 1993 )
C. Release of Utility Liens
( memorandum dated May 18, 1993 )
D. Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Creating the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium E Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council
( memorandum dated May 17, 1993 )
MAY 25 1993 BOOK 89 F A r -
U 598
7.
s.
BOOK
CONSENT AGENDA (aont'd):
E. Bobby J. Hiers' Request for Site Plan Extension:
North-South Plaza
( memorandum dated May 12, 1993 )
F. Release of Easement Request By: Todd Brognano,
Lots 8 8 9, Block G, Vero Lake Estates S/D Unit K
( memorandum dated May 17, 1993
G. Award Bid #3097 / Storage Sheds
( memorandum dated May 18, 1993 )
H. Award Bid #3095 / Ten Foot Offset Mower
( memorandum dated May 17, 1993 )
CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
89 rw"F -7
1. Trevor Smith 6 Others Request to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan I; to Redesignate Approx. 1.86
Acres from L-2 to C/ 1, and to Rezone From RS -6
to CL
( memorandum dated May 15, 1993 )
2. Heskel Korine 8 L.K. Willcock Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan F. to Redesignate Approx.
15 Acres From L-1 to C/I, 8 to Rezone from RM -3
to CL
( memorandum dated May 17, 1993 )
3. Indian River Country Club Ltd.'s Request for
Conceptual 8 Preliminary Planned Development
Approval for a 13.69 Acre Addition to Indian
River Country Club
( memorandum dated May 12, 1993 )
4. Lawrence R. Koerner Request to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan E to Redesignate Approx. .31
Acres From M-1 to C/ I, and to Rezone From RM -6
to CG
( memorandum dated May 6, 1993 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Recreation Consolidation
( memorandum dated May 14, 1993 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
I. Adoption of the Affordable Housing Advisory
Committee Final Report
( memorandum dated May 14, 1993 )
2. Consideration of Additional Residential Resort
Specific Land Use Criteria
( memorandum dated May 19, 1993 )
3. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program
Request for Boating Improvement Program Funds
to Develop a Lagoon Boater's Guide
( memorandum dated May 18, 1993 )
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
None
C. GENERAL SERVICES
County Owned Building - Old Gifford Jaycee Building
( memorandum dated May 12, 1993 )
D. LEISURE SERVICES-
None
ERVICESNone
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Payment of Travel for a State Employee
( memorandum dated May 19, 1993 )
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
Purchase Authorization; Oslo Road/Old Dixie Right -of -
Way Acquisition, Phillip E Patsy Helseth, Six Parcels
( memorandum dated May *14, 1993) _
H. UTILITIES
1. Petition for Water Service in Raintree Corner
S/D (54th Ave.)
( memorandum dated May 11, 1993 )
2. Blue Cypress Lake Wastewater Service Project
Final Assessment Roll 8 Resolution No. IV
( memorandum dated May lo, 1993 )
3. Blue Cypress Lake Community Sewer. Improvement
Project / Change Order No. 2
( memorandum dated May 17, 1993 )
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
MAY 2 5 1993 89 mu 600
MAS 251993
BOOK
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1 • Approval of Minutes - Meeting of May 4, 1993
2. Animal Incineratinn Services
( memorandum dated May 19, 1993 )
3. 6th Year Recycling Grant Application
( memorandum dated May 11, 1993 )
15. ADJOURNMENT
09 FACE&A
A
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, May 25, 1993
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, May 25, 1993, at
9:00 A. M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W. Tippin,
Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Absent was
Kenneth R. Macht, who was on vacation. Also present were James E.
Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County
Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
County Administrator Jim Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance
to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDAZEMERGENCY ITEMS
Chairman Bird requested the addition of Item 5.A., Special
Recycling Award to Charles Vitunac.
County Administrator Jim Chandler requested the addition of
Item 11.H.4., Rescheduling of Phase 3 Water Assessment Public
Hearing.
Commissioner Adams requested the addition of Item 13.C.1., a
Resolution regarding Sponsorship of the Beach Nourishment Project.
Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13.D.1.,
Appointment of Alternate Representatives to the Affordable Housing
Committee.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously, (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) added the above
items to the Agenda.
PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
RETIREMENT PLAQUE PRESENTED TO DONALD F. HEITZMAN
Chairman Bird announced the retirement of Donald F. Heitzman
and presented a Retirement Plaque with the following proclamation:
MAY 2 5 1993 BOOK 89 FAGF 602
L
MAY 2 5 1993
PROCLAMATION +
BOOK 89 PAGE 603-1
WHEREAS,' Donald F. Heitzman announces his retirement from
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners effective May 31,
1993.
WHEREAS, Donald F. Heitzman, originally from Buffalo, New
York, has been a resident of Indian River County since 1973.
WHEREAS, Donald F. Heitzman was hired on January 10, 1975,
with the Road & Bridge Division as an Equipment Operator I. The
position was reclassified to Mechanic's Helper in 1977. On October
8, 1981, he transferred to the Vehicle Maintenance Division where
he currently holds the position of Equipment Mechanic II.
WHEREAS, Donald F. Heitzman has demonstrated the ability to
accomplish all job assignments with minimal supervision. He has
displayed a positive attitude and was always willing to help his
fellow employees. He will be missed by his co-workers.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
wishes to express its appreciation for the performance and
dedication of Donald F. Heitzman on behalf of Indian River County.
BE It FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board wishes him the very
best in his future endeavors.
Dated this 25th day of May, 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY `0
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
K
SPECIAL AWARD PRESENTED TO CHARLES VITUNAC FOR RECYCLING EFFORTS
Chairman Bird presented a special award to County Attorney
Charles Vitunac for his efforts as a member of the Rules of
Judicial Administration Committee of the Florida Bar Association.
Attorney Vitunac was instrumental in the adoption of Rule 2.055
which requires that all documents filed in Florida Courts be
printed on recycled paper. Attorney Vitunac thanked the Board for
the trophy made of recycled materials.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 13, 1993. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board (4-0, Commissioner
Macht being absent) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 13, 1993 as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 27, 1993. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board (4-0, Commissioner
Macht being absent) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of April 27, 1993 as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 4, 1993. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board (4-0, Commissioner
Macht being absent) approved the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 4, 1993 as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Proclamation Designating June 6-12 1993 as National Garden
Week in Indian River County
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) designated June 6-
12, 1993 as National Garden Week in Indian River
County.
3
MAY 2 5 1993 801 89 PAGE DN
r MAY 25 1993
P R O C L A M A T I O N•
DESIGNATING JUNE 6-12, 1993 AS
NATIONAL GARDEN WEEK .
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,•FLORIDA
Boa 89 - PAa 695 -1
WHEREAS, the gardeners of the United.States produce the food
which feeds our people and permits us to export our abundance to
other countries; and
WHEREAS, our gardeners help to preserve our traditional
spirit of independence and initiative; and
WHEREAS, gardening instilln in our people a greater respect
and care for our environment and our national resources; and
WHEREAS, gardening furnishes a challenging and productive
full or part-time activity for a large number of our citizens;
and
WHEREAS, our gardens also yield herbs, foliage and flowers
which add beauty, fragrance, and nutrition to our lives; and
WHEREAS, National Garden Week is sponsored by the National
Council of.State Garden Clubs and is active in all 50 states; and
WHEREAS, the Florida Federation, the largest Garden Club in
the world, has 27,000 members who actively pursue the betterment
of their communities; and
WHEREAS, the Garden Club of Indian River County. has 330
members whose contributions to the community are well known; and
WHEREAS, the Garden Club of Indian River County has
contributed to the area through civic beautification projects at
public buildings and parks; programs in the schools; Arbor Day
plantings; flower shows and plant sales; educational programs for
members and the public; garden therapy for shut-ins and other
worthwhile projects; and
WHEREAS, the Garden Club of Indian River County is making
plans with the historical Society to have a display in the train
station during National Garden Week highlighting the history of
the Garden .Club of Indian River County and its numerous
contributions to our area;
NOW,. THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS of Indian River County, Florida that June 6 - 12,
1993 be designated as
NATIONAL GARDEN WEEK
in Indian River County, and the Board further urges that all
gardeners observe the week with educational activities and.
projects that stress the benefits of gardening and acquaint
others with the activities of garden clubs, and that gardeners
wear garden flowers as a symbol of appreciation of the efforts
and contributions of our country's gardeners.
Adopted this 25th day of May, 1993.
4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
B. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Legal Secretary Sandy Wright
dated May 17, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS \
FROM: Sandy Wright, County Attorney's Office��w)
DATE: May 17, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIMB
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of
County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they
can be recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Release of Special Assessment Lien
Rockridge Sewers
GOULD
GUZZO/SQUITIERI --
2. Satisfaction
Payment of Existing Impact Fees
WRIGHT
HAWKINS
ROMAN
COOPER
3. Release of Special Assessment Lien
Phase I Water Project
BARER, IV
BODNAR
BRADFORD
BRUNET
CAPONE
CRAWFORD
CYPERT
DAWSON
FAITH UNITED FELLOWSHIP, INC. (2)
GIFFORD
4. Release of IRC Utility Lien
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the
releases and satisfactions listed in staff's
memorandum.
SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
5
aooK FF �6
MAY 2 5 1993 GE
Fr -
MAY 251993
BOOK 89 PAGE 607
C. Release of Utility Liens
The Board reviewed memo from Legal Secretary Sandy Wright
dated May 18, 1993:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
FROM: Sandy Wright, County Attorney's Office ea,")
DATE: May 18, 1993
RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS
The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of
County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they
can be recorded. The names and projects are:
1. Satisfaction
Payment of Existing Impact Fees
DAUGHERTY, JR.
2. Release of Special Assessment Lien
Phase I Water Project
GILBERT
GMITROWICZ
PETERSON
HICKS
REIGER
HYATT
SCHUYLER
JORGENSEN
SggRMAN
BRISTER, JR.
TAYLOR
LOEWENDICK/HODGE
VITALE
MADSEN
WEISS
MARTIN
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the
satisfaction and releases listed in staff's
memorandum.
SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES
ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
D. Amendment to Interlocal Agreement Creating the Treasure Coast
Job Training Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry Council
The Board reviewed memo from Assistant to County Administrator
Randy Dowling dated May 17, 1993:
6
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 17, 1993 FILE:
-THRU: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Randy Dowling
Ass't. to Co. Ad in.
SlJ�3JECT: Amendment to Interlocal
Agreement Creating the
Treasure Coast Job Training
Consortium and Treasure
Coast Private Industry
Council
REFERENCES:
The County Administrator's Office received a letter dated May 6, 1993 from the
Treasure Coast Private Industry Council requesting the Board to amend Section
8 of the interlocal agreement creating the Treasure Coast Job Training
Consortium and Treasure Coast Private Industry Council. Section 8 deals with
the establishment, composition, and appointment of Treasure Coast Private
Industry Council members.
As a matter of background Information, the Board approved the original
Interlocal agreement during the Commission meeting of May 18, 1983 and
subsequently amended Section 8 of the agreement during the Commission meeting
of May 2, 1984.,
Staff recommends that the Board approve the requested amendment and authorize
the Board Chairman to sign the amendment.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the
Amendment to the Interlocal Agreement Creating the
Treasure Coast Job Training Consortium and Treasure
Coast Private Industry Council, as recommended by
staff.
PARTIALLY EXECUTED AMENDMENT TO INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
E. Bobby J. Hiers' Request for Site Plan Extension: North-South
Plaza
The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Staff Planner
Eric Blad dated May 12, 1993:
7
MAY 2 5 1993 BOOK 89 DGE668
-
MAV 25 1993 BOOK 09 FA;E e09
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Kea ng, P
Community Developme Director
THROUGH: Stan Bolin AICP
Planning Director
FROM: Eric Blad O
Staff Planner, Current Development
DATE: May 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Bobby J. Hiers' Request For Site Plan Extension: North-
South Plaza
[SP-MA-92-09-36/IRC #92030051-002]
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 25, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On July 23, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted major
site plan approval (with conditions) for the North-South Plaza to
construct a 20,045 square foot retail office building. . The current
expiration date of the site plan approval is July 23, 1993.
The project applicant has filed a request to extend the site plan
approval expiration date. Pursuant to site plan regulations, the
request may now be considered by the Board of County Commissioners.
ANALYSIS:
Although the LDRs have been amended since the time of project
review and approval, the members of the Technical Review Committee
(TRC) concur that subsequent amendments as applied to the subject
project are not significant enough to require any revisions or
redesign of the project. All TRC staff members have recently
approved the applicant's request for site plan extension.
As allowed under provisions of the LDRs, Mr. Hiers is requesting a
full one year extension of the site plan approval expiration date.
Pursuant to Chapter 914 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners may deny, approve, or approve with additional
conditions the requested site plan extension. Staff has no
objections to the Board granting the request since the previously
approved site plan substantially conforms to existing LMR
requirements.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve Mr.
Hiers' request for a one year extension of the conditional site
plan approval, with all original site plan approval conditions to
remain in effect. The new site plan expiration date will be July
23, 1994.
8
- = - )
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the
extension of the conditional site plan approval for
Bobby J. Hiers for the North-South Plaza to July 23,
1994, as recommended by staff.
F. Release of Easement Recjuest by Todd Broanano Lots 8 & 9
Block GJ Vero Lake Estates Subdivision Unit K
The Board reviewed memo from Code Enforcement Officer Charles
Heath dated May 17, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT BEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Rea in , A
Community Developrector
pmme�n • i
THROUGH: Roland M. DeBlois� CP
Chief, Environmental Planning
& Code Enforcemen/t� ./�
FROM: Charles W. heath 0,A//r
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE: May 17, 1993
SUBJECT: RELEASE OF EASEMENT REQUEST BY:
Todd Brognano
Lots 8 & 9, Block G, Vero Lake Estates
Subdivision Unit R
It is requested that the data herein presented by given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 25, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The County has been petitioned by Todd Brognano, owner of the
subject property, for the release of the common ten (10) foot side
lot utilities and drainage easements on Lots 8 & 9, Block G, Vero
Lake Estates Subdivision, Unit K. It is the petitioner's intention
to construct: a single-family residence on the combined lots.
The petitioner has agreed to formally dedicate a new twenty (20)
foot utility and drainage easement prior to this abandonment being
recorded.
The current zoning classification of the subject property is.. RS -3
Single -Family residential District. The Land Use Designation is L-
11 allowing up to three (3) units per acre.
0
I
MAY 2 51993 bong 89 P,vfBi
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: —
-7
BOOKA
9 F UES
The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell Telephone Company,
Florida Power and Light Corporation, Falcon Cable Corporation, and
the Indian River County Utilities Department and the Road & Bridge
and Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it is staff's
position that the applicant be required to dedicate a new twenty
(20) foot utility and drainage easement elsewhere on the property,
before any formal abandonment is recorded in the public records.
RECOMMNDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board, through the adoption of a
resolution, release the common ten (10) foot side lot utility and
drainage easements of Lots 8 & 9, Block G, Vero Lake Estates
Subdivision, Unit K, being the southerly ten (10) feet of Lot 8,
and the northerly ten (10 ) feet of Lot 9, according to the plat
thereof as recorded in Plat Book 51 Page 83, of the Public Records
of Indian River County, Florida. Staff also recommends that the
release of easements not be recorded in the public records until
the applicant has dedicated the new twenty (20) foot easement to
the County as described herein.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Resolution
93-98 abandoning certain easements on Lots 8 and 9,
Block G, Vero Lake Estates Subdivision, Unit K, as
recommended by staff.
10
and
RESOLUTION NO. 93-98
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
'ABANDONING CERTAIN EASEMENTS ON LOTS 8 & 9, BLOCK
G, VERO LAKE ESTATES SUBDIVISION, UNIT K, ACCORDING
• TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED. IN PLAT BOOK 5,
PAGE 83
WHEREAS, Indian River County has easements as described below,
WHEREAS, if said easements are replaced by alternative
easements, the retention of said easements will serve no public
purposes,
WHEREAS, the Grantee has agreed to dedicate substitute
easements prior to the recording of this resolution,
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
Todd Brognano, his successors, in interest, heirs and assigns,
whose mailing address is Post Office Box 780874, Sebastian, Florida
32978-0874, Grantee, as follow:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and
interest that it may have in the following described easements:
the common ten (10) foot side lot utility and drainage
easements of Lots 8 & 9, Block G, Vero Lake Estates
Subdivision, Unit K, being the southerly ten (10) feet of Lot
8, and the northerly ten (10) feet of Lot 9, according.to the
plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 5, Page 83, of the
Public Records of Indian River County, Florida.
Tax Parcel Control Number: 33-31-38-00002-0070-00008.0
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
" Eggert, seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted
on the 25tWay of May 1993, by the following vote:�
u
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave
Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert - Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht -Absent
Commissioner.Fran B. Adams ,Ave
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 25th day of May , 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY, COMMISSIONERS
OF.INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA
11 By G l�
ici�ard N. Bird
_Chairman
L�FJ�R 89 P,, F ^12
r MAY 2 5 1993
Boa 89 PAGE 613
G. Award Bid #3097 - Storage Sheds
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated May 18, 1993:
DATE: May 18, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean. -Director #A.
Department of General Servicia
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manag
SUBJ: Award Bid 13097/Storage Sheds
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: April 16, 1993
Advertising Dates: April 2, 91 1993
Specifications Mailed To: Nineteen (19) Vendors
Replies: -- Four (4) Vendors
VENDOR QTY BID TABULATION TOTAL
Thurman's 2 $ 5,250.00 $10,500.00
Ft Pierce, FL -
James E. Smalley 2 $ 5,400.00 $101800.00
Wabasso, FL
Smalley Utility 2 $ 6,000.00 $120000.00
Bldgs, Palm Bay, FL
Juno Industries NO BID
Coral Springs, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $100500.00
SOURCE -OF FUNDS: Sewer Utilities other Machinery and
Equipment Account
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $111100.00
Staff recommends that the bid for the purchase of two (2)
storage sheds be awarded to Thurman Is as the lowest, most
responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications
as set forth in the Invitation to Bid. Note: The quantity
ordered has been reduced to two (2) sheds due to limited
funds.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) awarded Bid #3097
for two (2) storage sheds to Thurman's in the amount
Of $10,500.00, as recommended by staff.
12
H. Award Bid #3095 - Ten -Foot Offset Mower
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated May 17, 1993:
DATE: May 17, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
S.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director A -
Department of General Service
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager
SUBJ: Award Bid #3095/Tea Foot Offset Mower ��11
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: April 16, 1993
Advertising Dates: April 2, 9, 1993
Specifications Mailed To: Eighteen (18) Vendors
Replies: Four (4) Vendors
VENDOR DTD TABULATION
Pippin Tractor $4,050.00
Ft Pierce, FL
Fields Equipment $4,463.00
Ft Pierce, FL
Berggren Equipment $4,567.00
Ft Pierce, FL
Robinson Equipment $4,660.00
Mims, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID: $4,050.00
BUDGETED AMOUNT: $7,200.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS: Sewer Utilities Other Machinery and
Equipment
RECOMM ATION:
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Pinnin
Tractor and Ecuirment as the lowest, most responsible and
responsive bidder meeting specifications as set forth in
the Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) awarded Bid #3095
for a 10 -foot Offset Mower to Pippin Tractor and
Equipment in the amount of $4,050.00, as recommended
by staff.
13
MAY 2 51993 BooK 89 Ft r.614
MAY 2 5 1,993 BOOK �� F�F 615
PUBLIC HEARING - REQUEST BY TREVOR SMITH AND OTHERS 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 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
%IOT,ICE OF CHANGE OF. LAND) USE,
` The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
+ ''f Florida, will consider adopting an ordinance to amend the use of .
land within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County as '
shown in the map of the advertisement. A public hearing on the
proposal will be held on Tuesday, May 25, 1993, at 9:05 a.m. in,,
:P %.the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration ,..
Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida: At this t
--public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a fi-
'+ nal decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The pro-?
V,posed amendment is included in the proposed ordinance entitled,
,. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, '+
:...... AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE � COMPRF- x
HENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY tt 1 t
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (77th STREET TO 691h '
STREET) FROM +/-180'ACRES TO +/-195 ACRES; BY EN-
LARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 01 COMMERCIAUINDUS- :.
:TRIAL NODE (57th STREET TO 49th STREET) FROM +/-257. 3,'d
ACRES TO /-257.31 ACRES; AND BY ENLARGING THE
HIGHWAY 01 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (VERs
BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8th STREET) FROM +/-213 ACRES
TO +/-214.86 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, r
,:, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
:.lac .' Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public. • '
hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive �.
Plan Amendment. '• ,
Theplon amendment application may be Inspected by the public
at the Community Development Department offices located on the
second floor of the County Administration Building located of
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8,30
(' a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. ^ s. • K
Anyone who may wish toapp
inoensure t averbatim record
peal any decision which may be , r
t° he proceeding g ism made thetestim testimony andevi-
`,' dente upon which the appeal will be based. ) 0 t
• aA Anyone who needs *a'special accommodation for this meeting 1. -to,
must contact county's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Coor- 4:-k
dinator at 567.-8000 extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance .1•:r
of meeting.
et( •,�.:' +, i n,' +1.:, I Indian River County
i••. tf,'.IM ..�I' re';.tJ•.
r. a'. , '.'• � � . , , , , • - Board of County Commissioners
.-s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
�+
s,
SUBJECT
PROPERTY"
s a .8th
s
G �Illj`I_II'lR �' I II I_III7!i
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER t'1't�g .�l)prililt .
STATE OF FLORIDA .
Before the undersigned authorityy Mostly appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he Mostly
Manager of the .
Vero Beach FmIn-Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River Calmly. Florrids; that
J¢/_ � ?moi _Ai _ .. �wr....•. A..Lw�d ,
billed tak/-dam Z al�.r�► <•0
was publlMhed In said newspaper In the iasue(s)
aw
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
CX
Business Manager
(SEA,., •-'
...rhaw. am d n.ft
6.0m. 60. A. e, ""
906010/6
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
14
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Recti , A
THRU: Sasan Rohani • R
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel8�'
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 15, 1993
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 May 25, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to. amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
approximately 1.86 acres. Located on the west side of Old Dixie
Highway between -8th Street and 9th Street, the subject property
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 involves 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.
In January, 1991, 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
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. Subsequent to that denial, Mr. Smith joined with several
of his neighbors, and they jointly submitted the comprehensive plan
amendment request presently under consideration.
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 proposed land use
amendment to the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) 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 five members must receive four or more votes for
passage. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission has seven
15
Lf
5 X99 BOOK. 8 PkUF616
MY 2 5 1993 NOX 89 D -UF 617
members and the subject application received only three affirmative
votes, the favorable recommendation technically failed.
On November 17, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to the state
DCA for their review. The Board took this action after stating
that OCR, Office, Commercial, Residential, would be the most
intense zoning district that they would approve when the rezoning
issue is addressed at the final adoption hearing.
Subsequent to Board approval, staff transmitted the subject
amendment request to DCA for their review. On March 15, 1993,
planning staff received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report. The DCA ORC Report contained one objection
to the subject amendment. That objection was that the proposed
amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl,
because the county already has too much land designated as
commercial/industrial based on population projections and
commercial/industrial land needs.
As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, _
the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested land use designation and zoning.
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
area 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 subdivision is also zoned RS -6, 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
fabricating 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 six units/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.
16
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area o county Water Plant.
extend to the site from theY
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 four lanes
and 100 feet of public road right-of-way by 1995. 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 address
• concurrency of public facilities;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• potential impact on environmental quality;
• appropriateness of the C/I land use designation; and
• DCA objections.
This section will also discuss the Board of County Commissioners'
alternatives.
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
17
L.._MAY 251993 NOOK 89 Facc'f s
-7
Boor 89 FA,r
MAY 51993 619
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 #1.86 acres
2. Size of Area to be
Redesignated and Rezoned: ±1.86 acres
3. Existing Zoning Classification: RS -6, Single -Family
Residential District (up
to 6 units/acre)
4. Existing Land Use Designation: L- 2, Low -Density
Residential - 2 (up to 6
units/acre)
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: CL, Limited Commercial
District
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: C /.1 0 Commercial -
industrial
ommercial-
Industrial Node
7. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under existing
Land Use Designation: 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:
Existina Land Use and Zonin
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 Uee and Zonina
1. Retail Commercial use Identi€ied in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
18
2. For structures 10,000 to 20,000 square feet (based upon
locally- measured trip generating data):
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:
180600 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 21018 = 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
21018. 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 Enda/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.
19
MAY z o iyJ3
p
NOOK S9 F,+�,f 6?; -,Q
r MAY 2 5 1993
Local evaluation l
associated with the
the requested land
the 2,018 Average
Similarly, 658, or
associated with the
the requested land
89 F.r
BOOK , .9
0 ,,F 6"
ias determined that 658 of the trip ends
most intense use of the subject property under
use will be new trip ends. Therefore, 658 of
Weekday Trip Ends, or 1,312, will be new.
248, of the -381 P.M. Peak Hour Trip -Ends
most intense use of the subject property under
use will be new.
According to ITE, 478, or 117, of the New P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends
will be outbound, and 5380 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.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the trips
generated by the proposed land use designation 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
I 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 I'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 (58) 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.
20
TRAFFIC CUNCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
segment
Roadway — Capacity
Segment Road From To LOS "Du
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
2030
2040
2050
2060
2110
2230
2240
2250
2260
2305
2310
2315
2320
2325
2330
2550
2560
2570
2580
2810
2820
2830
2840
4840
4850
4860
4870
4940
4950
4960
4970
U.S. 1
O.S. 1
U.S. 1
U.S. 1
U. S. 1
U.S. 1
16th St.
16th St.
16th St.
16th/17th St.
17th St.
12th St.
12th St.
12th St.
12th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
.Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
Oslo Road
20th Ave.
20th Ave.
20th Ave.
20th Ave.
8th St..
8th St.
8th St.
8th St.
4th St.
4th St.
4th St.
4th St.
S. County Line
Oslo Road
4th St. @ IRB
8th St.
12th St.
S. VBC Limits
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
S. County Line
Oslo Road
4th St. 0 IRB
8th St.
12th St.
S. VBC Limits
43rd Ave. •-
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
old Dixie -Hwy.
Oslo Road
4th St. 9 IRB
8th St.
12th St.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Oslo Road
4th St. 0 IRB
8th Street
12th St. -
S. VBC Limits
17th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
Indian Riv. Blvd.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
Oslo Road
4th St. 0 IRB
8th St.
12th St.
S. VBC Limits
17th St.
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
4th St. I IRB
8th St.
12th 8t.
S. VBC Limits
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
27th Ave..
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
2300
2220
2270
2270
2370
2270
830
830
970
970
1990
830
830
830
830
630
830
830
830
830
830
630
830
830
830
630
630
630
1760
630
830
830
830
630
630
630
630
Roadway
Segment
Existing
$x st ng
volume
Demand
vented
volume
Total
Segment
Demand
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
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•
2250
400
13
413
417
17
Y
2260
527
23
550
280
17
Y
2305
180
65
245
385
9
Y
2310
427
20
447
383
17
Y
2315
432
29
461
369
31
.Y
2320
504
28
532
298
61
Y
2325
441
46
487
343
28
Y
2330
441
56
497
333
14
Y
2550
265
20
285
345
2
Y
2560
265
17
282
548
_ 4
Y
2570
360
41
401
429
5
Y
2580
414
15
429
401
4
Y
2810
144 ..
56
200
.430
2
Y
2820
274
18
292
338
4
Y
2830
310
10
320
310
4
Y
2840
297
4
301
1459
2
Y
4840.
193
23
216
414
5
Y
4850
342
19
361
469
9
Y
4860
342
33
375
455
16
Y
4870
351
38
- 389
441
16
Y
4940
216
17
233 —_
397
2
Y
4950
315
23
338
292
4
Y
4960
315
26
341
589
7
Y
4970
450
14
464
166
7
Y
21
�ipY X993 BOOK 89 NKJF � �
MAY 2 5 1993
- Water
-7
BOOK 89 u,F,R�3
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/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/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/day. The applicant has entered
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 request.
- 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/day. This is based upon the level of
service standard of '197 gallons/ERU/day. The City of Vero Beach
Wastewater Plant currently has a remaining capacity of more than
1,850,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater
generated by the proposed amendment. The applicant has entered
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. This satisfies the wastewater concurrency
test for the subject request.
- 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/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 (93 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 276 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.
22
- 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 ip 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 county's adopted level of service, the
applicant will be required to retain approximately 6,750 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 4.4 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 4.4 cubic feet/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 is not required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including water, wastewater,
drainage, roads, solid waste, and parks have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed land use designation. Therefore, the concurrency test has
been 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.
23
MP251993 boot 89 F�v� ,
r-
Mgy 251993
BOOK 89 MUE6�5 -7
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 for this request are the following
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 designation 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.
Based on its analysis, staff believes 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. Since 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 or oversight
had occurred. However, based upon input from the Board of County
Commissioners, staff now feels that the current land use
designation of the subject property does reflect an oversight.
The specific mistake or oversight was the failure to consider the
infeasibility of residentially developing relatively small lots in
this location. While the west side of Old Dixie Highway has
traditionally been zoned residential, it is staff's position that
residential zoning is not appropriate for the subject property.
Not only do residentially incompatible uses border the subject
property on two sides, but each of the subject property's lots also
front Old Dixie Highway, a road which is programmed for expansion
to four lanes by 1995. Across Old Dixie Highway, the land is zoned
for heavy commercial and industrial development. The parcel
directly north of the subject property contains a retail plaza.
All of these uses generate noise, lights, and traffic, and would
negatively affect residential development on the subject property.
When the county's comprehensive plan was adopted, the conditions
near the subject property were similar. That those conditions were
not identified and recognized as impacts on the subject property
constitutes an oversight in the approved plan.
24
s ® �
Besides the oversight, there has also been a change in
circumstances affecting the subject property. This change relates
to the fact that demand for commercial land in this part of the
county has increased significantly. Of particular importance to
this request is that the U.S. #1/.Vero Beach City Limits to 8th
Street Commercial/Industrial Node is already more than two-thirds
developed. This increase in demand for commercial land in this
part of the county represents a change in circumstances affecting
the subject property. Therefore, the subject request is consistent
with policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Policy 1.15 states that all commercial land use
designations must be located within the Urban Service Area. Since
the subject property is located within the Urban Service Area, the
subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.15.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.19
Future Land Use Policy 1.19 states that commercial land uses shall
be located along roads and at intersections with functional
classifications appropriate for -the level of activity. The subject
property is located along a collector road and at the intersection
of two collector roads. Since collector roads are designed to be
appropriate for commercial uses, the subject request is consistent
with Future Land Use Policy 1.19.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Policy 1.21 also applies to this request. 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. Staff's
position is that the proposed amendment will not create a strip
development pattern.
Staff's position is based on several factors which indicate that
8th Street, rather than 9th Street, is the most logical southern
border for the commercially designated land west of Old Dixie
Highway. First, 8th Street has a higher functional classification
and a wider right-of-way than 9th Street. Second, most of the land
south of 8th Street and west of Orsi Dixie Highway has already been
platted for residential lots. For these reasons, the proposed
redesignation will not result in commercial strip development on
the west side of Old Dixie Highway. Instead, this plan amendment
will provide a more logical node boundary. Because this node
boundary will have been specifically recognized by the Board of
County Commissioners as the commercial land use limit in this area,
the subject amendment, if approved, will provide more protection
from future urban sprawl.
Given these circumstances, staff feels that the subject request is
consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21.
- 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 these criteria
it 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.
25
19�� BOOK 89 PAGE 696
MAY
r MAY 25 1993
BOOK 89 MUF62,77
The expansion of nodes„meeting the 70% developed requirement is
allowed even though,_ d on population projections, the county
has overallocated C/I designated land. Policy 1.23 reflects the
position that the percent of developed land in each node is an
indication of local demand in that specific portion of the county.
With respect to the countywide overallocation of C/I designated
land, there are several reasons for the overallocation. First,
there are both wetlands and native habitat preservation areas
within existing nodes. Since, much of that land is protected by
county, state, and federal regulations and cannot be commercially
developed, the effective node acreage is less than that identified.
Second, the overallocation of C/I designated land is mostly due to
the existence of large, nearly vacant nodes near I-95.
These nodes are important parts of the county's overall business
attraction strategy and economic development policies. They were
created to attract clean, high paying, high technology companies.
Research indicates that these companies prefer the large campus -
type facilities, for which these nodes are well-suited. These
companies locate where there is easy, efficient access to markets,
materials, and related businesses and companies. While these nodes
are presently nearly vacant, the county anticipates that they will
eventually accommodate large employers. Until that time, the
county must also provide sufficient land to meet the demand of
retail and smaller companies in more populated parts of the county.
For these reasons, despite the overallocation of C/I designated
land throughout the county as it whole, the county allows node
expansion that meets certain criteria, including a demonstrated
demand for additional C/I designated land.
In this case, the -subject commercial/ industrial node meets these
criteria. According to staff analysis, approximately 69% of the
node is developed. This development percentage demonstrates a
demand for additional C/I designated land in this area of the
county and is sufficient to meet policy 1.23's requirements for
node expansion. Therefore, the subject request is consistent with
Future Land Use 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.
- Economic Development Objective 1
Economic Development Objective 1 states that the county will reduce
its unemployment rate. By increasing the size of a developing
node, the subject request will allow more businesses to locate in
an area where there is high demand for commercial land. This is an
incentive for businesses to locate or expand in the county,
resulting in a lower unemployment rate. For that reason, the
subject request is consistent with Economic Development Objective
1.
26
Compatibility with the Surroundina Area
The potential impact upon the surrounding area of a land use change
for the subject property is an important issue. The subject
property is located adjacent to the Ridge Acres Subdivision, a
single-family residential community with homes on both sides of
10th Avenue. Originally, staff's position was that commercial/
industrial development on the subject property would not be
compatible with the adjacent Ridge Acres subdivision. To an
extent, that is still staff's position.
Staff feels that, if properly zoned, the subject property can be
developed with:a C/I land use designation and still be compatible
with surrounding area. Staff's position, however, is that the
applicant's request for CL zoning is not appropriate.
According to the county's Land Development Regulations, the
requested CL zoning district is intended to accommodate convenience
retail and service needs of area residents. As such, the CL zoning
district allows uses such as grocery stores, convenience stores,
restaurants, and most retail and service uses.
Staff's position is that the less intense OCR zoning district is
more appropriate. According to the Land Development Regulations,
the OCR zoning district is designed for development that is
compatible with nearby neighborhoods. Permitted uses within the
OCR zoning district include professional offices and residences.
Since most professional office uses are open for business only
during daytime hours, impacts such as lights and noise are not as
severe. Most retail, service, and other intense commercial uses
are prohibited within the OCR zoning district.
While buffering the adjacent residential property from commercial
development on the subject property would be difficult and
expensive, it is possible. The county land development regulations
require denser vegetative plantings for narrower buffers. These
buffers can often mitigate potential negative impacts on adjacent
residential areas.
Concerns about traffic on 10th Avenue have also been raised.
Staff's position, however, is that this issue can be adequately
addressed by the site plan review process. Each parcel comprising
the subject property fronts Old Dixie Highway. Therefore, the
county can require that access be obtained from Old Dixie Highway
as a condition of site plan approval.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use plan
redesignation will have minimal impacts on surrounding areas, if
the property is zoned OCR.
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 Land Development
Regulations Chapter 929, all nuisance exotic vegetation must be
removed in conjunction with site development.
27
soca F��,F6L
r MAY 2 5 199
Appropriateness of the C/I Land Use Designation
The C/I land use designation is appropriate for the subject
property. The site is bordered on two sides by C/I designated
land. Also, two major roads border the subject property. Staff
has raised the concern that the proposed amendment would be an
impetus for land use designation amendment requests for C/I
designations on the west side of Old Dixie Highway south of 8th
Street. However, there are several factors that would prevent
this. First, since 8th Street has a wider right-of-way and a
higher functional classification than 9th Street, 8th Street is a
more sensible terminus for C/I designations than is 9th Street.
Additionally, most of the land south of 8th Street on the west side
of Old Dixie Highway is already subdivided for and/or developed
with residential uses. Therefore, the proposed land use change
would better structure existing node boundaries rather than create
strip commercial development.
DCA Obiections
The DCA had one objection to the proposed amendment. This
objection involves the surplus of C/I designated land in the
county. Currently, the county has approximately 5,500 acres of C/I
designated land. However, population projections indicate only
2,800 acres of the C/I designated land will be needed by the year
2010. This fact indicates that no additional C/I designated land
is needed at present.
Staff's position is that when taken as whole, there is a surplus of
C/I designated land in the county. However, this is due to largely
vacant nodes in other parts of the county, such as those near I-95.
However, in the area of the county near the subject property, there
is a demand for additional C/I designated land. This demand is
demonstrated by the fact that the C/I node adjacent to the subject
property is already approximately 70% developed.
That issue is specifically addressed in this staff report under the
section relating to Future Land Use Policy 1.23. It is staff's
position that the data and analysis provided in that section
adequately address DCA's objection to this amendment. For that
reason, staff feels that the proposed amendment may be approved by
the Hoard of County Commissioners.
Alternatives
There are four alternatives which the Board of County Commissioners
can take concerning this request. The first alternative is to deny
the request. The second alternative is to approve this request
with the applicant proposed CL zoning.
The third alternative, as discussed at the transmittal public
hearing, is to approve this request, but rezone the subject
property to a different zoning district than requested, such as
OCR. Staff supports this alternative.
The fourth alternative is to deny
rezone the subject property to a more
present, L-2, land use designation.
multiple -family zoning, such as RM -6,
in density.
28
the land use amendment, but
intense use allowed under the
Practically, this would allow
without allowing an increase
Approval Alternative
In 1992s, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 163 Part II
(County and Municipal Planning and Land Development Regulation) of
the Florida Statues to provide an alternative means for local
governments to adopt amendments to their comprehensive plan. This
alternative adoption measure was established to allow local
governments the opportunity to protect themselves from being
penalized by adopting comprehensive. plan amendments subsequently
found not in compliance by the state.
Under the regular procedure, a comprehensive plan amendment becomes
effective when a local government adopts the amendment. Even
though the state Department of Community Affairs has forty-five
days from plan adoption to issue a compliance determination, an
applicant can apply for and obtain a development permit immediately
after local government approval of a plan amendment request. That
situation could cause a problem for local governments in that once
an applicant obtains a development order and makes expenditures
based upon that development order, his project usually becomes
vested. When a project is vested, the project developer has the
legal right to proceed with development, and the project can be
stopped by a local government only if that local government
compensates the developer for damages.
In cases where a comprehensive plan amendment is found not in
compliance by DCA, the local government approving the amendment
faces various financial penalties if DCA's decision is subsequently
upheld by the Administration Commission. To avoid those penalties,
local governments often enter into compliance agreements with DCA,
whereby the non-compliant amendment is modified to make it
.acceptable. If, however, an applicant has obtained a development
order and started construction on property which was the subject of
a plan amendment found not in compliance, the approving local
government may be unable to enter into a compliance agreement
without terminating the site's development approval and incurring
significant costs for damages.
To address that issue, the legislature, in 1992, amended Section
163.3189, F.S. to allow local governments to adopt plan amendments
that would not become effective until DCA has issued a final order
finding the amendment in compliance. This, however, is an
alternative process, and it is at the discretion of a local
government as to whether to adopt a plan amendment by the regular
method or by the alternative.
If the Board adopts the amendment, both planning staff and the
county attorney's staff recommend that the Board use the
alternative procedure. By doing, so, the Board would delay the
issuance of any development order request for the subject property
until DCA or the Administration Commission has issued a positive
compliance determination for the subject amendment; however, the
County's interest will be protected and its potential liability
reduced.
Conclusion
The requested land use amendment will have no adverse impacts on
public facilities or environmental quality and is consistent with
the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. If
zoned OCR, the county's Land Development Regulations will ensure
that commercial development of the subject property will be
compatible with surrounding areas. Finally, it is staff's position
that the subject site is appropriate for the C/I land use
designation and will not constitute strip commercial development.
For these reasons staff supports the request.
29
MAY 2 51993 BOOK 89 NKA -630
r MAY 25 1993
Recommendation
BOOK 89 F,1GF 631
Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve thio request to redesignate the
subject property to C/I, but rezone the subject
rortto
instead of the requested CL. Staff further recommends hat theesse
changes become effective when DCA or the Administration Commission
issues a positive compliance determination for the subject
amendment.
Director Keating further stated that the Approval Alternative
is a mechanism to protect the County. Without this alternative, if
the Board approved the land use amendment, the applicant
immediately could come in and get a development order and start
construction on the property. If the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) subsequently finds the amendment not in compliance,
the County could find itself in a position between an applicant
that has invested in a project and the State DCA that essentially
could impose sanctions because of a finding of non-compliance.
Director Keating advised that legal staff concurs that having an
effective date which is contingent upon a DCA finding of compliance
is a beneficial change for the County in the adoption of Comp Plan
amendments.
Director Keating explained that staff's recommendation is to
approve the land use change from L2 to C/I, rezone the property to
OCR, and in both ordinances make the effective date contingent upon
the Department of Community Affairs or the Administration
Commission finding the land use plan amendment in compliance.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Bruce Barkett, attorney representing the applicants, stated
that the applicants feel there is nothing to be gained with OCR and
that C/L zoning is appropriate. Mr. Barkett disagreed with the
alternative allowing the amendment to become effective contingent
upon approval by DCA because under those circumstances there is no
room to negotiate or deal with DCA staff at that point. County
staff cannot fight for the applicant's position and the ordinance
never will become effective. It gives the DCA more power and less
reason to be amenable to staff's rationale.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac advised that staff is
recommending the Approval Alternative to protect the County's
interest. If the amendments are found in non-compliance by DCA,
then it a becomes a situation of who wants to go to the expense of
proceeding further.
30
Attorney Barkett used the aerial enlargement and described the
subject property and its relationship with surrounding properties.
Mr. Barkett felt that staff gave a good history of the project, but
pointed out that Trevor Smith originally requested heavy commercial
zoning rather than limited commercial. At that time the Board
agreed that his property is not useful as residential property and
that he should be given some relief but they agreed that C/L would
be intense. The Board also commented that Trevor Smith's property
was small, it would be almost like spot zoning, and he should
reapply with the whole block. Trevor Smith joined all the property
owners on Old Dixie Highway from 8th Street to 9th Street because
they feel that 8th Street is the logical place to terminate the C/L
zoning. Mr. Barkett argued that there is a need for C/L zoning.
Any additional traffic that the property generates will be handled
by the programmed expansion of Old Dixie Highway and will be
addressed in the site plan stage. The lighting situation would be
mitigated by the vegetative buffering, which is twice as dense in
C/L as in OCR. Mr. Barkett conceded that the neighbors were
worried about a 7 -Eleven type store on that property. While he
could not say that would not happen, he thought it unlikely because
there is a convenience store at 12th Street and Old Dixie Highway.
He expected that with rezoning to C/L, the property would be
developed into a strip of stores and offices much like Colonial
Plaza. He listed the types of businesses that could be included in
that type of zoning and he requested that the Board rezone this
property to C/L, Limited Commercial.
Karl Brubaker, 835 10th Avenue, was opposed to the rezoning.
He stated that he has appeared before the Board previously and the
situation has not changed since that time except that other
property owners have joined with Trevor Smith in his request for
rezoning. Rezoning would adversely affect the residential
neighborhood which has been there for 45 years. He pointed out
that three new homes were built recently in that neighborhood.
Trevor Smith's property abuts the residential property and is very
close to the bedroom of the nearest home. Mr. Brubaker stated that
the property was zoned residential when Trevor Smith and the others
bought their properties.. He pointed out that Mrs. Watson's
property, which is closest to Mr. Wood's property on 8th Street,
will have commercial zoning on two sides of her home. This is not
something that is blank space; this is a neighborhood that has been
in existence for 45 years. No one wants a 24-hour establishment
like a 7 -Eleven or a clinic beside their home. He felt that the
property owners who are asking for the rezoning have given up on
31
BOOK 89 R+,r 6,3?
Fr -
MAY 2 5 1993
BOOK 89 FADE 63
their homesteads and the remaining home owners should not be
punished and be made to pay for someone else's choice. He also
pointed out that staff stated that we have enough commercial land.
Susan L. Thomas, 837 Old Dixie Highway, one of the applicants,
clarified that the applicants do not want the Board to change
anything in Ridge Acres Subdivision, only the property that faces
Old Dixie Highway. The commercial use to the east and north was
not there when she purchased her property. The area has changed
and that is why they are asking for the change to C/L.
Bob Wood, 420 12th Place Southeast, one of the applicants,
stated that he has a block journeyman license, state master plumber
license and an underground pollutant storage system specialty
license. He would like to improve his property and move his office
to the new location. He believed that the property is overpriced
and overtaxed and if it is not rezoned to C/L, it is of no value to
him. He stated that he has played by the rules and paid for the
property, spent time and money in the effort to rezone the
property, and if the Board does not rezone it to C/L, he will lose
not only his initial investment and the expenses of requesting the
rezoning but will lose future potential income as well.
William Larson, resident of Ridge Acres Subdivision, noted
that the proceeding was initiated by Trevor Smith on property that
abuts Ridge Acres Subdivision on two sides. He thought that the
underlying reason for the property being technically unusable was
that Trevor Smith's residence was used for rental, became rundown,
and was condemned and demolished. He appreciated the problems
faced by Trevor Smith, but he urged the Board not to rezone it
beyond OCR.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Staff presented the following lists of uses in the districts:
6 911.10
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE
C - Commercial
TC - Tourist commercial
HC - Hospital commercial
C/I - Commercial industrial
I - Industrial
CIG - Gifford co trial
CIC - CommerciaUindustrial corridor
(4) Uses. Uses in the commercial districts are classified as permitted uses, administrative permit uses,
and special exception uses. Site plan review shall be required for the construction, alteration and use of
all structures and buildings except single-family dwellings.
Commercial uses and activities shall be contained within an enclosed area unless otherwise specifi-
cally allowed herein or unless allowed as an accessory or temporary use approved by the community
development director.
Commercial' Land Use Desirmfion
District
C
TC
HC C11 I I I
CIG
CIC
PRO
CH
Agriculture
See S ecial District Requirements
OCR
A 'cultural Production,
X
X
MED
X
Horticultural and landscape plants
and specialties
CN
P I
See Special District uirements
P
Kennels and animal boarding
CL
X
X
XX
A
X
CG
X
X
X
X
X
CH
X
-
- X -I
X I
X
C - Commercial
TC - Tourist commercial
HC - Hospital commercial
C/I - Commercial industrial
I - Industrial
CIG - Gifford co trial
CIC - CommerciaUindustrial corridor
(4) Uses. Uses in the commercial districts are classified as permitted uses, administrative permit uses,
and special exception uses. Site plan review shall be required for the construction, alteration and use of
all structures and buildings except single-family dwellings.
Commercial uses and activities shall be contained within an enclosed area unless otherwise specifi-
cally allowed herein or unless allowed as an accessory or temporary use approved by the community
development director.
33
MAY 5 ���� BooK 89 �}�cF 6:34
s
District
RQ •
OCR
MED CN
CL
CG
CH
Agriculture
A 'cultural Production,
Horticultural and landscape plants
and specialties
P I
P
P
Kennels and animal boarding
A
A
AKHcultural Services
_ Landscape services
P
P
Commercial fishery
A
P
Commercial
Construction
.General building contractors/Con-
struction yards
-
P
Finance, Insurance, Real Estate, Legal
Services
Banks and credit institutions
-
P
- P
P
P
PeTnity and commodi brokers
P
P
p
p
p
Insurance agents, brokers and ser-
vice
P
P
P
P
P
'Automatic teller machines
P
P P
P
p
Real Estate
P
P
- P
P
P-
Holding and other investment offices
P
P
p
p
p
-
Legal services
P
P
- P
P
P4::.
33
MAY 5 ���� BooK 89 �}�cF 6:34
s
r MAY 251993
ZONING
BOOK 89 FAGS 635
1911.10
34
District
`
PRO
OCR
MED CN
CL
cG
CH
Services
Lodainx facilities hotels and motels
P
P -
P
P
.
Boardinghouses
A
- A
A
P
-
Bed and breakfast
P
A
S A
A
S
Membership based based hotels
p
Personal Services
Laundries and laundromats (exclud-
in eaners) -
o
. P
P
i P
-
Garment pressing" and drgcleaners _
dr° i
P
P
P
-
Linen supply
-
-
P
P
Carpet and upholstery cleaning
p
p
Durleaning plants
-
-
- -
-
P
Photographic studios
A
P
P
P
Beauty shops
A
P
P
P
-
Barber shops
A
- P
P
P
-
Shoe r airA
P
P
P-.
-
Funeral homes
e
p
-
Funeral chapels
p
p
.
Crematoriums
-
P
P
Business Service
—Advertising
P-
P
-
PP
P
Credit revorting and collection
P
p
_
p
p
p
Mailing, reproduction and steno-
graphic services
Equipment rental and leasing
Employment agencies
Helpsu 1 services
Computer and data Processing
General and professional office
p
P
P
p
-
p
p
p
- -
_
p
p
P
p
_
p
p
p
P
p
p
p
p
p
P
p
p
p
.
Auto Repair, Services and Parkinff
Automotive rentals
-
p
p
Automobile parldng and stora
p
p
Body and paint shops
p
General automotive repair
p
p
Carwashes
-
-
-
-
P
P
Automotive fluid sales and services
(other than line)
A
A
P
Miscellaneous Repair.
Electrical repair
P
P
P
Watch clock, je*elry
p
p
p
Reupholsters and furniture
-
p
Weldin
Motion Pictures
-
P
Production and distribution services
Motion picture theaters
p
p
p
p
-
34
f 811.10 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE
35
p� 1993 Boa 1. r.,r AD
District
PRO OCR
MED
CN
CL
CG
CH
Drive in theaters (unenclosed com-
mercial amusement) -
S
Video tape rentals
p
p
p
Amusement and Recreation
Dance studios, school and halls
P
P
Theatrical production including
music
p
p
Enclosed commercial amusements
p
p
p
Unenclosed commercial amusements
except miniature golf courses and
drivinff ranges
S
Health and fitness centers
A
P
P
Membership sports and recreation
p
I p
_
Coin-operated amusements
P
P
P
Miniature golf courses -
-
S
A
Driviur ranges
A
A
Health and Medical Services
Offices and clinics P P
P P
P
P
Total care facilities --
Hos itals
Medical and dental laboratory
p
p
I -P
_
Home healthcare services
p
p
p
Speciahty outpatient clinics
P
P
P
-
Veterinarian clinic
A
A
Wholesale Trade
Durable goods
p
Nondurable goods
p
Retail Trade w
Convenience stores
P
P
P
-
Building materials and garden sup -
lies
=
A
P
Paint, alass and wallpaper stores
P
P
P
Hardware stores
P
P
P
Retail nurseries and zarden supplies
p
p
P-'
Model mobile home la
_
A
p
Mobile home trailer sales
General Merchandise
A
Department stores
A
p
Variety stores
A
p
_
Flea market
A
Auction facilities unenclosed
Auction facilities enclosed
p
A
p
Food Stores
Grobery stores
P
P
P
.
Meat and fish markets
p
p
p
-
Fruit and vegetable markets
p
p
p
-
Candy, nut and confectionery stores
p p
p I
p
_
35
p� 1993 Boa 1. r.,r AD
r �
MAY 2 5 1993 BOOK 89 pn-637
ZONING
§ 911.10
36
District -
PRO OCR
MED
CN
CL
CG
CHJ.
Dairy product stores
-
-
P
P
P
-
Retail bakeries
-
-
P
P
P
-
Automotive Dealers and Services
New and used cars dealers
-
-
-
P
P
Used vehicle sales
- -
-
-
-
S
A
Auto and home supply stores
- -
-
-
P
P
P
Gasoline service stations
-
- A
P
P
Boat sales and rentals
-
-
-
A
P
Recreational vehicle sales
-
-
-
A
A
Motorcycle dealers
-
-
-
-
P
P
Car wash
- -
-
-
-
P
P
Automotive fuel sales
- -
-
A
A
P
P
Commercial marina
- -
-
-
-
A
P
Marine repair and service
- -
-
-
-
A
P
Apparel and Accessory Stores
-
P
P
P
-
Furniture and Home Furnishings
Furniture and home furnishing stores
-
=
--A-
P .
P
Household appliance stores I-
-
-
A
P
P
Radio television and computer stores
-
-
P
P
P
-
Eating and Drinking Establishments
Restaurants
-
A
P
P
P
P
—Carryout rest4urants
A
A
P
P
P
P
Drive through restaurants
- -
-
-
-
P
P
Bars and lounges
-
-
-
S
P
P
Bottle clubs
- -
-
-
-
S
A
Miscellaneous Retail
Drug stores
- -
P
A
P
P
Liquor stores
-
-
P
P
P
-
Miscellaneous shopping s
- -
-
P
P
-
Florists
-
P
P
P
P
-
News stands
-
P
P
P
P
—Sporting 000ds
P
P
-
tical goods
P
P
P
-
Gift stores
P
P
P
P
-
Book and card store
-
P
P
P
P
Catalogue and mail order house
- -
-
-
-
P
P
Fuel Dealers
-
P
P
Food and Kindred Products
-
P
Fruit and vegetable packing houses
-
S
S
Fruit and vegetable juice extraction
-
-
-
S
Community Services
Educational Services
Educational centers including pri-
ri-
mary
m and secondary schools
S
S
S
S
S
Colleges and universities
- S
S
-
S
S
-
Libraries
- A
-
A
P
P
-
36
3 911.10 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CODE
37
MAY 2 51993 nu 8 znj F,A r, 638
District
PRO
OCR
MED
CN
CL
CG
CH
Vocational technical and business
-
P
P
P
P
P
-
Institutional
Individual and family services
-
P
P
P
Job training services
-
P
P
p
Child care and adult care
A
A
P
A
P
P
-
' Homes for aged, including nursing
homes and rest homes
-
-
P
-
S
_
S
-
Residential treatment center
-
P
-
S
S
S
Place of worship
P
P
-
P
p
p
Cultural and Civic Facilities
P
P
A
=
P
P
Civic and social membership organi-
zations
-
-
A
-
P
P
Public Administration
Government administrative build -
in
A
P
A
P
P
P
-
Courts
-
-
P
P
-
Emergency services
P
P
P
p
p
p
p
Libraries
P
P
P
P
P
P
P
Industrial
Printing and publishing
p
Machine shops
-
-
-
p
Chemicals and Plastics
Rubber and plastic footwear
-
-
_
p
Hose beltsgaskets packing
p
Assembly production (not including
manufacturing)
-
_
_
p
Transportation and communication
Railroad/Bus Transportation Services •
Local and suburban transit
-
-
p
p
TrucIting and courier services
-
-
p
Commercial warehousing and storage
-
-
p
Moving and storage
-
_
p
Trucking terminals
-
-
p
Self storage facilities
-
-
-
S
S
P
Outdoor storage
-
A
Post Office
p
p
p
p
p
p
p
Water transport services
-
_
p
Air transport services
-
-
-
P
Pipelines
-
p
Heli ort/heli ad
-
S
-
-
S
-
Recycling centers
A
Travel and tour agencies
-
p
p
p
-
Freight transport arrangement
P
-
p
p
Communications
Telephone and telegraph
p
-
p
p
p
Radio and television broadcasting
-
p
-
p
p
p
Cable and pay T.V.
p
-A.
p I.
p
p
37
MAY 2 51993 nu 8 znj F,A r, 638
r
MAY 2 5 199? BOOK 89 PAGE 639
ZONING 1911.10
P a Permitted use -
A = Administrative permit use
S = Special- exception use
1 No industrial use shall be permitted in the CH district unless public sewer service is provided to the
subject property.
z The requirements of pection. 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter, shall apply to
towers less than 70': .:
(5) Accessory uses and structures as provided in Chapter 917.
(6) Required improvements. All future subdivisions and site plans for development in commercial
districts shall install the following improvements; designed and constructed to meet the requirements
and specifications of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida.
District
PRO OCR MED CN CL CG CH
Bikeways x• x x x x x x
Sidewalks - x x x x x x x
Streetlights x x x x x x x
(7) Size and dimension criteria:
PRO
OCR
District
CN
CL
CG
CH
PRO
OCR
MED CN _
CL
CG
CH
Public and private utilities, limited
A
A
A A
A
A
A
Public and rivate utilities heavy
100
-
Min. Yards ft.
-
-
S
2Transmission towers
—
Front
25
25
Less than 70 feet in height
25
25
25
P
P
P
70-140 feet in hei ht
20
20
10
A
A
A
Residential Uses
20
20
20
10
10
10
Single-family dwelling
P
P
40
40
40
40
Duplex
P
P
35
-
-
25
Multifamily dwelling dwellin
P
P
A A
I
A
A
-
Accessory housing (watchman)
35
35
-
-
- .
P
P a Permitted use -
A = Administrative permit use
S = Special- exception use
1 No industrial use shall be permitted in the CH district unless public sewer service is provided to the
subject property.
z The requirements of pection. 917.06(11), of the Accessory Uses and Structures Chapter, shall apply to
towers less than 70': .:
(5) Accessory uses and structures as provided in Chapter 917.
(6) Required improvements. All future subdivisions and site plans for development in commercial
districts shall install the following improvements; designed and constructed to meet the requirements
and specifications of the Code of Laws and Ordinances of Indian River County, Florida.
District
PRO OCR MED CN CL CG CH
Bikeways x• x x x x x x
Sidewalks - x x x x x x x
Streetlights x x x x x x x
(7) Size and dimension criteria:
38
PRO
OCR
MED
CN
CL
CG
CH
Min. Lot Sizes . ft.
10,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
Min. Lot Width ft.
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Min. Yards ft.
Front
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
Rear
25
20
20
20
10
10
10
Side
20
20
20
20
10
10
10
Max. Covera %
35
40
40
40
40
40
40
Min. Open Space %
35
35
30
30
25
25
20
Max. Building
Height ft.
35
35
35
35
35
35
35
Residential District
Reg
RM -6
RM -6
RM -8
RM -8`
RM -8
11M-8
-
38
Commissioner Adams recalled that the Planning & Zoning
Commission was concerned about buffering and that the required
buffering is twice as dense in C/L as in OCR.
Director Keating responded that OCR requires Type C buffering
which allows it to be narrower and denser. In both OCR and C/L the
buffering must contain a 6 -foot opaque feature.
Commissioner Tippin opposed the Approval Alternative. He did
not want to worry about the State suing us because they can sue us
no matter what the decision is, and he felt it is time for the
counties to assume responsibility. He was opposed to the
contingency of being found in compliance by DCA before the
Ordinance is effective.
Commissioner Eggert clarified that being found in non-
compliance could cost as much as $9 million.
Director Keating explained that being found in non-compliance
requires long, protracted discussions with DCA trying to work out
a stipulated settlement agreement. If this contingency is not
included and DCA does not approve the amendment, we will find
ourselves in the position of negotiating with DCA. In the
meantime, the applicant may get the development order and begin his
development.
Commissioner Eggert clarified that the difference will be
friendly or unfriendly negotiations.
Chairman Bird asked whether that Approval Alternative will be
standard and included in all rezoning requests in the future, and
Director Keating responded that where DCA has issued objections,
staff will make the recommendation to include that alternative.
Discussion ensued regarding time frames, and Director Keating
explained that an ordinance amending the Comprehensive Plan will
take effect at the time it is received by the Department of State
if it is not contingent upon a finding of compliance.
Commissioner Adams was concerned that the OCR buffering would
not be sufficient and felt commercial lighting cannot be shaded.
She asked why we cannot exclude a 7 -Eleven type store in this
rezoning, and Director Keating responded that conditional rezonings
are not allowed. Once a parcel is rezoned and the Comp Plan is
amended, the applicant has the ability to develop any usage that is
permitted in that zoning district.
Commissioner Adams sympathized with the residential property
owners but also felt that the owners of properties facing Old Dixie
Highway need relief.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that Old Dixie Highway has changed
and that OCR would be more acceptable.
39
L_ SAY 2 5 1993 BOOK 89 F',�,UF 640
r
MAY 251993
BOOK 89 FnF 64.1-1
Chairman Bird felt that the property owners on 10th Avenue are
entitled to a residential lifestyle. The properties to the east
have been altered by the changes in the neighborhood and it is no
longer a residential neighborhood. The OCR zoning district is a
compromise and he hoped that the rezoned property would not become
unusable because that type of use is not desirable with the heavy
industrial use across the street and to the north and south. He
opposed the Approval Alternative because he did not think that the
Florida Department of Community Affairs is capable of making minute
decisions like this; local government is responsible.
Commissioner Adams commented that the Comprehensive Plan is a
plan, and when changes occur, the plan must be changed accordingly.
Director Keating agreed, but cautioned that we must include
adequate data and analysis to support the Comp Plan amendment and
the change must be justified.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance
93-19, amending the land use element of the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the U.S. #1/Vero
Beach City limits to 8th Street Commercial/
Industrial Node, as recommended by staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance
93-20, amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
accompanying zoning map from RS -6 to OCR, for the
property located on the west side of Old Dixie
Highway between 8th Street and 9th Street, as
recommended by staff.
COMMISSIONER EGGERTFS MOTION to include the Approval
Alternative in Ordinances 93-19 and 93-20 failed for
lack of a second.
County Attorney Vitunac clarified, and Director Keating
confirmed that the Ordinances amending the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan and amending the Zoning Ordinance will follow
the usual course and become effective when received by the
Department of State.
40
ORDINANCE NO. 93-19
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE
U.S. #1/VERO BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8TH STREET COMMERCIAL/
INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM t215 ACRES TO ±216.86 ACRES, AND
PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 17, 1992,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 30, 1992, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 15, 1993, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners 'of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on May 25, 1993, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
41
MAY 251993 e00K 89 NVU 642
r MAY 2 5 1993
p 9 n gg��
BOOK 8PAGF 643
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 19
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
PARCEL #1:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SOUTH BOUNDARY
OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 1630.71 FEET; THEN RUN IN A
NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 440 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING: THEN CONTINUE ALONG SAME LINE A DISTANCE
OF 100 FEET; THEN RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE
WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12 A
DISTANCE OF 117.14 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY; THEN RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE
CENTERLINE OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 105.75 FEET;
THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION A DISTANCE OF 151.25 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOR 420, PAGE 109 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS LYING AND BEING IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL #2:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1630.71 FEET; THEN, RUN
IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE
WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 340.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN CONTINUE ALONG THIS SAME LINE A
DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THEN, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION
ALONG.A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF
SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 151.25 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE
OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THEN, RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY
DIRECTION ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY A
DISTANCE OF 93.26 FEET: THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION A
DISTANCE OF 181.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS RIGHT
OF WAY FOR OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY.
PARCEL #3:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THR SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1740.71 FEET THEN
RUN IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO
THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 115.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN CONTINUE ALONG THE SAME
LINE A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET; THEN RUN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION
ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID
SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 90.50 FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY
LINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THEN RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY
DIRECTION ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A DISTANCE OF 30.32
FEET; THEN RUN IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG LINE WHICH IS
PARALLEL TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE
OF 46.35 FEET; THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION 100.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE EAST 3.95 FEET
42
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 19
MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE; ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT
THAT LAND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOR 411, PAGE 445,
PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL #4
BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, THEN RUN EAST
ALONG SECTION LINE 1730.71 FEET; THEN RUN NORTH 40 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING, THEN RUN NORTHERLY 150 FEET; THEN RUN EAST
10 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT 90.50 FEET WEST OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY, RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO WEST LINE OF
SECTION 12, 75 FEET, RUN 100 FEET MORE OR LESS TO WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY TO NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF GLENDALE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEN RUN WESTERLY ALONG NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GLENDALE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL #5
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 16.30.71 FEET; THEN
RUN IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO
THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 190.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN RUN IN AN EASTERLY
DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY
OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 200.50 FEET TO THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THEN RUN IN A
NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A
DISTANCE OF 169.40 FEET; THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION A
DISTANCE OF 145.40 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 150.00 FEET
NORTHERLY.FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN RUN TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; WHICH'PROPERTY IS
SITUATED LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL #6
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 12
A DISTANCE OF 1520.71 FEET; THEN RUN NORTHERLY AND PARALLEL TO
THE WEST -LINE OF SAID SECTION.12, A DISTANCE OF.540 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN CONTINUE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAME
LINE 120 FEET; THEN RUN EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 188.71 FEET TO THE
CENTERLINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, THEN RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG
SAID CENTERLINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 128.21
FEET; THEN RUN WESTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF
SECTION 12, A DISTANCE 225.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
LESS AND EXCEPTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, AND
LESS THE NORTH 35 FEET AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOR 78,
PAGE 509, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre)
to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node:
c The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and ti
o Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
add ±1.86 acres to the U.S. Highway #1/Vero Beach City
Limits to 8th Street Commercial/Industrial Node.
SECTION 3.. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance may be
County Code and the word "ordinance" may be
"article", gr other appropriate word, and
ordinance may be renumbered or relettere
intentions.
43
�1AY 251993
incorporated into the
changed to "section",
the sections of the
d to accomplish such
BOOK S9 F'°:;F. 644
MAY 2 5 1993
SECTION 4.
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 19
Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
BooK �9 FnoF 645
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions -of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon becoming law.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the _16. day of May , 1993 for a public hearing to be held on
the 25th day of May , 1993 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ave
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Ave
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Carolyn R. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Abspnt
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ichard N. Bird, Chairman
ATTEST BY.
e y Ba ton Clerk
sY: ..A. IJC.
Acknowledgment by the Department of State ofhe State of Florida
this 3rd day of June , 1993.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 7th
day of June , 1993, at 10:00 A.M./ftj4. and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL ICIE Y
otgl
'W 11 am G. Collins II, Deputy County
ow
Robert M. Keati g,
Community DevelopmentDirector
u\v\j\tsocpa.ord
44
Attorney
Indian Riven 6a
Ap�rcrad �aie
Atlmm.
�.
Eluogel
�/
Dept
Risk N�gr.
��
ORDINANCE NO. 93-20
AN ORDINANCE• OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6 TO
OCR, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND 9TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED,
HEREIN, "D PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the -Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
it
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:
PARCEL #1:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SOUTH BOUNDARY
OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 1630.71 FEET; THEN RUN IN A
NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE WEST
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 440 FEET TO THE
POINT OF BEGINNING: THEN CONTINUE ALONG SAME LINE A DISTANCE
OF 100 FEET; THEN RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE
WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12 A
DISTANCE OF 117.14 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE OF THE OLD DIXIE
HIGHWAY; THEN RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE
CENTERLINE'OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 105.75 FEET;
THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION A DISTANCE OF 151.25 FEET TO
THE POINT QF BEGINNING. LESS AND EXCEPT THE LAND DESCRIBED IN
OFFICIAL RECORD BOOR 420, PAGE 109 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS LYING AND BEING IN
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL #2:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE SOUTH
LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1630..71 FEET; THEN, RUN
IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE
WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 340.00 FEET TO
THE POINT OF -BEGINNING; THEN CONTINUE ALONG THIS SAME LINE A
DISTANCE OF 100.00 FEET; THEN, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION
ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY LINE OF
SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 151.25 FEET TO THE CENTERLINE
45
A� 5 BOOK 89 FnUF 646
MAY 2 5 1993
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 20
OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THEN, RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY
DIRECTION ALONG THE CENTERLINE OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY A
DISTANCE OF 93.26 FEET: THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION A
DISTANCE OF 181.61 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS RIGHT- .
OF -WAY FOR OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY.
PARCEL #3:
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH
IS PARALLEL TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A
DISTANCE OF 115.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN
CONTINUE ALONG THE SAME LINE A DISTANCE OF 75.00 FEET; THEN
RUN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO
THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 90.50
FEET TO THE WEST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THEN
RUN IN A SOUTHEASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
A DISTANCE OF 30.32 FEET; THEN RUN IN A SOUTHERLY DIRECTION
ALONG LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID
SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 46.35 FEET; THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY
DIRECTION 100.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND
LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND
EXCEPT THE EAST 3.95 FEET MEASURED ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY
LINE; ALSO LESS AND EXCEPT THAT LAND RECORDED IN OFFICIAL
RECORD BOOK 411, PAGE 445, PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL #4
BEGIN AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, THEN RUN EAST
ALONG SECTION LINE 1730.71 FEET; THEN RUN NORTH 40 FEET TO THE
POINT OF, BEGINNING, THEN RUN NORTHERLY 150 FEET; THEN RUN EAST
10 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT 90.50 FEET WEST OF RIGHT-OF-
WAY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY, RUN SOUTH PARALLEL TO WEST LINE OF
SECTION 12, 75 FEET, RUN 100 FEET MORE OR LESS TO WEST RIGHT-
OF-WAY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY RUN SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF DIXIE HIGHWAY TO NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF GLENDALE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY, THEN RUN WESTERLY ALONG NORTH
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF GLENDALE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY TO POINT OF
BEGINNING.
PARCEL #5
FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN IN AN EASTERLY DIRECTION ALONG THE SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 1630.71 FEET; THEN
RUN IN A NORTHERLY DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO
THE WEST BOUNDARY OF SAID SECTION,12, A DISTANCE OF 190.00
FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN RUN IN AN EASTERLY
DIRECTION ALONG A LINE WHICH IS PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY
OF SAID SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 200.50 FEET TO THE WEST
RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF THE OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY; THEN RUN IN A
NORTHWESTERLY DIRECTION ALONG SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE A
DISTANCE OF 169.40 FEET; THEN RUN IN A WESTERLY DIRECTION A
DISTANCE OF 145.40 FEET TO A POINT WHICH IS 150.00 FEET
NORTHERLY FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN RUN TO THE POINT
OF BEGINNING A DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; WHICH PROPERTY IS
SITUATED LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
PARCEL #6
FROM THE-SOUTHWESrD CORNER OF SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, RUN EASTERLY ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SECTION 12
A DISTANCE OF 1520.71 FEET; THEN RUN NORTHERLY AND PARALLEL TO
THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 12, A DISTANCE OF 540 FEET TO
THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THEN CONTINUE NORTHERLY ALONG THE SAME
LINE 120 FEET; THEN RUN EASTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH
BOUNDARY OF SECTION 12 A DISTANCE OF 188.71 FEET TO THE
CENTERLINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, THEN RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG
SAID CENTERLINE OF OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY A DISTANCE OF 128.21
46
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 20
FEET; THEN RUN WESTERLY AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF
SECTION 12, A DISTANCE 225.84 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING;
LESS AND EXCEPTING THE RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY, AND
LESS THE NORTH 35 FEET AS RECORDED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 78,
PAGE 509 PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from RM -6 to CG.
All with the meaning and intent and as set fora
said Land Development Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of Coun Is C �
Indian River County, Florida, on this 25th day
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero
on the 5th day of May, 1993 for a public hearil.y
25th day of May, 1993 at which time it was moved for adoption "z
Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht e'hCzem
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: `
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ATTEST
Acknowledgment by the Department
this 3rd day of June ,
BY:
f .rey Bar n, C erk
��� -u �� fir. �.c�.
of State of the State of Florida
1993.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 7th day of June , 1993, at 10:00 A.M.
XXXXXBXXX and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGALFI IE CY
7
4William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
Robert M. Kea ng, CP
Community DevelopmoAt Director
u\v\j\tsorzon.ord
G 16
Inman River Ca
Approved Dote
Admin.
Legala
•l r-5 3
BudgeDeptRisk
M
SAY It BOOK 16`8
rBooK 89 F+�,F 649 �
MAY 2 5 199
PUBLIC HEARING - HESREL RORINE AND L. R. WILLCOCR REQUEST TO AMEND
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES
FROM L-1 TO C/I AND TO REZONE FROM RM -3 TO 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:
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, '
Florida, will consider adopting an ordinance to amend the use of
land within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County as '
shown in the ma of the .ocivertisement. A public hearing on the
proposal will be held on Tuesday, May 25, 1993, of 9:05 a.m. in -
the County Commission Chambers of the County AdZistration „
Buildin ated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this. 1
public gearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a fi-
R nal decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The pro-
posed amendment is included in the proposed ordinance entified,
,_• . AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, • +
AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPRE- — .
HENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (77th STREET TO 691h
STREET) FROM +/-I80'ACRES TO +A195 ACRES, BY EN- ^�
LARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 01 COMMERCIAL/INDUS-
TRIAL NODE (57th STREET TO 49th STREET) FROM +/-257ACRES +"a
HIGHWAY #I #17.31 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAND BY ENLARGING
L GNODE (VERO '
BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8th STREET) FROM +/-213 ACRES 3
TO +/-214.86 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. A . •;
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public
hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive q
Plan Amendment.
r ,a
The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public - e
at the Community Development Department offices located on the ' •f'
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. :
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which 'may be -
made of this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of
the dance upon wroceedinhich the appeal willis made which ibe based.udes e testimony and evi-
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting ; +`
must contact county's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) Coor- :
dinator at•567-8000 extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance :
of meeting.
a 1 r Indian River Count
1" ... Board of County Cyommissioners
.-s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
le •:
M",�.�4�
RIVERP.O. So* 1268 Vero'Beach. Florldo 32961 562-2315.
COUNTY OF I"IAN ,
STATE OF . ..
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J.
Schumann. Jr. who on oath says that he is Buninm Manager of the
Vero Beach Press -Journal. a newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County. Florida. that
61
billed to L erlGwtcl 1 Selo
was published In said newspaper in the issues)
Sworn to andandsubscribed before me this
to
day o A D / 9 �• 3
r I snsinesaManager
(SEA14
• •..v rrft ueo d ns:b
rro..." a+►o .s rr.:trs
.40 6*fl66
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
48
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Reati g, A
THRU: Sasan Rohani !9. Q.•
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 17, 1993
RE: Heskel Rorine and L.R. Willcock Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approximately 15
acres from L-1 to C/I, and to Rezone from RM -3 to 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 May 25, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
approximately 15 acres. Located on the east side of U.S. #1,
between 71st Street and 73rd Street, the subject property consists
of two separately owned parcels. The 8.8 acre northern parcel is
owned by Heskel Rorine, and the 6.3 acre southern parcel is owned
by L.R. Willcock.
The request involves changing the land use designation from L-1,
Low -Density Residential (up to 3 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/
Industrial_ Node, and rezoning the property 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.
Originally, the application. included a request that the entire
subject property be rezoned to CH, Heavy Commercial District. At
the Planning and Zoning Commission Public Hearing, however, the
applicant amended his application for the northern parcel from CH
to CL: Then, at the Board's Transmittal Public Hearing, the
applicant changed the requested zoning for the southern parcel to
CL. Therefore, the requested zoning for the entire subject
property is now CL.
On October 22, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny this
request to redesignate and rezone the subject property.
On November 17, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4 to
1 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. Staff then
prepared an addendum (see -attachment 9) and.transmitted both the
proposed land use amendment request and the addendum to DCA for
their ninety day review.
Planning staff received DCAt's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report on March 15, 1993. The DCA ORC Report
contained several substantive objections to this proposed
49
BOOK .650
BOOK 89 FAGE 651
MAY � 51�9�
amendment. These objections, all involving node expansion without
sufficient justification, relate to inconsistencies between the
proposed amendment and provisions in the county's Comprehensive
Plan, state law (Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, F.S.), the
State Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Regional Policy
Plan.
Specifically, DCA cited the following four main objections:
• The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.21 which discourages strip commercial development
[Rules 9J -5.005(5)(b), 9J -5.006(3)(b)7., and (4), F.A.C.].
• The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.23 which requires a 70% level of node development
prior to node expansion.
• The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 13.3 which prohibits plan amendments unless an
oversight or mistake in the original plan or a change in
circumstances affecting the subject property has occurred.
• Based on projected population, the proposed amendment does not
justify the need for additional C/I designated land.
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not discourage the
proliferation of urban sprawl [Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J -
5.006(2)(c), (3)(b)7., and (4), F.A.C.].
DCA also cited the following inconsistencies with the State
Comprehensive Plan and with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan:
• The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the State
Comprehensive Plan, including Land Use Goal (16) and Policy
(16)(b)3., because the. proposed change does not discourage
commercial sprawl within the county; and Plan Implementation
Goal (26) and Policy (26)(b)7., because the proposed change is
not supported by a demonstration of consistency with the
analysis of the amount of commercial land needed to
accommodate the projected population.
• The proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Comprehensive
Regional Policy Plan, specifically Regional Policy 16.1.2.2,
regarding the need to ensure that the Future Land Use Map is
based on an analysis of the amount of land needed to
accommodate the projected population.
As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan,
the Board of County Commissioners -is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested land use designation and zoning.
Existina 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.
#1, to the west, is vacant, uncleared land zoned CL, Limited
Commercial District, and OCR, Office, Commercial, 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
50
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 to the west, across U.S. #1, and to
the south of the subject site are designated C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, which permits commercial and industrial
zoning designations.
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 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 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. #1 to the west and 73rd Street to the
north. U.S. #1 is classified as an urban principal arterial road
on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of U.S.
#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 address:
• DCA objections;
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• Approval Alternatives.
This section will also consider alternatives for development of the
site. 51
MAY 51993 �ooK 89 F�U. 652
MAY 25 isom BOOK 89 uu 653
DCA Objections
Of the three comprehensive plan amendment requests transmitted to
DCA during the last transmittal period, this request received the
most objections. In fact, all four of the objections cited by DCA
are substantive. These four objections are:
• The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.21 which discourages strip commercial development.
• The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.23 which requires a 70% level of node development
prior to node expansion.
• The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 13.3 which prohibits plan amendments unless an
oversight or mistake in the original plan, or a change in
circumstances affecting the subject property, has occurred.
• Based on projected population, the proposed amendment does not
justify the need for additional C/I designated land. _
Therefore, the proposed amendment does not discourage the
proliferation of urban sprawl.
DCA raised the referenced objections despite the fact that staff
prepared an addendum to the staff report presented to the Board at
its transmittal hearing. A copy of that addendum is appended to
this staff report as Attachment 9. As drafted and submitted to
DCA, the referenced addendum specifically addressed those issues
which formed the basis of DCA's objections. With respect to urban
sprawl, node expansion, and circumstances necessary to justify a
plan amendment, staff attempted to provide sufficient justification
to show that the proposed amendment is consistent with established
county policy.
Despite the addendum, DCA determined that the subject amendment is
inconsistent with various provisions of the county's plan. In so
doing, DCA contends that the county is not following its own
policies. For several of these issues, particularly urban sprawl,
DCA notes that the proposed amendment would conflict with the state
comprehensive plan, even if local plan inconsistency was not an
issue.
Given DCA's objections, it appears that this amendment, if adopted,
will not be found in compliance. Regardless, staff has analyzed
the request. As indicated in the detailed analysis, staff, like
DCA, has identified the conflicts between the proposed amendment
and the Comprehensive Plan policies. For that reason, staff feels
that DCA's objections cannot be adequately addressed without
denying the amendment request.
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.
52
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:
11 3. Existing Zoning Classification:
t15 (14.53) acres
t15 (14.53) acres
RM -3, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up
to 3 units/acre)
4. Existing Land Use Designation: L- 1, L o w- D e n s i t y
Residential - 1 (up to 3
units/acre)
5. Proposed Zoning Classification: CL,, Limited Commercial
District
6. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial -
Industrial
ommercial-
Industrial Node
7. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
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).
- 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. #1 and. other impacted roads would not
be lowered. The site information_ used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existina Land Use and Zonin
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
Provosed Land Use and Zonin
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
53
BOOK 8FAGr. 6 54
MAY5 1991
r MAY 2 5 1993
3.
4.
b.
5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Outbound Trip Ends:
11% (ITE Manual)
BOOK 89 o,,U-L655 -7
c. 5-6 p.m. Peak our Inbound Trip Ends:
10.3% (ITE Manual)
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:
90094/2 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
Peak Direction of U.S. #1, from 69th Street to Old Dixie
Highway: Southbound
5. Traffic Capacity on U.S. #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. #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
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/peak season/inbound trip ends associated
with the most intense use of the subject property under the present
zoning is 16. This was determined by taking 65% (local
measurement) of 45 DU's (most intense use), multiplied by ITE's
factor of 0.55 peak hour trip ends/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 35% (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 70% (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 11% factor used for outbound trips, a 10.3% factor
was used.to estimate p.m. peak hour inbound trips. Using the same
54
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. r
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
I methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation 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. #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. #1 is 747 trips
(peak hour/peak season/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. #1 to
approximately 1,088.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that U.S. #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
Road
From
To
Capacity
LOS "D"
1325
U.S.
1
12th Street
S. VBC Limits
2370-
1330
U.S.
1
S. VBC Limits
17th Street
.2270
1335
U.S.
1
17th Stmt
S.R. 60
2270
1340
U.S.
1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm Pl.
2300
1345
U.S.
1
Royal Palm Pl.
Atlantic Blvd.
2300
1350
U.S.
1
Atlantic Blvd.
N. VBC Limits
2300
1355
U.S.
1
N. VBC Limits
Old Dixie Hwy.
2300
1360
U.S.
1
Old Dixie Hwy.
41st Street
2300
1365
U.S.
1
41st Street
45th Street
2650
1370
U.S.
1
45th Street
49th Street
2650
W
MAY 251993 �U 8 ��,r O
MAY 2 5 1993
r-
BOOK 09 PAGE 657 —1
Roadway Capacity
Segment Road From TO LOS "D"
1375
1380
1385
1390
1395
1400
1405
1720
1730
1740
1750
1810
1820
1830
1840
1940
1945
1950
1955
1960
2040
2050
2060
2250
2260
2360
2330
2335
2345
2350
2355
2365
3030
3035
3040
3045
3050
3055
3120
3130
3140
3150
3160
3170
U. S. 1
U.S. 1
O.S. 1
U. S. 1
O.S. 1
U.S. 1
U. a. 1
C.R. 512
C.A. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 512
C.R. 510
C.R. 510
C.A. 510
C.R. 510
S.R. 60
S.A. 60
S.A. 60
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
16th Street
16th Street
16th/17th Street
12th Street
12th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
Old Dixie Hwy.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
66th Ave.
49th Street
65th Street
69th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
Schumann Dr.
C.R. 512
N. Seb. City Limits
1-95
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City Limits
Roseland Road
C.R. 512
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
O.S. 1
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
O.S. 1
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
65th Street
S. VBC Limits
16th Street
41st Street
45th Street
49th Stmt
69th Street
S.R. 60
41st Street
45th Street
49th Street
65th Street
69th Street
S.R. 60
26th Street
41st Street
45th Street
65th Street
69th Street
65th Street
2650
69th Street
2650
Old Dixie Hwy.
2650
Schumann Dr.
2370
C.R. 512
2370
R. Seb. City Limits
2300
Roseland Road
2300
C.R. 510
630
W. Seb. City Limits
630
Roseland Road
630
O.S. 1
630
66th Ave.
630
58th Ave.
630
O.S. 1
630
S.R. AlA
630
20th Ave.
2600
Old Dixie Hwy.
1638
10th Ave.
1638
O.S. 1
1638
Indian Riv. Blvd.
1638
20th Ave.
830
Old Dixie Hwy.
970
U.S. 1
970
Old Dixie Hwy.
830
O.S. 1
830
69th Street
630
16th Street
830
S.R. 60
830
45th Street
630
49th Street
630
65th Street
630
C.R. 510
630
41st Street
830
45th Street
630
49th Street
630
65th Street
630
69th Street
630
C.R. 510
630
26th Street
630
41st Street
630
45th Street
630
65th Street
630
69th Street
630
C.R. 510
630
Roadway
Segment
Existing
Bx et nq
Volume
Demand
Vested
Volume
Total
Segment
Demand
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
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
Roadway
Segment
Zzistina
Ex et ng
Volume
Demand
vested
Volume
Total.
Segment
Demand
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Couaurrency
Determination
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
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 11,250 gallons/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County water
lines do not currently extend to the site. However, the applicant
has entered 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. 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.
- 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 gallons/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
57
mAY 2 51993 BOOK 89 F,,,F 658
F'AGF. ���
MAS' 2 5 1993 BOOK 89
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 8 1.25
R 2.37 (750 R 1.25 % 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
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.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
land use designation. With the execution of the referenced
developer's agreement for water, the concurrency test has been
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,
58
s � �
residential, recreational, conservation,
industrial land uses and their densities.
and commercial and
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.
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 for inclusion in the node at that time.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was
not included in the node for the following reasons:
• There was already sufficient land designated commercial to
accommodate projected demand;
• Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential
development was determined to be feasible; and
• Including the subject property in the node would produce a
strip commercial development pattern.
For these reasons, staff's position is that there was no mistake
nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan.
Oftentimes, the rationale given by applicants to justify a land use
change for property fronting U.S. #1 and other arterial roads is
that residential development of such a parcel is unfeasible.
Applicants typically 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. #1, and it still is. In
fact, single- and multiple -family development exist in numerous
places along U.S. #1 in Indian River County. Changing past policy
and amending the plan for this request would affect other
residential parcels abutting U.S. #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. 59
MAY 5 1993 eooK �9 FaGr 0
r MAY 25 iqq
BOOK 89 FAGF 601 -7
The third criterion of Future Land Use 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 Future Land Use 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 70% 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 60% to 70% of a node is developed and:
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 Future Land Use 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 70% 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
60
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 8% 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 8% is much
less than 70%, expansion of this node at this time is premature,
and this amendment request is inconsistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Objective 1 and Policy 4.1
Future Land Use Objective 1 and Policy 4.1 state that the county
will have an efficient and compact land use pattern which reduces
urban sprawl. An overallocation of C/I designated land is an
indication of urban sprawl. Currently, the county -has
approximately 5,500 acres of C/I designated land. Based on
population projections, only 2,800 acres of the C/I designated land
will be needed for the county by the year 2010, leaving
approximately 2,700 excess acres of C/I designated land. This fact
indicates that no additional C/I designated land is needed at
present. As proposed, the subject amendment would add to the
excess of C/I designated land, thereby increasing urban sprawl.
For that reason, this amendment request is inconsistent with Future
Land Use Objective 1 and Policy 4.1.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Policy 1.20 states that node size shall be based on
population and other demand characteristics within the general
market area of the node. Since there is already a sufficient
amount of land within the subject node to serve its general market
area, enlarging the subject node at this time is premature.
Therefore, this amendment request is inconsistent with Future Land
Use Policy 1.20.
- 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 Policy 1.21
by creating a long, narrow, unbroken strip of C/I designated land
fronting U.S. #1. Additionally, this land is not substantially
different from other residentially zoned land along U.S. #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. #1.
This directly contradicts Future Land Use Policy 1.21.
- 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. This policy also allows for
61
MAY 51993 BOOK �� P,q;F 669
MAY 2 Bou89 FacF663�
the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of
demand for more C/I designated land.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
The potential impact of the subject request upon surrounding land
uses is an important issue. As situated, 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. #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.
#1. This would cause compatibility problems along the east side of
U.S. #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, Land
Development Regulations Chapter 929 requires that 158 of the native
upland plant community existing on site be preserved via the
establishment of a conservation easement in conjunction with site
development. The 158 may be reduced to 108 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.
Development of the Subiect Props
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,
62
while the northern parcel could. accommodate 26. The parcels are
also large enough to provide a buffer from U.S. #1 and the
commercially designated land south of the subject property. 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. #1
and other adjacent uses. The feasibility of this kind of
development is demonstrated by the many single- and multiple -family
homes and developments along U.S. #1. Some examples of these are
Pelican Pointe, Reflections, River Run, 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.
Approval Alternative
In 1992, the Florida Legislature amended Chapter 163 Part II
(County and Municipal Planning and Land Development Regulation) of
the Florida Statues to provide an alternative means for local
governments to adopt amendments to their comprehensive plan. This
alternative adoption measure was established to allow local
governments the opportunity to protect themselves from being
penalized by adopting comprehensive plan amendments "subsequently
found not in compliance by the state.
Under the regular procedure, a comprehensive plan amendment becomes
effective when a local government adopts the amendment. Even
though the state Department of Community Affairs has forty-five
days from plan adoption to issue a compliance determination, an
applicant can apply for and obtain a development permit immediately
after local government approval of a plan amendment request. That
situation could cause a problem for local governments in that once
an applicant obtains a development order and makes expenditures
based upon that development order, his project usually becomes
vested. When a project is vested, the project developer has the
legal right to proceed with development, and the project can be
stopped by a local government only if that local government
compensates the developer for damages.
In cases where a comprehensive plan amendment is found not in
compliance by DCA, the local government approving the amendment
faces various financial penalties if DCA's decision is subsequently
upheld by the Administration Commission. To avoid those penalties,
local governments often enter into compliance agreements with DCA,
whereby the non-compliant amendment is modified to make it
acceptable. If, however, an applicant has obtained a development
.order and started construction on property which was the subject of
a plan amendment found not in compliance, the approving local
government may be unable to enter into a compliance agreement
without terminating the site's development approval and incurring
significant costs for damages.
To address that issue, the legislature, in 1992, amended Section
163.3189, F.S. to allow local governments to adopt plan amendments
that would not become effective until DCA has issued a final order
finding the amendment in compliance. This, however, is an
alternative process, and it is at the discretion of a local
government as to whether to adopt a plan amendment by the regular
method or by the alternative.
In this case, staff recommends that the Board not adopt the
proposed amendment. If, however, the Board opts to adopt the
amendment, both planning staff and the county attorney's staff
recommend that the Board use -the alternative procedure. By doing
so, the Board would delay the issuance of any development order
request for the subject property until DCA or the Administration
Commission has issued a positive compliance determination for the
subject amendment; however, the County's interest will be protected
and its potential liability reduced.
63
MAY 2 51993 9 FA"'r 6194
r - BOOK 09 PnF 665 �
MAY 2 5 1993
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. While 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 1.20, 1.21, 1.23, 4.1 and 13.3 and with Future Land Use
Objective 1.
For these reasons, staff does not support 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 this request to change the land use
designation of the subject property and deny the request to rezone.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Michael O'Haire, attorney representing both applicants,
explained that the properties are not adjoining but the applicants
have joined their request to save money and effort. Mr. O'Haire
stated that there are three reasons for amending the Comp Plan, and
he believed the applicants meet all three of the required criteria.
The first is that the parcels are the only residential parcels
within a 3 -mile continual stretch on the east side of U.S.i. It is
an enclave, or spot planning. It is 15 acres within hundreds and
thousands of acres that are available for non-residential use.
Addressing the second criterion, Mr. O'Haire believed that these
parcels were not addressed or considered when the Comp Plan was
adopted and that these two parcels fell through the cracks in the
process. It was an oversight or mistake. Mr. O'Haire did not
agree with staff's comparison to other residential developments on
U.S. 1 because the examples given are projects consisting of
hundreds of acres which run from U.S. 1 to the Indian River, with
a depth of 1200 to 2400 feet. That is not the case here. Over the
past 4 years there have been only 4 arm's length transactions in
the nearby residential development called Copeland's Landing, which
means it will take 68 years for that development to sell out. Mr.
O'Haire contended that residential development in that area is
unfeasible, it just does not work. Addressing the third criterion
which states that a node may be expanded when it is 70 percent
developed, Mr. O'Haire noted that the property is located north of
the Ocean Spray packing and processing plant. Ocean Spray expanded
their treatment field under a temporary operating and construction
permit with the Department of Environmental Regulations and they
64
expect to get a final permit next week. Mr. O'Haire contended that
the effluent field from the processing plant located just to the
north of the subject property and zoned Heavy Commercial- is not
compatible with residential property. Across the 6 -lane highway is
more commercial property. Citrus groves are located to the east
and that involves aerial and terrestrial application of herbicides,
which is not compatible with residential development. Mr. O'Haire
contended that it has been a minimum of 20 years since any
residential construction has occurred on U.S. 1 north of the city
of Vero Beach. The pattern has been set and this is a tiny enclave
within a stretch of 3 miles of OCR, CL, CH and industrial zoning.
Mr. O'Haire contended that if the property remains residential, the
property owners would be out of their minds to invest money to
improve the property as residential. If the Board denies this
request, the Board is telling these property owners that they are
free to continue to pay taxes on property which has no economically
viable or reasonable use. Mr. O'Haire submitted that the Board
must either let the owners use it reasonably or buy it from them.
Mr. O'Haire urged the Board to adopt the comp plan amendment and
grant the zoning change to the only reasonable use for the
property, C/L.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be'heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Commissioner Adams recalled that Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council recommended that the subject property be used for
a packing house, and when she reminded them that the citrus road is
being planned far to the west, they were redfaced. She agreed that
these parcels seem to be limbo areas squashed between heavy
commercial and OCR districts but felt this is a difficult decision.
Chairman Bird did not think we need more commercial zoning but
these parcels seem to be an enclave that perhaps was overlooked.
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about Ocean Spray moving
their effluent discharge field closer to the subject property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissiiner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance
93-21 amending the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the U.S. #1/77th
Street to 69th Street Commercial/ Industrial Node, as
recommended by staff.
65
BOOK 89 F-AGc 666
MAY 25 1993
r
MAY 2 5 1993
BOOK 89 PAGF 667
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance
93-22 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
accompanying Zoning Map from RM -3 to CL for the
property located at the southeast corner of U.S. #1
and 73rd Street, as recommended by staff.
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 21
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE
U.S. #1/77TH STREET TO 69TH STREET COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE
FROM ±181 ACRES TO ±196 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 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 reviewed this comprehensive
plan amendment and made a recommendation to the Board of County
Commissioners, 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 (c), and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
66
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 21
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 30, 1992, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from• the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 15, 1993, and
WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis
supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC
Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and
WHEREAS, the -Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on May 25, 1993, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
All of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of
Section 3, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, lying East of the
East right-of-way line of State Road 5 (U.S. Highway #1) as it
now exists: LESS the following described property:
Parcel 1 - The North 30 feet of the Southwest } of ,Section 3,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, lying Easterly of the East
right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1.
67
MAY 51993 BOOK 89 Mir- 668
MAY 2 5 1993 BOOK 89 PAA9
ORDINANCE NO. 93-21
Parcel 2 - From the center of Section 3, Township 32 'South,
Range 39 East, run South along the East line of the Southwest
j of the said Section 3, a distance of 30 feet to the point of
beginning; then continue South a distance of 30 feet to the
point df beginning; then continue South a distance of 32.35
feet; then run Northwesterly to a point which measures 30 feet
South of the North line of the said Southwest j and 30 feet
Southerly thereof, a distance of 115 feet, more or less, to
the point of beginning.
Parcel 3.- From the center of Section 3, Township 32 'South,
Range 39 East, run South 00006149" West, along the East line
of the Southwest } of said Section 3, a distance of 30 feet;
then run North 89040117" West, on a line parallel to and 30
feet South of the North line of said Southwest J, a distance
of 565 feet to the point of beginning; then run South
67025154" West, on a line parallel to and 60 feet South of the
North line of said Southwest ;, a distance of 66.84 feet, more
or less,•.to the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway #1 (State
Road 5 -.Section # 88010); then run Northeasterly on a return
radius curve, (said curve being concave to the Southeast,
having a radius of 25 feet and a central angle of 78027147"),
an arc length of 34.24 feet to the end of said curve; then run
North 00019143" East, along said East right-of-way of U.S.
Highway #1, a distance of 10 feet to a point which lies 30
feet South of the North line of said Southwest j of Section 3;
then run South 89040117" East, on a line parallel to and 30
feet South of the North line of said Southwest }, a distance
of 113.•37 feet, more or less to the point of beginning.
Note: All property described herein is located in Indian River
County, Florida.
Is changed from L-1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 units/acre)
to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node:
0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
0. 'Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use
add #15 acres to the U.S. Highway
Street Commercial/Industrial Node,
SECTION 3. Codification
Element is revised to
#1/77th Street to 69th
The provisions of this ordinance may be incorporated into the
County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
_All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent -of such conflict.
68
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
-court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the.validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. . Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the
State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find
the adopted amendment in compliance in accordance with s.
163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration
Commission finding the adopted amendment in compliance with s.
163.3184(10).
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 16 day of May , 1993 for a public hearing to be held on
the 25th day of May , 1993 at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner Adams ► seconded by Commissioner
Bird , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Agin
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin AvP
Commissioner Fran B. Adams _OST_
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert we
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Ah�p„r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN VE COUNTY
BY :
Richard N. Bird, Cha rman
ATTEST BY
J `ffrey K Barton.,C] erk
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 3rd day of June , 1993.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 7th
day of June � , 1993, at 10:00 A.M./PxX. and filed in
the office of' the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
I
Co ApKavid
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
en-6,William G. Collins II, Deputy CountyAttorney r. y �
Robert M. K#atl,pV, AICP
Community Develbpment Director u\v\j\k&wcpa.ord
69
Dale
MAY 251993 BOCK �9 FF 6 1fl
MAY 255�
5ooK 89 wJF.671
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 22
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -3 TO
CL, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF U.S.
HIGHWAY #1 AND 73RD STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING.FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wit:.
All of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of
Section 3, Township 32 South, Range 39 East, lying East of the
East right-of-way line of State Road 5 (U.S. Highway #1) as it
now exists. LESS the following described property:
Parcel 1 - The North 30 feet of the Southwest } of Section 3,
Township 32 South, Range 39 East, lying Easterly of the East
right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1.
Parcel 2 - From the center of Section 3, Township 32 South,
Range. 39 East, run South along the East line of the Southwest
i of the said Section 3, a distance of 30 feet to the point of
beginning; then continue South a distance of 30 feet to the
point of beginning; then continue South a distance of 32.35
feet; then run Northwesterly to a point which measures 30 feet
South of the North line of the said Southwest I and 30 feet
Southerly thereof, a distance of 115 feet, more or less, to
the point of beginning.
Parcel 3 - From the center of Section 3, Township 32 South,
Range 39 East, run South 00006149" West, along the East line
of the Southwest j of said Section 3, a distance of 30 feet;
then run North 89040117" West, on a line pa;allel to and 30
feet South of the North line of said Southwest }, a distance
of 565 feet to the point of beginning; then run South
6702515411 West, on a line parallel to and 60 feet_ South of the
North line of said Southwest J, a distance of 66.84 feet, more
or less, to the East right-of-way of U.S. Highway #1 (State
Road 5 - Section # 88010); then run Northeasterly on a return
radius curve, (said curve being concave to the Southeast,
70
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 22
having a radius of 25 feet and a central angle of 78027147"),
an arc length of 34.24 feet to the end of said curve; then run
North 00019143" East, along said East right-of-way of U.S.
Highway #l; a distance of 10 feet to a point which lies. 30
feet South of the North line of said Southwest j of Section 3;
then run South 89040117" East, on a line parallel to and 30
feet South of the North line of said Southwest J, a distance
of 113.37 feet, more or less to the point of beginning.
Note: All property described herein is located in Indian River
County, Florida.
Be changed from RM -3 to CL.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the
issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice
of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 93- in
compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a
final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced
amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 25th day of May, 1993.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 5th day of May, 1993 for a public hearing to be held on the
25th day of May, 1993 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Bird
, and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ave
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Ave
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Abse=
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: 0ee,
Richard N. Bird, Chairman*
ATTEST BY:'"--�``'�"y�`':`�-.F•`�"°r^---!
\ red► 16 Barton,
x' vL 0?ee. W _(."
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 3rd day of June , 1993.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 7th
day of June , 1993, at 10:00 A.M./Rat. and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of oun y Commissioners of
Indian River,County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
.4r William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney
Robert M. Kea ng,CP
Community Developm nt Director
u\v\j\k&wrzon.ord
MAY 2 5 1993
71
I
MAY 2 5 1993
BOOK 89 P,,,.673
The Chairman recessed the meeting briefly at 10:35 a.m. and
the Board reconvened at 10:35 a.m. with the same members present.
PUBLIC HEARING INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB LTD. I'S REQUEST FOR
CONCEPTUAL AND PRELIMINARY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL FOR
ADDITION OF 13.69 ACRES TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTRY CLUB
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press.Joumal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a` -.r. "
In the matter of -
- Ll���� �"i ll
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues ofGU !�
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Flcnft and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian Rim County, Florida. each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian Rim Coun.
ty, Flonda, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement: and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication In the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before methis `F `�" 't9'dyd
A.D. 19
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)10,
Ul
ro
Addition
i Indian
` River
N Country ��� Club E
_t.�•—�vcRo stwce /ec�n.Amoa; t -
ItImQOF WBOCKAMA.
Neon a is" b maw Tr grmiq d spins mmmom C�lhoval Iva 13 an 9erMm m a owl
The
Claim
m Wdo"00112011 [gum n min MWG"M orazarwp Imm wave a Sammi M. Tom* 33� p p�rga 4100. ft
awmawformacan
A OM MW9 at r1t1A vee a 111019 ab a I shat Raw an amaenM1y to be Imed, rd be
Bd1 a ft and of Cann Camaasix.a of Now MW Cann. Fliiaa. a ae Canry Co
I7maita d b Caaay Awiris �1 Buib$ borne ■ 1810 39b Saaet veto Beat RaW an
Tm".tb'$tAMa1886am
kW* We Mff mW b WO air 00M vAM may d rime at ee MM9 d MW b entre
9m a ssmm tam d ft pb®gl a AvOA ran roam tarring aM eretm Wm nail av
AVRE WIO NM A WeCIAL ACCOMMODATION! RIR TILS MMM MIST CONTACT TiIS
CORM AMEFWN6 WIR DISABILITIES ACT OW COOFI0WTW AT 9117-1000 XM At LEANT
MMIFISNAGNAMMOFTli!ME M.
I IAAIny61CCtNfy -
aavedaaayuoa�es
m-slOsedN. BA
'►teyi1933 _ i. 997410
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
72
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Et
Robert M.ea ing, iCP
Community Development Director
THROUGH: Stan Boling"; �iICP
Planning Director
FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP��Yik
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE: May 12, 1993
SUBJECT: Indian River Country Club Ltd.'s Request for Conceptual
and Preliminary Planned Development Approval for a 13.69
Acre Addition to Indian River Country Club
It is requested that the data -herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 25, 1993.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION BACKGROUND:
Urban Resource Group has submitted an application for conceptual
and preliminary planned development approval on behalf of Indian
River Country Club Ltd. The applicant's request is to amend the
existing, approved conceptual and preliminary PD plan by adding
13.69 acres to the overall PD project area. The 13.69 acre
addition is located at the southeast corner of the project along
the Lateral J canal on property owned by General Development
Utilities (see attachment #2). The site is surplus property that
is adjacent to the General Development Utilities wastewater
treatment plant facility. The proposed 13.69 acre addition will be
used to expand the PD project golf course. There will be no
residential units within the 13.69 acres and no residential units
added within the existing project as a result of adding the 13.69
acres. The entire 13.69 acres will be dedicated to golf course use
and related facilities. -
Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County
Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested
use based on the submitted PD plan and the suitability of the site
for that use. The Board may approve, approve with conditions or
deny the special exception use and may attach any conditions and
safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure
compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.
The approval steps in the PD process are as follows:
Approval Needed Reviewing Body
1. Concept Plan/Special Exception P&ZC and BCC
2. Preliminary PD P&ZC
3. Land Development Permits Staff
4. Final PD (plat) BCC
73
Boa 89 F,� Gr 674
��' 25 1993 -A
MAY 2 5 993
BOOK 89 FAGF.675
For the 13.69 acre addition, steps 1 and 2 are being taken
concurrently. If the 13.69 acre addition is approved, the
applicant will seek a land development permit to construct the golf
course and associated improvements. In regards to the original
project area, Phase I (golf course phase) of the Indian River
Country Club application has been approved through step 2 of the
process.
At its March 25, 1993 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission
voted unanimously to grant the applicant's request for preliminary
PD approval for the 13.69 acre addition, contingent upon special
exception use approval by the Board of County Commissioners. The
Planning and Zoning Commission also recommended that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the special exception use request. If
the Board of County Commissioners approves -the conceptual special
exception PD, then the preliminary PD approval will become
effective.
ANALYSIS:
1. Size of Development Area:
Previously Approved Total PD Project Area: 231.96 acres
Proposed PD Project Addition: 13.69 acres
Total: 245.65 acres
2. Zoning Classification:
RM -6, Residential Multi -Family District (up to 6 units per
acre)
RS -6, Residential Single Family District (up to 6 units per
acre)
3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units per
acre)
4. Density Approved: 1.29 units/acre (overall)
Proposed: 1.22 units/acre (overall)
S. Building Area: None proposed
6. Total Impervious Area: None proposed
7. open Space: Required: 408
Proposed: 1008
S. Traffic Circulation: There will be no vehicular access to
this part of the project. --
9. Stormwater Management: The conceptual stormwater plan has
been reviewed and approved 'by the Public Works Department.
The Public Works Department will perform a detailed drainage
review when the land development permit for this project area
is submitted. In accordance with PD requirements, project
construction cannot commence until the land development permit
is issued.
10. Utilities: This portion of the project will not require any
utility services. The overall project will be serviced by
General Development Utilities.
11. Dedications and Improvements: None are required for the 13.69
acre addition.
12. Development Schedule: If the 13.69 acre addition is approved,
then the Phase I plan will be automatically modified to
include the 13.69 acre addition, and the addition_ will be
incorporated into the construction of the golf course.
74
13. Concurrency: There are no concurrency requirements for the
13.69 acre addition, since no increase in the intensity of the
development is proposed.
14.. Environmental Issues: The 13.69 acre addition contains no
native upland habitat or wetlands. Therefore, there are no
environmental regulation issues related to site development.
15. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:
North: Indian River Country Club/RM-6
South: General Development Utilities Site/RS-6
East: Vacant/RS-6
West: General Development Utilities Site/RS-6
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the applicant's request for special
exception and conceptual PD plan approval for the project addition.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the
applicants request for special exception and the
conceptual Planned Development plan for the project
addition, as recommended by staff.
PUBLIC HEARING - 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
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:
75
L_ MAY 26 199-3
BOOK F6-76.
MAY 2 5 190`
NOTICE' OF.CHANGE OF. LAND USE.
aw+ ,: The Board of Count' Commissioners of Indian River County,
." 1'1 Florida, will consider adopting an ordinance to amend the use of ,
.land within the unincorporated portion of Indian River County as •'
shown In the map of the advertisement. A public hearingg on the .IV,
proposal will be held on Tuesday, May 25, 1993, at 9n05 a.m. in
a, the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration r, .
Building, located at 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this {
public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a fi-
nal decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Pian. Thero-.t
a `posed amendment is Included in the proposed ordinance entitleppdn
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, •• !
:..: .... AMENDING THE. LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE ' COMPRF.- a 'c
HENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1
COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL NODE 177th STREET TO 691h
STREPT) FROM +/-.180-ACRES TO +/-195 ACRES; BY EN-
•j"4: i •, • LARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 01 COMMERCIAL/INDUS-
4 Vii' :TRIAL NODE (57th STREET TO 49th STREET) FROM +1-257
ACRES TO 1-257.31 ACRES; AND BY ENLARGING THE U.S. t
'HIGHWAY 01 COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL NODE (VERO
BEACH CITY LIMITS TO 8th STREET) FROM +1-213 ACRES
TO +/-214.86 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
y'.;,. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public •� i
hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive
+. Plan Amendment. t . ' rr
. The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public
at the Community Development Department offices located on the •= (
c second floor' of the County Administration Building located of'�,q.
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8r30 .
a.m. and 540 p.m. on weekdays. ►r
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be ..r
7�' •'. made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of 1.1
the proceeding is made which Includes the testimony and 941- '1 - •i
dente upon which the appeal will be based.
�• Anyone who needs 'a special accommodation for this meeting , l!
must contact county's Americans With Disabilities Ace (ADA) Coor- i•
r`• dinator of 567•-8000 extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance r.
+' of meeting:. a . ? t•,..
} +s rqp :i '� r ••./ 1 Indian River County
;± t ` •1,1 Board of County Commissioners "
.-s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman , }
BOOK 89 uu 677
Subject. '-
'Property .,r•
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach. Florida 32961^^ 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
STATE OF FLORIDA a'JrCs� OIITI1A .
Before the umterblgnrd nnihorityy prrsnnntly appeared J«t.
Schumann, Jr. who an onlh nays that he Ir nualncna Mnnager of the
Vero ncnch Press-Jotnrnal, a ncuapaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River County, Florida; that
. Ld•�.,q,/,a����-� LP-CLQ.�t:LG.ttl_ e�a'? �r !�
billed toy-44da A6L4 C t3CGrI��/ ��(il y[Lo..y fqJ
was Published In said nmmpaper In the Issue(s)
p► �i A / / Ai r -ME
Sworn to anndd subscribed before me this
_LL day or AA..D�
Business Manager
(sent'
' aw.r n.w. ln. a rarw
- - AAdTt/66
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
76
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
7 '
Robert XeatlAg.,If c `
THRU: Sasan Rohani S S •
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: May 6, 1993
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 (LUDA 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 May 25, 1993.
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.
On October 22, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 to
1 to recommend the transmittal of -the proposed land use amendment
request to the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for _
their review.
On November 17, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to
0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to the state
DCA for their review.
Planning Staff Received DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report on March 15, 1993. The DCA ORC Report did
not contain any objections to the proposed amendment.
As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan,
the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested land use designation and zoning.
Existing Land Use Pattern
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
77
BOOK 69
Mph � X993
MAY 25 1991 BOOK 89 Fair. 679
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 B" 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.
78
I�
l
ANALYSIS
In this section,
application will
description of:
an analysis of the reasonableness of the
be presented. The analysis will include a
• 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:
7. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
79
#0.31 acres
10.31 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/ I,, Commercial -
Industrial Node
2 units
MAY 251993 'BOOK 8 9 Fe 1i FSS®
1991 BOOK 89 u.U.681
S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
under Proposed Designation: 30,100 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:
Existing 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)
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 up to 10,000 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
5• Traffic Capacity on U.S. Highway #11 from 49th Street to 65th
Street at a Level of Service "D": 20650 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips
80
77
M
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 site's 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 600 of the trips associated
with the most intense use of- the subject property under the
requested land use will be new trips. Therefore, 60% of the 306
Average Weekday Trips, or 184, will be new trips. Similarly, 608,
or 291 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.
According to ITE, 50%, or 15, of the 29 New P.M. Peak Hour Trips
will be outbound, and 50%, 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.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the trips
generated by the proposed land use designaton 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
I, 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 2,650 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.
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. 81
BOOK
MAY 5199
I
F'
MAY'25 1,9,q,3
600K 89 Fvljf 6-83
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
Segm=t
Segment
Road
From
To
C
"Dn
LOS
OS D
1390
1385
U.S.•1
U.S.
1
Old Dixie Hwy.
Schumann Dr.
2370
1380
U.S.
1
69th Street
.Old
Dixie Hwy.
2650
1375
U.S.
1
65th Street
69th Street
2650
1370
U.S.
1
49th Street
45th Street
65th Street
2650
1365
U.S.
1
41st Street
49th Street
45th Street
2650
2650
1360
1355
U.S.
U.S.
1
1
Old Dixie Hwy.
41st street
2300
1350
U.S.
1
N. VBC Limits
Old Dixie Hwy.
2300
1345
U.S.
1
Atlantic Blvd.
N. VBC Limits
2300
1340
U.S..
1
Royal Palm P1.
Atlantic Blvd.
2300
S.R. 60
Royal Palm P1.
2300
Roadway
Existing
Demand
Total Available
Positive
Exist
Segment
ng
Volume
Vested
Volume
Segment- Segment
Demand Capacity
Project
Concurrency
Demand Determination
1390
815
68
883,
1487
2
y
1385
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
1384
1300
10
y
1355
1309
34
1343
917
957
8
5
Y
y
1350
1309
81
1390
910
3
y
1345
1340
1143
1143
72
57
1215
1085
2
y
1200
1100
2
y
- Water
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. County water
lines do not currently extend to the site. However, the applicant
has entered 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. When the subject property
connects to county water 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.
- Wastewater
A retail commercial use of 3,100 square feet on the subject
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.
County wastewater lines do not currently extend to the site.
However, the applicant has entered 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 wastewater lines, it will
be serviced by the Central County Wastewater Plant. This plant has
a remaining capacity of 537,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the
additional demand generated by -the proposed amendment.
82
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by
disposal at the county landfill. For
commercial development on the subject site,
will be approximately 15.5 waste generation
yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a
measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yarn
private operators and
a 31100 square foot
solid waste generation
units (WGU) or 46 cubic
Waste Generation Unit
is 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.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant will be required to retain approximately 11825 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 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 11825 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.
83
ROOK F6-94
.s
F7
SAY 25 1993 BOOK 89 ,r 695
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning
request is not required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
land use designation. With the execution of the referenced `
developer.,s agreements for water and wastewater, the concurrency
test has been 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 be amended only in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency -of the plan
pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)p.S." Amendments must also show
consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted
on the Future Land Use Maps_ 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, 1.23, 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.
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 or 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
84
parcel of this size in this
that if the subject -property
plan development, the parcel
location residentially. Staff feels
had been evaluated separately during
would have been desianated 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 70% 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 to establish specific criteria for
node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are often
arbitrary and inconsistent. The 708 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 70% 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 size of 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).
Based upon this analysis, it was determined that the total non -
agriculturally and non -residentially developed land in the node
constitutes approximately 398 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.
85
So
6AMAY5 1993 Roos �Acr.s
r MAY 25 199
BOOK 89 uf,rr. 6.97
-7
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.
Another mitigating factor is the county's Land Development
Regulations 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 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.
86
� � r
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 8 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 21400 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.
DCA Objections
As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this
staff report, DCA did not have any objections to the proposed
amendment.
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 supports the
request.
87
Y 251993 a00K So F,r.�
MAY 25 M
Recommendation
BOOK 89 Ulu F,
.f,99
Based on its analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve the request to redesignate approximately 0.31
acres from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/ acre)
to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node and rezone the property from RM -
6, Multiple -Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to CG, General
Commercial District.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Michael O'Haire, attorney representing the applicant, urged
the Board to approve the change.
It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the
Chairman closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance
93-23, amending the Land Use Element of the
Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the U.S. #1/57th
Street to 49th Street Commercial/ Industrial Node, as
recommended by staff.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Ordinance
93-24, amending the Zoning Ordinance and the
Accompanying Zoning Map from RM -6 to CG, for the
property located at the southeast corner of U.S. #1
and 53rd Street, as recommended by staff.
A,
88
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 23
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE
U.S. #1/57TH STREET TO 49TH STREET COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE
FROM ±259 ACRES TO ±259.31 ACRES, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 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 approval of
this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County
Commissioners, and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 17, 1992,
after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and
WHEREAS,, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment,
and
WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received
this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on November 30, 1992, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments "(ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on March 15, 1993, and
WHEREAS, the ORC report contained no objections to this
comprehensive plan amendment, and
WHEREAS, the Board of county �Commissionersof Indian River
L
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on May 25, 1993, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c);
89
BOOK s�
MAY 1993���cF � O
MAY 25 191:
NOW,
BOOK 89 PA"r 691 -7
ORDINANCE NO. 93-23
THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners,of Indian River County, Florida, that:
SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Iridian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
Beginning 390 feet East and 25 feet South of the Northwest
corner of the NW I of the NW I of Section 23, Township 32
South, Range 39 East, then run South 100 feet; then East 150
feet; then North 100 feet; then West 150 feet to the point of
beginning. Less highway right-of-way as in Record Book 99,
Page 656, and Record Book 100, page 769, Indian River County,
Florida.
Is changed -from M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node:
G The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly;
and
a Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to
add 10.31 acres to the U.S. Highway #1/57th Street to
49th Street Commercial/Industrial Node.
SECTION 3. Codification
The provisions of this ordinance may be incorporated into the
County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section",
"article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the
ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such
intentions.
SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 5. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed"a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
SECTION 6. Effective Date
This ordinance shall become effective upon adoption pursuant
to F.S. 163.3194(1)(a).
90
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 23
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 16 thday of May , 1993 for a public hearing to be held on
the25th day of May 1993at which time it was moved for
adoption by Commissioner 'Eggert , seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ave
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht A s n
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ATTEST BY:
S W� 00. Clerk
By:L�
Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida
this 3rd day of June 1993.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 7th day of June , 1993, at 10:00'A. M.
AxXxgRxg. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL S,.UFFICIjENC�Y�
William G. Collins II, Deputy County
Robert M. Reatid91 WP
Community Developmehi Director
u\v\j\comind.ord
91
Attorney
boa 9 FaU F 69 2
GRAY 2 5 W
—7 p
BOOK 09 Uu'693
ORDINANCE NO. 93-24
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO
CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF U.S.
HIGHWAY #1 AND 53RD STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the
local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing
and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning
request; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to
rezone the hereinafter described property; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that
this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a -public
hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in
interest and citizens were heard;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of
the following described property situated in Indian River County,
Florida, to -wits
Beginning 390 feet East and 25 feet South of the Northwest
corner of the NW 3 of the NW j of Section 23, Township 32
South, Range 39 East, then run South 100 feet; then East 150
feet; then North 100 feet; then West 150 feet to the point of
beginning. Less highway right-of-way as in Record Book 99,
page- 656, and Record Book 100, page 769, Indian River County,
Florida.
Be changed from RM -6 to CG.
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
92
ORDINANCE NO. 93- 24
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 25th day of May, 1993.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 5th day of May, 1993 for a public hearing to be held on the
25th day of May, 1993 at which time it was moved for adoption by
Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: /",/
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
ATTEST
Acknowledgment by the Department
this 3rd day of June ,
BY!*
J ey Barton, Clerk
of State of the State of Florida
1993.
Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State
received on this 7th day of June , 1993, at 10:00A. M.
,KXKXARXKX and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida.
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND
LEGAL SUFFICIENCY
�
William G. Collins II, Deputy County
01
Robert M. Reatin , AI
Community Developmen irector
u\v\j\lrkrzon.ord
93
Attorney
inMan Hire Cm
AOProved Date
Admin.
5C �� •7 y3
legai
�L
Budget
y/p
Dept.
Risk Mgr.
BOOK 89 NVI 6�4
SAY 2.5 1919
MAY 2 5 1991 BOOK 89 F,cur 6.95
RECREATION CONSOLIDATION
County Administrator
presentation:
Jim Chandler made the
following
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: May 14, 1993 FILE:
SMECT: Recreation Consolidation
FROME. Chandler
/ounty Administrator
. CREFERENCES:
The administrative Recreation Consolidation Committee met, today to further
consider the feasibility of consolidation of recreation staff. The consensus was
that we may be close to a viable alternative for staffing consolidation. However,
additional refinement of projections to date, other cost estimates, and
distribution formulas are necessary before a final recommendation can be
developed. To do so we anticipate will require several more meetings of the
committee. When the committee started meeting last October, it was agreed that
any recommendations effecting the FY 93/94 budget needed to be resolved and
presented prior to the budget preparation cycle. At the present time staff is
well into that cycle. With the effort still required to develop a staffing
recommendation together with budget preparation requirements, it is not practical
to expect a final realistic proposal within the budget time frames.
The committee consensus is that a great -deal of progress has been made and the
committee should continue to meet after the September budget adoptions. The
general belief is that with the progress to date, viable recommendations can be
developed within a short period thereafter regarding not only staffing but also
short and long range goals for delivery of recreation services.
At the May 25 meeting I will present a detailed explanation of the preceding.
Chairman Bird asked and Administrator Chandler clarified that
for the coming fiscal year recreation programs will be operated as
they have in the past couple years.
The Board members agreed that the committee should continue
their work.
94
ADOPTION OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING ADVISORY COMMITTEE FINAL REPORT
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
2A-Aof
obert M. Rea ng, CP
Community Developt Director
FROM: Christopher D. RisonP
Senior Planner, Long -W a Planning
DATE: May 14, 1993
SUBJECT: Adoption of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
Final Report
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 25, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
In February, 1990, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.
The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan includes various
goals, objectives and policies which address the housing needs of
Indian River County. One of those policies, Housing Element Policy
1.3, states:
"An advisory committee shall be appointed by the Board of
County Commissioners to provide additional guidance on
county housing policies. Comprised of representatives of
the housing industry, financial institutions, Housing
Authority and citizens, the committee shall be advisory
and terminated upon acceptance of its final report. This
committee shall submit a final report to the Board of
County Commissioners by 1993 containing the following:
1. Recommend strategies for housing and neighborhood
conservation alternatives and feasibility;
2. Public/private joint sponsorship of activities and
funding programs;
3. Approaches to reduce housing costs and upgrade
neighborhoods;
4. Policies concerning the formation of non-profit
housing sponsors; and
5. Principles and criteria to guide residential
density planning, special housing facility
locations, and effective means of integrating
housing planning with general community planning."
95
��� BOOK PAGE 696
MAY 25 mi
BOOK 697
The Board of County Commissioners, in compliance with Housing
Policy 1.3, created the fifteen (15) member Indian River County
Affordable Housing Advisory Committee on March 5, 1991, via
Resolution No. 91-29. The Committee was comprised of
representatives of the housing industry, financial institutions,
Housing Authority and citizens.
In its initial meetings, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
(AHAC) identified Housing Element Policies to be utilized as the
basis for investigations concerning the five items identified in
Housing Element Policy 1.3. The Committee also determined that it
would be appropriate to divide into two subcommittees, Housing
Planning and Housing Finance, in order to provide more specialized
review of the selected policies. Each subcommittee then conducted
preliminary investigations and reviews relating to affordable
housing planning or finance matters which were then presented to
the full Committee for consideration and recommendation. In
completing its investigations, the full Committee met a total of 13
times in a period of 20 months. During this period, the Planning
Subcommittee met 9 times, and the Finance Subcommittee met 11
times. The various recommendations of the Committee were then
compiled into a Final Report.
On April 22, 1993, the full Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
voted to adopt and transmit the Committee's Final Report to the
Board of County Commissioners for the Board's review and
consideration. Because of its size, this Report has been put on
file in the Board of County Commissioners Office.
ANALYSIS:
As presented in the Final Report, the Committee's recommendations
take a variety of forms. Generally, the recommendations involve
four areas: Development Regulations, Programs, Policies, and Costs.
In preparing its recommendations, Committee members considered that
the recommendations must strike a balance between improving and
encouraging the provision of housing, either affordable or non -
affordable, and the necessity to uphold and protect the public
health, safety and welfare of the county's residents.
During its term, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
forwarded some of its recommendations for consideration and
implementation, rather than holding all items until completion of
the Final Report. The recommendations passed on generally involved
revisions to the LDRs or proposals to establish specific county
programs. Those recommendations which were not previously passed
on are included in the Final Report. The Final Report addresses
each of the items considered by the Committee, including those
recommendations which were passed to other reviewing bodies, and it
indicates the status of each recommendation.
While some of the Committee's recommendations may not provide a
direct and obvious contribution to the provision of affordable
housing in Indian River County, the intent is that the
recommendations, when considered together, will form a
comprehensive base for the county's affordable housing efforts. In
the future, new technology or methods may open avenues not yet
explored or imagined to provide affordable housing. For those
reasons, the Committee's recommendations should be considered only
a beginning and not the final answer to Indian River County's
affordable housing needs. The Committee, however, believes that
implementing the recommendations listed in the Final Report will
serve not only as a starting point, but a change which will lead to
a better future for Indian River County and its residents.
96
RECOMMENDATION:
The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee recommends that the Board
of County Commissioners:
1. Accept the Committee's Final Report;
2. Direct staff to implement the recommendations listed in the
Committee's Final Report; and
3. Dissolve the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee created via
Board of County Commissioners Resolution No. 91-29 on March
15, 1991.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) accepted the final
report of the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee
and dissolved that committee which was created by
Resolution 91-29 on March 15, 1991.
Chairman Bird suggested, and the Board members agreed, that a
letter of thanks be sent to each member of the Affordable Housing
Advisory Committee.
CONSIDERATION OF ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL RESORT SEPCIFIC LAND USE
CRITERIA
Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Y
QRM�eRecti g, CP `
Community Developmeift Director
FROM: Stan Boling.; ev�iICP
Planning Director
DATE: May 19, 1993
SUBJECT: Consideration of Additional Residential Resort Specific
Land Use Criteria
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of May 25, 1993.
97
SAY 1993 �ooK 89
p,�UG ��
MAY 2 5 1991
BACKGROUND:
BOOK 89 FaGF 699 -7
At its May 11, 1993 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners
considered a request from the Town of Indian River Shores to
reverse or change the March 1993 residential resort LDR amendments.
At the meeting, concerns were expressed by Indian River Shores
Mayor Robert Schoen, as well as other north barrier island
residents, regarding the potential of residential resort uses
expanding beyond the ±70 acre site of the announced Disney project.
After considering the request and input from the public and from
staff, the Board voted to direct staff to draft LDR amendment
language that would add the following types of restrictions to the
residential resort specific land use criteria:
1. Increase the minimum project size.
2. Prohibit the conversion of all or a portion of any existing
residential project area to a residential resort use.
3. Require residential resort projects to be adjacent to or
include commercially zoned acreage, including possible
creation of a commercial zoning area to residential resort
area ratio.
The Board also directed staff to present such draft LDR changes to
the Board so that the Board could further discuss restrictions and
give staff final direction regarding possible LDR wording changes.
As stated at the May 11th meeting, it is planning staff's opinion
that the existing regulations and process are adequate but that
there is justification for adding each of the previously described
restrictions. Staff has now analyzed and drafted LDR changes that
reflect these additional restrictions.
ANALYSIS:
In response to direction given by the Board at its May 11th
meeting, planning staff reviewed several potential additions to the
residential resort specific land use criteria. Staff's conclusion
is that if the Board determines that additional restrictions are
needed to specifically address the concerns expressed at the May
11th meeting, then four new types of restrictions could be added to
the residential resort criteria. The recommended additions are
stated below.
1. Residential resort projects shall be reviewed and approved as
planned development projects, rather than only as special
exception projects.
Justification: The planned development (P.D.) review and
approval process parallels the special exception process and
provides the county more authority and discretion in reviewing
project details, including issues relating to project
appearance and aesthetics. Because the residential resort
concept is based upon a resort project having the appearance
of a conventional multi -family project, it is justifiable to
require a type of review process ( such as the P.D. process ) to
properly address project appearance and aesthetics.
Implications: this restriction' would have no effect on
potential residential resort sites. Only the review and
approval process would be affected.
98
2. The residential resort minimum project area shall be increased
from 25 acres to 50 acres.
Justification: The concept of the residential resort use is
to develop a project having a size large enough to accommodate
on-site recreational amenities as well as extensive buffering.
Such amenities help to keep the resort vacationers on-site and
less dependent on development outside of the project area. By
keeping vacationers within the project site, fewer impacts
should occur off-site.
Implications: This restriction would decrease the number of
potential residential resort sites. However, parcels could be
assembled to satisfy the increased acreage requirement. A
practical result of increasing the minimum project area would
be to decrease the number of potential project sites.
3. No portion of a residential resort project area shall include
any portion of an existing or approved multi -family or single-
family residential project.
Justification: The intent of the residential resort use is to
develop a project that is compatible with conventional multi-
family development. Mixing permanent residents with
vacationers within the -- same project results in
incompatibilities. Projects designed for and inhabited by
permanent residents cannot achieve a proper neighborhood
character if vacationers are allowed to temporarily reside in
parts of the project. Allowing transitory residents within a
project's residential neighborhood would break -down the
character of the neighborhood. Therefore, to avoid use
incompatibilities, all portions of existing or approved
residential projects (e.g. Sea Oaks, Coralstone/Moon River)
should be kept separate from residential resort uses.
Implications: this restriction would prohibit establishment
of a residential resort in areas of existing RM66 zoned
projects such as Sea Oaks, Coralstone/Moon River and Grand
Harbor. Residential resort projects could be approved only on
vacant land that is not part of an approved residential
project area.
4. There are two basic alternatives for requiring residential
resort projects to be associated with commercially zoned
property. The two alternatives are as follows:
a. Require part of the overall .resort project to have
commercial zoning, by adding a restriction as follows:
- A minimum of 20% of a residential resort project
area shall consist of CL or CG commercial zoning.
b. Require the residential resort to be located adjacent to
commercial zoning, by adding a restriction as follows:
- A residential resort project shall be located
adjacent to a CL or CG commercial zoning.
Furthermore, the ratio of residential resort
project area to adjacent commercial zoning district
area shall not exceed 4:1.
&I
Boos 89 Pr r, F. 700,
AY 2 5 19 ,91
900K 89 FAGE 701
Justification: Residential resort uses complement tourist
commercial uses which are allowed only in the CL and CG
districts. Therefore, such uses should be located in close
Proximity to one another. If it is the Board's desire that
the commercially zoned area and the residential resort area be
well integrated in terms of design and function, then
alternative 4 a ( commercial zoning part of the ' overall pro j ect -
should be used) is appropriate. Furthermore, a residential
resort is considered a use "in between" conventional
residential and commercial uses. Therefore, it is justifiable
to treat residential resorts as a transitional use which
should be located between CL and CG districts and conventional
residential projects. The 20% standard in alternative 4 a
allows sufficient residential resort area to "wrap-around" the
commercial zoning area and provide an effective transition
between the commercial zoning district and conventional
residential projects. The 4:1 ratio in alternative 4.b.
equates to the 20% standard in alternative 4 a.
As stated at the May 11th meeting, the residential resort use
required buffer will actually provide a more intensive buffer
for surrounding conventional residential uses than is
currently required between commercial uses and residential
uses. Therefore, the resort residential use will provide a
greater buffer and better transition between conventional
residential and commercial uses than could otherwise be
required.
Implications: Either of these restrictions would limit
potential residential resort projects to a few areas in the
county. Potential areas would include RM -6 zoned property
adjacent to: the SR A-1-A/CR 510 intersection (Disney site),
along the SR 60 commercial-- corridor, and along the U.S.1 -
commercial corridor in the central and north county areas. _
The attached draft wording changes would implement the four types
of additionai residential resort restrictions described above. In
staff's opinion, all four types of restrictions are justifiable dor
the reasons stated. These restrictions also address concerns
expressed by the Town of Indian River Shores and north barrier
island residents, and still allow for review and consideration of
the current Disney proposal.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that, if the Board of County Commissioners desires
to apply additional specific restrictions to residential resort
uses, then the Board should direct staff to initiate an LDR
amendment to reflect the attached residential resort specific land
use criteria draft wording changes.
100
DRAFT WORDING CHANGES
Section 971.41(11) is amended as follows:
(11) Residential Resort (special exception):
(a) Intent: To provide inwardly focused resort housing,
compatible with and similar to multiple family housing in
terms of function, designed for resort and vacation
stays, and providing on-site amenities and supporting
services.
(b) Districts requiring special exception approval (pursuant
to the provisions of 971.05): RM -61 RM -8, RM -10
(c) Additional information requirements:
1. Provide a planned development ap lication
and plans conforming with all requirements of
Chapter = 915 which shows:
a. All residential structures (including typical
floor plans and elevations), number of units,
and dens ity L__
b. All accessory structures and uses, and their
locations and dimensions;
c. Location, width, composition and _a cross-
section of all buffer areas;
d. Design, location, and access to all
recreational and natural resource-based
amenities.
(d) Criteria for Residential Resort Use:
1. The site must have direct access to a collector or
arterial roadway as defined and identified in the
Traffic Circulation Element of Indian River
County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
2. All living units must have cooking facilities and
access to on-site 14undry facilities.
3. Each living unit shall constitute a dwelling unit
in terms of land --use density calculations; the
total project dwelling unit density shall not
exceed the density allowed in the underlying zoning
district.
4. Accessory uses may include meeting rooms or
clubhouses for the exclusive use of the occupants
and guests of occupants of the residential resort
facility; housekeeping, laundry and maintenance
facilities; employee parking; swimming pools;
tennis courts and other recreational uses and
structures; dining structures or rooms for the use
of the occupants of the residential resort. No
accessory use shall be established or conducted for
the purpose of engaging in a business operation or
activity other than to support and provide services
and activities to occupants and guests of occupants
of the residential resort. The accessory use shall
not be operated or promoted in such a manner as to
invite the patronage of the general public.
101
MAY 2 5 1991 BOOK - 89 PAGF702
MAY 250 3
BooK 89 FAcr 703,
5. Parking spaces for reach unit of resort housing
shall be provided consistent with the parking
requirements for hotel uses. Adequate parking for
accessory structures and uses shall be provided in
accordance with applicable Chapter 954 standards.
6. A Type "A" buffer shall be provided along the
boundary of the residential resort site where the
site abuts residentially designated property. A
Type "8" buffer shall be provided along the
perimeter of the residential resort site boundary
that is adjacent to public or private road rights-
of-way.
7. The area of the residential resort project shall be
8.
9.
OR, AS AN ALTERNATIVE
Section 901.03 definition of "residential resort" is amended as
follows:
Residential resort: a planned development of not less than
z fifty (50) acres, containing resort housing and accessory
recreational amenities, designed for extended resort and vacation
stays.
Coding: Words in type are deletions from existing law.
Words underlined are additions.
Mfya
M
The Chairman opened the public discussion on this matter.
Robert Schoen, mayor of the Town of Indian River .Shores,
discussed differences in acreage and ratio of commercial to
residential. He referred to Director Boling's memo and pointed out
that Paragraph 4.a. should be 25 percent rather than 20 percent,
and Paragraph 4.b. should be 3 to 1 rather than 4 to 1.
Rolf Bibow, 500 Beach Road, read aloud the following petition
with 1,041 signatures of citizens who are concerned about
commercial activity on the barrier island:
Indian River County has uniquely integrated the needs and resources
of its many different neighborhoods into a quality community with princi-
pally residential character.
This residential character is the major element that draws the new
residents, seasonal renters and tourists, who are vital to future economic
growth - including growth of jobs to the county. County officials have
repeatedly made major planning and zoning decisions reaffirming our resi-
dential character.
The changes made in the Land Development Regulations (RM -6 zoning)
in March of 1993 should be reversedas they will draw large scale hotel/
motel, and other associated commercial development to the island. This
will dramatically change the residential character of the entire community,
and negatively impact our future.
At the same time, we do not oppose the Disney Project if it is
restricted to the size and scopeannounced to date.
(The Clerk's Office acknowledges receipt of the above petition
with 1,041 signatures.)
Robert Cairns, owner of property south of Sea Oaks, thought
the residential resort concept is appropriate in Indian River
County. He characterized John's Island as one of the finest
residential resorts with golf, ocean, river, and amenities that
everyone would love to have. He gave examples of several of the
residential developments on the barrier island which were not
successful and felt that residential resorts would not change the
character of that area. He was impressed with John's Island
residents' ability to create three amendments to the LDR which will
eliminate residential resorts from the barrier island completely.
He felt that would be disastrous because a residential resort would
have year-round use of the property and would provide activity in
the summer months. He urged the Board to allow residential resorts
and was confident the County could control it.
103
0 2 51993 tm 89 PnUF 704
AY 2
BOOK 89 rrirF
. 705 -7
Peter Robinson, principal of Laurel Homes, had some concerns
about the proposed amendments. He thought that the important issue
is that the residential resort ordinance allows rentals for periods
of less than a month. He was sure that if staff went through
properties in RM -6 zoning districts they would find a lot of daily
and weekly rentals and the residential resort ordinance allows them
to come out in the sunshine. With the residential resort ordinance
the County collects taxes on the rentals. ~
Charles Wurmstedt, a councilman for the Town of Indian River
Shores, spoke as a resident. He felt that the concept of time
share resorts is what triggered the proposed amendments. He stated
that he had experienced the tactics used in promoting time share
sales and does not want to expose the community to that form of
development.
John O'Hara, 1155 Winding Oaks Circle East, disputed the
comment .that his residential development was a failure. The
residents in Sea Oaks and other developments are pleased to see
these amendments being considered. They look forward to the public
hearings to voice their thoughts. They are concerned about the
phrase "extended resort and vacation stay" because the definition
is "more than 2 days and less than a month." He thought that could
be a subtle or clever way to get a hotel resort or motel included
and he wants that element discussed. He urged the Board to approve
the public hearing process to consider the amendments.
Ren Kennedy, resident for many years, thought there was
sufficient discussion before the residential resort ordinance was
adopted. He agreed with Mr. Cairns that it meets land use
criteria, does not increase density, brings year-round activity
without infringing on the peak season, provides more taxes without
a burden on our schools, encourages low commercial activity and has
the potential to improve real estate activity. He contended that
the amendments will cause a reversal of policy and are being
requested by a select few. He believed that the Board of County
Commissioners and staff have kept growth under control and he urged
the Board to stay with the current Land Development Regulations.
Alice aaskill, president of the Vero Beach -Indian River County
Chamber of Commerce, read aloud the following letter:
104
vero beach-
indian river
ty
_chamb r
er of
- conunerce
1216 21ST STREET P.O. BOX 2947
May 24, 1993
VERO BEACH, FL 32961
Chairman Dick Bird and
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Commissioner Bird,
407-567-3491 FAX: 407-778-3181
The Board of Directors of the Vero Beach - Indian River County
Chamber of Commerce would request the Commission take no action
on this item in regard to changes in the Residential/Resort
zoning. We would also like to express concern that your staff be
allowed to work through the Professional Services Advisory Board
and the County's Planning and Zoning Board to provide an
opportunity for review and input following normal channels.
Many careful steps through your Professional Services Advisory
Board, County Planning and Zoning, County staff and the general
public resulted in a Residential/Resort category approved as
appropriate for our county. It is the feeling of our Board of
Directors that no changes are necessary at this time but any
proposed changes must follow the same careful steps taken -prior
to approval of the Residential/Resort category.
Thank you for your consideration.
Cordially,
Alice W. Gaskill
President
Lisa Wright, resident of Indian River Shores, recently moved
from Broward County. She urged the Board to define the difference
between residential resort and residential development. Residents
care about the community on a long-term basis. Resort residents
care about the resort, but if they lose interest, they move on to
the next resort. She did not think we fully understand the
possible consequences of the residential resort ordinance.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
105
MAY Boa �9 P,RGF706
It'll AS° 5 !9,1-1
BOOK 09 PA,F 797
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, to direct staff to proceed with
the process of committee and public hearings to -
consider all four proposed amendments to the Land
Development Regulations.
Under discussion, Chairman Bird stated that he could not
support all four amendments. He also was concerned about the
perception that a decision has been made. Since the residential
resort ordinance was adopted, there has been one consequence and it
is very good. He is not in favor of closing the door on any
potential development.
Commissioner Eggert was sure the public hearing process is the
way for the public to be heard. She pointed out that the Disney
project is compatible with the proposed changes.
Commissioner Tippin agreed with Chairman Bird and added that
the County's growth has been guided by leaders who made wise
decisions to keep the County in its present beautiful shape. He
was in favor of the LDR process because Indian River County has a
history of being cautious.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent).
County Attorney Vitunac explained that the Board has the
ability to invoke the pending ordinance doctrine. If the Board
invokes that doctrine, we would not process applications for
developments while the proposed amendments are being considered.
This would not involve the Disney project because they meet all
criteria of the possible amendments to the ordinance.
Chairman Bird opposed it because it gives the impression that
a decision has already been made. He contended that we must play
the game under the rules that exist, not some pending changes that
may or may not happen in the future.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER EGGERT TO INVOKE THE PENDING
ORDINANCE DOCTRINE FAILED FOR LACK OF A SECOND.
106
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON NATIONAL ESTUARY PROGRAM REQUEST FOR BOATING
IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDS TO DEVELOP A LAGOON BOATER'S GUIDE
The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Planning Chief
Roland DeBlois dated May 18, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
��obertM. Reati , AIrL
Community Developmeirector
FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,,AAIICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
DATE: May 18, 1993
RE: Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP)
Request for Boating Improvement Program Funds to Develop
a Lagoon Boater's Guide
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of May 25, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
On May 5, 1993, water resources planner Amy Hart of the Indian
River Lagoon National Estuary Program (IRLNEP) wrote a letter to
county staff requesting that the County contribute $2,000 to a
multi -county project. The project consists of developing a
publication entitled "A Boater's Guide to Resource Protection in
the Indian River Lagoon".
The Guide is intended to provide boaters with important information
on resource protection issues associated with the Indian River
Lagoon, as well as with information relating to fueling locations,
channel locations, pump -out facilities, anchorages, fishing, and
regulatory restrictions. The Guide, if approved for funding, will
be available to the public at no charge at various locations,
including tax assessor offices, state and county parks, marinas and
marina dealerships.
The IRLNEP is requesting that the $2,000 contribution be provided
from the County's share of FY993-94 Florida Boating Improvement
Program (FBIP) monies. Ms. Hart indicates in her letter that
funding for the project has been --authorized from at least 9 of 12
agencies and organizations requested to participate in the
development of the project.
107
MAY 25199
800F.89 F���C_ 70
MAY 2 5 X993 BooK 89 FAcF 799 —7
ALTERNATIVES 6 ANALYSIS
Florida Boating Improvement Program monies are fees collected by
the State that are apportioned to each county for boating
improvement projects. For this reason, use of the funds is not a
County expenditure per se, but a redirection of grant monies.
For fiscal year 1992-93, the allocation of FBIP funds to Indian
River County totaled $44,458.19. As of May 15, 1993, a balance of
±$961000 was unobligated for boating improvement projects in the
county.
A majority of the present unobligated FBIP funds are anticipated
for use associated with Round Island Park improvements. However,
the requested $2,000 for the boater's guide represents a relatively
small portion of the total funds available and would not interfere
with Round Island Park expenditures.
The County's participation in funding the proposed boater's guide
will further the goal, objectives and policies of the Coastal
Management Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the
Project would serve Coastal Management Policy 1.7, which provides
that the County will work with local boating interests and boating
regulatory agencies to develop a manatee awareness program,
including public education.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize
the use of $2,000 from the County's share of FY193-94 Florida
Boating Improvement Program funds to contribute to the development
of an Indian River Lagoon Boater's Guide by the IRLNEP.
COPY OF FULLY EXECUTED'"AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) authorized the use
of $2,000 from the County's share of Fiscal Year
1993-94 Florida Boating Improvment Program funds for
development of an Indian River Lagoon Boater's Guide
by the Indian River Lagoon Natural Estuary Program,
as recommended by staff.
108
COUNTY OWNED BUILDING - OLD GIFFORD JAYCEE BUILDING
The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny
Dean dated May 12, 1993:
DATE: MAY 12, 1993
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO
DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES
SUBJECT: COUNTY OWNED BUILDING - OLD GIFFORD JAYCEE BUILDING
BACKGROUND:
Reverend Eugene Idelett has requested the County grant permission for
the Indian River Ministerial Council to renovate and use the subject
building, for a boxing gymnasium. This facility has been condemned
by the Board for demolition but --was put on hold pending the outcome
of this request.
ANALYSIS:
Staff has reviewed the condition of the subject building and advised
Reverend Idelett in writing, of it's condition along with
requirements for a certificate of occupancy. He has responded
acknowledging the existing conditions and maintains his request for
Board authorization to use the facility. Reverend Idelett also
stipulated, he would "do what ever has to be done".
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff would recommend this request, provided that all requirements be
met prior to occupancy and a time limit for completion be mandated.
It is also recommended, should the Board grant the request, that a
contractual agreement be prepared by the County Attorney with the
criteria outlined above. It is__ staff's opinion, that as it now
exists, this building represents a liability and precautions should
be taken to protect the County.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) granted permission
for the Indian River Ministerial Council to renovate
and use the Old Gifford Jaycee Building, provided
that all requirements be met prior to occupancy and
within a time limit as set out in a contractual
agreement to be prepared by the County Attorney, as
recommended by staff.
LEASE AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
109
Y 5 BOOK 89 PV . %1(0
AY 2 5 BOOK 89 P, ,F7 �
PAYMENT OF TRAVEL FOR A STATE EMPLOYEE
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated May
19, 1993:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: May 19, 1993
SUBJECT: PAYMENT OF TRAVEL FOR A STATE EMPLOYEE
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
We have received the attached request from Judge Vocelle to pay for a state employee,
Lorraine Cappelen, Judicial Assistant, to attend a conference at the county's expense. Since
the County is having more requests for state employees to travel utilizing county funds, we
are bringing each request to the Board for approval on a case by case basis. Presently there
is $600.00 budgeted in the Circuit Court travel account and $120.00 in the tuition and
registration account Mrs. Cappelen's travel cost is approximately $300.00 and the
registration is $35.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the travel request since there is sufficient funds budgeted.
Commissioner Adams questioned this expenditure in light of the
fact that County employees' travel budget has been limited.
Director Baird explained that in recent years the State has
decreased funding for travel expenses and State employees have
requested money from the County to pay for travel. When the
requests increased and the amounts became substantial, the Office
of Management and Budget notified the State employees that requests
must be approved by the Board. Director Baird recommended approval
for this particular request because it is within the budget, but
advised that the Board should formulate a policy because the State
keeps cutting its employees' travel and we have limited travel for
our employees.
Chairman Bird agreed that we need to set a policy. He thought
that if we say no, these State employees will work harder to get
the State to change the rules.
110
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board (3-1, Commissioner
Adams voting in opposition and Commissioner Macht
being absent) approved the travel expense for the
judicial assistant with the precise understanding
that the County develop a policy regarding the
payment of travel expenses for State employees.
PURCHASE AUTHORIZATION FOR OSLO ROAD/OLD DIXIE RIGHT-OF-WAY
ACQUISITION. PHILLIP AND PATSY HELSETH, SIX PARCELS
The Board reviewed memo from County Right -of -Way Agent Don
Finney dated May 14, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Direc
and
Terry B. Thompson, P. Fc*
Capital Projects Manager
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA 7�_4
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT., Purchase Authorization; Oslo Road/Old Dixie Right -of -Way Acquisition, Phillip and
Patsy Helseth, six parcels.
DATE: May 14, 1993
DES iPTION AND COND171nNc
The county plans to widen and signalize the intersection of Oslo Road and Old Dixie Highway.
Additional right-of-way is needed from twelve parcels owned by one of the original families that
settled in Vero Beach. The other six parcels they own are zoned residential and are being
negotiated.
The property owners have executed three of the six contracts at the appraised value. The other three
contracts they have counter -offered approximately 10% above the appraised value. The owner has
based their counter-offer on a previous corner parcel sale at $2.30 per square foot.
Following is an overview of each of the contracts:
IRC Offer to Purchase at Signed Counter -Offer
Parcel # Appraised Value Contract Amount
106
$ 4,056
107
$ 18,140
117
$ 14,147
906 *
$ 57,930
907
$ 3,483
920
- $3=
$135,981
* Includes $950 attorney fee and recording fee.
111
�
MAY 2 5 1993
$ 4,056.00
_ $ 25,286.00
$ 20,992.00
$ 60,679.90
$ 3,483.00
$ 38.225.00
$152,721.90
BOOK 89 P, ;r 71
MAY 2 5
boor, 89 F,, 713
Staff requests the Board accept the six contracts which total $152,721.90 and direct the chairman
to execute the contracts on the Board's behalf.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved six
contracts in the total amount of $152,721.90 to
purchase right-of-way at the intersection of Oslo
Road and Old Dixie Highway, as recommended by staff.
SIX CONTRACTS FOR SALE AND PURCHASE
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PETITION' FOR WATER SERVICE IN RAINTREE CORNER SUBDIVISION (54TH
AVENUE)
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated May 11, 1993:
DATE: MAY 11, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. 0%0
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION FOR WATER SERVICE IN RAINTREE CORNER S/D
(54TH AVENUE)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -08 -DS
BACKGROUND
A petition has been received for a water main extension for 54th
Avenue (south of 12th Street) 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-mentioned project.
(See attached petition and plat map.)
ANALYSIS
The subdivision contains 16 lots. The 11 property owners signing
the petition represent 69% of the properties to be served. All of
the lots in this project are one-half acre or slightly more. The
attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
112
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.
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.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved the
project for water service in Raintree Corner
Subdivision (54th Avenue) and authorized staff to
proceed with the design engineering work in
preparation for the special assessment project, as
recommended by staff.
BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT - FINAL ASSESSMENT
ROLL AND RESOLUTION IV
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated May 10, 1993:
DATE: MAY 10, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM:. TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ^^SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST C,,
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS ENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BLUE CYPRESS LAKE WASTEWATER SERVICE PROJECT
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US-90-01-DS/CS/ED
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL AND RESOLUTION NO, -IV
BACKGROUND
On April 7, 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution
III (92-54) for the preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced
project. The construction of the project has been completed. We are
now ready to begin customer connections and request the Board of County
Commissioners, approval of the final assessment roll (see attached
minutes and Resolution III).
ANALYSIS
The final assessment is the same as the preliminary assessment of
$269,069.11, which equates to $0.379272 per square foot of property
owned.
113
Boor uu 714
MAY 2 5 X193
BOOK 89 rnur- 7i5
RECQMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption .of the attached
Resolution IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Resolution
93-99 certifing "as -built" costs for installation of
wastewater service to the Blue Cypress Lake Fishing
Club and such other construction necessitated by
such project, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION 93-99 WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 99
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WASTEWATER SERVICE TO
THE BLUE CYPRESS LAKE FISHING CLUB AND
SUCH OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY
SUCH. PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL
COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT'
WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that the wastewater improvements for the properties
located in the Blue Cypress Lake Fishing Club area were necessary to
promote the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, April 7, 1992, the Board held a public
hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed
appeared before the Board- to be heard as to the propriety and
advisability of making such improvements; and
WHEREAS, after such public hearing was hold the County
Commission adopted Resolution No. 92-54, which confirmed the special
assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is the same as
that shown in confirming Resolution No. 92-54,
114
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
I. Resolution No. 92-54 is modified as follows: The completion date
for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be
made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after
passage of this resolution.
2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 8% per annum may be
made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve
a
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
9244 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall
stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens
against the property against which such • assessments are made
until paid.
5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No.
92-54, were recorded by the County on the public records of
Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie
evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Egg ,-t- ,
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 2 S th day of * Nay,, 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
115
I
MAY 251993 BOOK �� F�gGF 716
r- BOOK 89 Pklu.717
MAY ?, 5 ®�
BLUE CYPRESS LAKE COMMUNITY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT - CHANGE
ORDER NO. 2
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated May 17, 1993:
DATE: NAY 171 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY VICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: BLUE CYPRESS LAKE COMMUNITY SEWER IMPROVEMENT PROJECT
CHANGE ORDER NO. 2
IRC PROJECT NO. US-90-01-DC/CS/ED
BACKGROUND:
On April 7, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners awarded the above -referenced project to Speegle
Construction, Inc., of Cocoa, Florida (see attached agenda item).
The project is complete.
ANALYSIS:
The requested final payment figures to the contractor (Speegle
Construction, Inc.), are as follows:
Original contract amount for construction $439,095.00
Change Order No. 1 6.527.75
Subtotal $445,622.75
Proposed Change Order No. 2 (see attached) 9.300.0
Subtotal $454,922.75
Liquidated damages deduction (12.668.00)
$442,254.75
Total payments up to date — (400,772.48)
Warranty retainage (5.000.00)
Payment requested $ 36,482.27
The completion of the construction was delayed by weather,
corrections to the nonspecified items, and conflict between the
contractor and the County Building Department during construction.
Due to these reasons, the construction went 13 weeks beyond the time
originally scheduled for completion. These time extensions caused
the additional services in resident inspection and engineering
administration from the consultant.
116
�J
The consultant has submitted a request for additional compensation
authorization in the amount of $18,890.00 for the time expended (see
Professional Engineering Consultants, Inc. (PECI) letter dated
February 16, 1993). The County, in return, has negotiated a reduced
settlement of the additional compensation to the amount of
$12,668.00 due to the consultant (see attached letter from Indian
River County, dated March 25, 1993, and PECI letter dated April 5,
1993) .
All additional compensations shall be paid from the settlement of
liquidated damages funds with the contractor.
The Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the
following:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Proposed Change Order No. 2, in the amount of $9,300.00.
Liquidated damage deduction, in the amount of $12,668.00
from Speegle Construction, Inc.
Additional compensation, to PECI, from liquidated damage
deduction to the contractor, as follows:
Resident Inspection Services
Consulting Design Services
$8,400.00
4,268.00
Payment request from Speegle Construction., Inc., in the
amount of $36,482.27.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved Change
Order No. 2, liquidated damage deduction, additional
compensation to PECI and payment request from
Speegle Construction, all as set out in staff's
memorandum.
APPLICATION FOR PROGRESS PAYMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESCHEDULE PHASE III WATER PROJECT
County Administrator Jim Chandler requested that the hearing
set for June 8 be moved back to June 22 because of scheduling
problems and because staff is studying a new formula.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) rescheduled the
hearing on the Phase III Water Project to June 22,
1993, as recommended by staff.
117
MAY 25 1993 BOOK 89 c-,�GF 718
MAY 2 51993
Bou 89 Fa,F 719 -7
REQUEST TO STUDY UPGRADING PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM IN COMMISSION
CHAMBERS
Commissioner Tippin commented that the public address system
in chambers does not have constant volume, and he requested that
staff check it.
County Administrator Jim Chandler responded that staff is
researching new systems as well as trying to resolve the problems,
and he felt there has been some improvement.
Chairman Bird commented that some meetings are heard loud and
clear and at other times the sound does not go through. He asked
staff to check to see if all the switches are turned in the right
direction.
RESOLUTION REGARDING SPONSORSHIP OF BEACH NOURISHMENT
Commissioner Adams reported that the Beach and Shore
Preservation Advisory Committee recommended that the Board adopt a
resolution setting aside the delegation of authority to sponsor the
beach nourishment project.
Commissioner Eggert asked if the City of Vero Beach requested
this in writing, and Commissioner Adams responded that the
agreement was verbal.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) adopted Resolution
93-100 setting aside the delegation of authority to
the City of Vero Beach to sponsor the County Beach
Nourishment Project.
118
RESOLUTION NO. 93-100
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
SETTING ASIDE THE DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY TO THE
CITY OF VERO BEACH TO SPONSOR THE COUNTY BEACH
NOURISHMENT PROJECT.
r
WHEREAS, Indian River County with the concurrence of the City of Vero
Beach, by Resolution No. 87-133, delegated to the City local sponsorship of
the Vero Beach Nourishment Project; and
WHEREAS, the County believes that, at this point in time, beach
nourishment and preservation projects should be handled at the County level;
and
WHEREAS, the first step to County sponsorship is to set aside Resolution
No. 87-133, thus returning to the County its full statutory authority to
proceed with beach nourishment and preservation;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that Resolution No. 87-133 is
hereby set aside and the sponsorship of beach nourishment and preservation
is, therefore, returned to the County pursuant to Chapter 161, Florida
Statutes.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and
the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tien in , and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Absent
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 25th day of Ma v , 1993.
M
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
- Richard N. Bhrd
Chairman
119
Boa 89 Fd�F 790 II
MAY � 5 X993
r
BOOK 89 DGE721
21
APPROVE JOE WIGGINS AS ALTERNATE FOR ERNESTINE WILLIAMS AND
REPRESENTATIVE APPOINTED BY BOARD OF REALTORS FOR CHARLES DAVIS
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Macht being absent) approved Joe
Wiggins as alternate for Ernestine Williams, and
approved the representative appointed by the Board
of Realtors as alternate for Charles Davis on the
Affordable Housing Commission.
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment the
Board would reconvene sitting as the Board of Commissioners of the
Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:55 A. M.
ATTEST:
J. . Barton, Clerk
120
��
Richard N. Bird, Chairman