HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/22/1993MINUTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, JUNE 22, 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)
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (Dist. 4)
Fran B. Adams (Dist. 1)
Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2)
Kenneth R. Macht (Dist. 3)
9: 00 A. M. I - CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2. INVOCATION - None
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John W. Tippin
4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS
None
6. APPRO"L OF MINUTES
Regular Meeting of May 25, 1993
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received and Placed on File in Office of Clerk
to the Board:
1992 Annual Report for the Nineteenth Judicial
Circuit
St. Johns River Water Control District General
Purpose Financial Statements & Report of Inde-
pendent Certified Public Accountants dated
September 30, 1992
B. Award Bid #3092 / Sale & Removal of Pelican
Point Wastewater Treatment Plant
(memorandum dated June 14, 1993
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENT AGENCI
None
JUN 22 1993 BOOK So
JUN 22 19911 BOOK So 862 7
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. County Initiated Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan by Enlarging the Urban
Service Area & Redesignating Approx. 3200
Acres From AG -1 to R
(memorandum dated June 15, 1993)
2. County Initiated Request to Amend the
Traffic Circulation Element, the Future
Land Use Element, the Potable Water Sub -
Element, the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element,
the Capital Improvements Element, & the
Ports, Aviation & Related Facilities
Element of the Comprehensive Plan
(memorandum dated June 4, 1993)
3. Phase III - Water Main Expansion Growth
Plan Resolution III
(memorandum dated June 3, 1993)
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Tourist Tax Status Report
(backup will be provided separately)
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Council on Aging's Request for Insurance
Coverage
(memorandum dated June 16, 1993)
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
1. Approval of Electrical Modifications and
Panel Upgrade at Hobart Tower Transmitter
Building
(memorandum dated June 16, 1993)
2. Approval of Amendment to License Agreement
with Sandab Communications Limited Partner-
ship, 11, for Tower Site
(memorandum dated June 14, 1993)
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AN BUDGET
Payment of Travel for a State Employee
(memorandum dated June 16, 1993)
F. PERSONNEL
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cmt'd. 1:
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Bid No. 31-05 Replacement of 43rd Ave.
Bridge over IRFWCD Main Relief Canal
(memorandum dated June 15, 1993)
2. Final Payment - I.R. Mosq. Control Dist.
I.R. Blvd. Mitigation
(memorandum dated June 8, 1993)
H. UTILITIES
1. Final Pay Request / Wood Hollow Water Main
IRC Bid No. 3079
(memorandum dated June 10, 1993)
2. Water Main Extension Project
C.R. 510/58th Ave. Intersection, IRC Bid
# 91-113, Work Authorization No. 14
(memorandum dated June 14, 1993)
3. Glendale Lakes Water Distribution System
Change Order No. I and Final Pay Request
(memorandum dated June 11, 1993)
4. Glendale Lakes S/D F. Neighboring Properties
Water Service, Res. IV - Final Assessment
(memorandum dated June 4, 1993)
S. Water Plant Continuing Consulting Services
Request for Proposals
(memorandum dated June 7, 1993)
12. COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
Citizens for Total Accessibility of
Indian River County
(memorandum dated June 14, 1993)
6
JUN U 1993 BOOK 89 i,,Ak,;F.863
FIF'- JUN 22 1993 BOOK 89 Pv�F864 -7
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (ccmt'd.):
E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
1. Award Bid #3090 / Rome Mauler
(memorandum dated June 8, 1993)
2. Award Bid #3085 / Ram Baler
(memorandum dated June 8, 1993)
3. Award Bid #3104 / Two Steel Tanks
(memorandum dated June 15, 1993)
11S. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
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, June 22, 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, June 22, 1993,
at 9: 00 A. M. Present were Richard N. Bird, Chairman; John W.
Tippin, Vice chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert; and
Kenneth R. Macht. 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.
Commissioner John W. Tippin led the Pledge of Allegiance to
the Flag.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 25, 1993. There were
none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board approved the Minutes
of the Regular Meeting of May 25, 1993, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Renorts
The following were received and placed on file in the office
of Clerk to the Board:
1992 Annual Report for the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit
St. Johns River Water Control District General Purpose
Financial Statements and Report of Independent Certified
Public Accounts dated September 30, 1992
JUN 22 1993 Boa 89 pnljr, 865
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 89 FA"F 7
U.866
B. Award Bid #3092 - Sale and Removal of Pelican Pointe Wastewater
Treatment Plant
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated June 14, 1993:
DATE: June 14, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: -James E. Chandler, County Admiqistrator
H.T. "Sonnyn Dean, Director
Department of General Servij
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell,, Purchasing Managerw
SUBJ: Award Bid 13092/Sale and Removal of Pelican
Point Wastewater Treatment Plant
Utilities Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Bid Opening Date: April 16, 1993
Advertising Dates: March 31, April 7. 1993
Specifications Mailed To: Seven (7) Vendors
Replies: One (1) Vendor
VENDOR DID TABULATION
General Environmental Corp $ 500.50
Altamonte Springs, FL
TOTAL AXOUNT OF BID: $ 500.50
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends awarding the bid to General Environmental
CoUprition as the only bidder on this surplus. The
existing condition of the wastewater treatment plant
such that it can only be used for scrap metal.Deterid?tion
and rusting have taken place and all useable parts have
been removed by the Department prior to this bidding. Any
further delay would bring in less income. (See attached
Departmental memo.)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #3092 to General Environmental Corporation for
Sale and Removal of Pelican Pointe Wastewater
Treatment Plant in the amount of $500.50, as
recommended by staff.
2
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA AND
REDESIGNATING APPROXIXATELY 3200 ACRES FROM AG -1 TO R
The hour of 9:05 o"clock A. M. having passed,, the County
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach. Florida 32961 662-2315
couwff OF l"tAN RIVM
STA'MOFFWEUDA . -Prcss 3ourw-d
Before the undersigned nothorit personally appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who an onth says that Ita is flusiness Manager of the
Vero Bench Press -journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in
unit
..................
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
day A.D_Z!_fe_�
Busittesis Mann
iSEAL)
OF 74y
NOTICE OF CHANGE.
The Board of County Commissioner; of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use, of )and within,,,,
!;�,,the unincorporated' portions of Indian River County. A public F
,.,. hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, June 22, 1993,f'-' '
,,,ot 9i05.a.m.1In the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,,
Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners'
will consider authorizing the transmittal of this
7. State Department of'Community Affairs for their review. The pro-,.,.
posed amendment is included in the proposed ordinance -entitled: - t:
6 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP BY ENLARGIN6
THE URBAN SERVICE AREA; AND REDESIGNAYING LAND it
FROM AG- 1, AGRICULTURAL (UP TO I UNIT/5 ACRES) TO
G. CODIFI.
R, RURAL (UP TO I UNIVACRE); AND PROVIDINi
CATIOWSEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and' bo'heard at the public
hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensiye
Plan Amendment.
A
The plan amendment application may be Inspected by the
public at the Community Development Department located on the
second floor of the County Administration Building located at
1840 25th Street, Veto Beach, Florida, betweenjilte.. hours 'of.'.':..
WO a.m. and 5100 p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING, FOR THIS
REQUEST,"
Anyone who may . wish to )peal any decision which maj be
made of this meeting will neill to ensure that a verbatim record -
n of the proceedings Is made which Includes the testimony puld eyl
1-dence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting
must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator of 567-8000 extension 408 at least 48 hours in ad -
I vance of the meeting. ft
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
3
U
JUN 22 1993 FA,F-86,7
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By& -s- Richard N. Bird,
Chairman
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
3
U
JUN 22 1993 FA,F-86,7
F- JUN 22 1993 BOOK 89 Ul"IF 868 -7
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEY)MI"M HEAD CONCURRENCE
, 20'�Z- ,f ., . -
It-obert: W. Ke&t1hcJj,, AICOf
i
THRU: Sasan Rohani <5 -9- -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FRON: John Wachtel
Staff Planner �ong-Range Planning
DATE: June 15, 1993
RE: County Initiated Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan
by Enlarging the Urban Service Area and Redesignating
Approximately 3200 acres from AG -1 to R (LUDA 93-01-0100)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given f ormal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of June 22, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to amend the Comprehensive Plan
by enlarging the Urban Service Area (USA) and redesignating
approximately 3200 acres. The subject property,, depicted on
attachment 2,, consists of the following f ive non-contiguous tracts:
480 acres along the south side of C.R. 510 between 90th Avenue
and 66th Avenue.
360 acres along the north side of 26th Street from 90th Avenue
to 74th Avenue and along the west side of 74th Avenue f rom.
26th Street to 33rd Street.
400 acres along the east side of 82nd Avenue between 16th
Street and 5th Street S.W.
1200 acres consisting of:
• land bordered by 16th Street on the north,, 58th Avenue on
the east, Sth Street on the south, and 66th Avenue on the
west;
• land along the south side of 16th Street between 74th
Avenue and 66th Avenue;
• land along the west side of 66th Avenue between 16th
Street and 4th Street; and
• land along the south side of 4th Street between 66th
Avenue and 58th Avenue.
760 acres along both sides of 9th Street S.W. from 58th Avenue
to 74th Avenue and along the west side of 58th Avenue between
9th Street S.W.'and 4th.Street.
This proposed plan amendment has been submitted based upon the
results of a recent staff study (see attachment 9). That study,,
mandated by Future Land Use Policy 1.37, addressed the issue of
utility lines located in road rights-of-way,, where the subject
roads serve as USA boundaries. Policy 1.37 was adopted because the
county determined that it was inefficient to install utility lines
4
M M M
M M M
within a road right-of-ways yet prohibit land uses on one side of
the road from connecting to those lines. -
Consequently, planning staff coordinated with the County Utilities
Department,, identified the location of all existing and planned
major water and sewer lines,, and determined which lines were
located in roadways serving as USA boundaries. In so doing, staff
questioned the need for placing major water and sewer lines within
rights -of -way of roads serving as USA boundaries. According to
utilities staf f and consultants, there are several reasons why
lines must be located where they are proposed. The principal
reason for situating lines in the referenced rights-of-way is that
alternative corridors have insufficient area to accommodate the
subject utility lines. These corridors are already too congested.
In conducting its analysis, staff addressed only those corridors
for which utility line installation is programmed to be completed
by 1995,, and the fast growing 58th Avenue corridor which was
designated a high priority in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37.
Although the utility master plan provides for line installation in
other corridors by 2010 (see attachment -5). staff did not consider
these areas because of the longer timeframe.
Consistent with the requirements of policy 1. 37, staff assessed the
need to expand the USA adjacent to the road rights -of -way which are
programmed to accommodate major utility lines where those roadways
serve as USA boundaries. Through this assessment,, staf f determined
that the USA boundary should be expanded one quarter of a mile f rom
such roads.
Staff determined that one quarter of a mile would be an appropriate
depth for expanding the USA. This would provide suf f icient land to
accommodate development,, but not so much as to produce urban
sprawl. One area which is proposed as an exception to the quarter
mile expansion is 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road), from 58th Avenue to
.74th Avenue. In this area, which is outside the USA# the boundary
would be expanded to include a half -mile wide strip, (a quarter mile
on each side) along that segment of 9th Street S.W.
The subject property consists of 3200 acres. The entire subject
property is currently designated AG -la, Agricultural -1 (up to 1
unit/5 acres) on the county future land use map. The request
involves expanding the USA to include the subject property and
changing the land use designation of the subject property to R,
Rural (up to 1 unit/acre). This request will not affect the
subject property's zoning which is A-1, Agricultural District (up
to 1 unit/5 acres).
On April 22,, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit to the
State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) a land use amendment
that expands the USA, as recommended by staff, but which does not
change the land use designation of the subject property.
Existina Land Use Pattern
The entire subject property is zoned A-11 Agricultural District (up
to 1 unit/5 acres) and consists of groves,, ranchest various
agricultural usest homesteads, and vacant land. All of the
property is designated AG-li Agricultural -1, on the county future
land use map. The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and
residential densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. Since existing uses
vary throughout the subject property,, each of the five non-
contiguous tracts comprising the property is described separately
below.
BOOK 89 PgE
JUN 22 1993
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 8 9 P,� GF870 -7
480 acres alona the south side of C.R. 510 between 90th Avenue
and 66th Avenue. This tract contains groves,, scattered
single-family residences, and a daycare center.
a 360 acres alona the north side of 26th Street from 90th Avenue
to 74th Avenue and along the west side of 74th Avenue from
26th Street to 33rd Street. This tract is developed solely
with citrus groves.
0 400 acres along the east side of 82nd Avenue between 16th
Htreet and 5th Street S.W. From 16th Street to 12th Street
this tract is largely cleared and contains several single-
family residences. The rest of the tract is developed with
citrus groves except for the county sod farm and some pasture
south of 4th Street.
0 760 acres along both sides of 9th Street S.W. from 58th Avenue
To- 74th Avenue and alona the west side of 58th Avenue between
9th Street S.W. and 4th Street. This tract is developed
solely with citrus groves.
The remaining 1200 acre tract. Along the south side of 16th
Street from 74th Avenue to approximately one-quarter mile east
of 66th Avenue this tract contains groves and some single -
f amily residences. The "Ul-shaped portion of this tract
f ormed by the remaining land along the south side of 16th
Street# the west side of 58th Avenue, and the north side of
8th Street contains a mixture of vacant cleared land, woods,
and single-family residences. Along both sides of 12th
Street, except for within one-quarter mile of 58th Avenue,,
citrus groves are planted. The land along the west side of
66th Avenue from Sth Street to 4th Street is also developed
with citrus groves and several single-family homes. The
remainder of this tract along the south side of 4th street
contains several single-family homes west of 66th Avenue,,
vacant cleared land, and citrus groves.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality;
• need for USA expansion and land use redesignation; and
• alternatives.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation,
Potable Waters 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.
M M M
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 requests j 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 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
requests, the most intense use- (according to the county's land
development regulations) is one dwelling unit per acre of land
proposed f or redesignation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Property:
t3200 acres
2. Size of Area to be
Redesignated: t3200 acres
3. Existing Land Use Designation: AG -1. Agricultural -1 (up
to 1 unit/5 acres)
4. Proposed Land Use Designation:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
6. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed
Land Use Designation:
- Transportation
Rr Rural
unit/acre)
640 units
3200 units
(up to 1
A review of the traf f ic impacts . that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service I'D" or better on impacted roads would not be lowered. The
site information used for -determining traffic is as follows:
Existing Land Use Designation
1 Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single -
Family
2. For Single -Family Units, in ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
ce Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
3. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage (640 X 1.01 X 0.65 = 420)
4. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(640 X 9.55 = 6112)
r 6
JUN 22 199,3 BOOK , 89 P��,UF.871
ProDosed Land Use Designation
BOOK 8 9 F',i IF -1
,,.872
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single -
Family
2. For Single -Family Units, in ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
ce Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
3. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage (3200 X 1.01 X 0.65 = 2100)
4. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(3200 X 9.55 = 30,560)
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the present land use
designation is 6112. This was determined by multiplying the 640
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 9.55 Average Weekday Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 30,560. This was determined by multiplying the 3200
units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 9.55 Average Weekday Trip Ends/unit.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics,, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m,. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 420. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed under the existing land use designation
(640) by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit,, then
taking 65% of that total to ensure that only inbound trips were
counted.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated throughout the county by the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation, the total number of units allowed under the proposed
land use designation (3200) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01
p.m. peak hour trips/unit; that volume was then multiplied by the
inbound trip factor of 0.65. The result was 2100, or 1680 more
than the 420 that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the existing land use designation, 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 f or all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traf f ic characteristics and applying Appendix
Q methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traf f ic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
Since the subject property consists of five tracts located
throughout the County,, the traf f ic impacts associated with the
proposed amendment will also be spread throughout the county, not
concentrated in one area. To illustrate this point the following
table gives the peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
generated for each of the five tracts.
Tract
the south side of C.R. 510
between 90th Ave. and 66th Ave.
Pk- Hr./Pk. Season/Pk. Dir. Trigs
315
the north side of 26th St. from
90th Ave. to 74th Ave. and the west
side of 74th Ave. from 26th St. to 33rd St. 236
the east side of 82nd Ave.
between 16th St. and 5th St. S.W. 263
both sides of 9th St. S.W. from 74th Ave. to 58th Ave
and the west side of 58th Ave. from 9th St. S.W. to 46 St. 499
the land generally from 16th St. to
4th St. and from 58th Ave. to 66th Ave. 787
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that all county roads
can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their
existing levels of service. Therefore, there is sufficient
capacity in the county transportation system to accommodate the
projected traffic associated with the request.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed land use designation. 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
Segment
Capacity
To LOS RID"
1220
I -9s
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
3530
1230
1-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
3530
1305
U.S.
1
S. County Line
Oslo Road
2300
1310
U.S.
1
Oslo Road
4th St. 0 IR Blvd.
2220
1315
U.S.
1
4th St. 0 I.R. Blvd.
Sth Street
2270
1320
U.S.
1
Sth Street
12th Street
2270
1325
U.S.
1
12th Street
S. VB City Limits
2370
1330
U.S.
I
S. VB City Limits
17th Street
2270
1335
U.S.
1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1340
U.S.
1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm Blvd.
2300
1345
U.S.
I
Royal Palm Blvd.
Atlantic Blvd.
2300
1350
U.S.
1
Atlantic Blvd.
N. VB City Limits
2300
135S
U.S.
1
N. VB City Limits
Old Dixie Hwy.
2300
1360
U.S.
1
Old Dixie Hwy.
41st Street
2300
136S
U.S.
1
41st Street
45th Street
2650
9
9 Boa 8 9 u 4u, 8 7 3
J U N 2 2
-6 BOOK 89 F-,Ak)F 874
JUN 22 1993
10
M M M
segment
Roadway
Capacity
Segment
Road
From
To
LOB "D"
1370
U.S.
1
45th Street
49th Street
2650
137S
U.S.
1
49th Street
65th Street
2650
1380
U.S.
I
65th Street
69th Street
2650
1385
U.S.
1
69th Street
old Dixie Hwy.
26SO
1390
U.S.
I
old Dixie Hwy.
Schumann Dr.
2370
1395
U.S.
1
Schumann Dr.
C.R. 512
2370
1400
U.S.
1
C.R. 512
N. Seb. city Lmt.
2300
1720
C.R.
512
1-95
C.R. 510
630
1730
C.R.
512
C.R. 510
W. Sob. City Lmt.
630
1810
C.R.
SIO
C.R. 512
66th Avenue
630
1820
C.R.
S10
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
630
1830
C.R.
510
58th Avenue
U.S. 1
630
1910
S.R.
60
C.R. 512
1-95
540
1915
S.R.
60
1-95
82nd Avenue
1680
1920
S.R.
60
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
1760
1925
S.R.
60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
1760
1930
S.�R.
60
SSth Avenue
43rd Avenue
2650
1935
S.R.
60
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
2650
1940
S;R.
60
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
2600
1945
S.R.
60
20th Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
1638
19SO
S.R.
60
old Dixie Hwy.
10th Avenue
1638
195S
S.R.
60
10th Avenue
U.S. 1
2638
2020
16th
Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
830
2030
16th
Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
830
2040
16th
Street
27th Avenue
.20th Avenue
830
20SO
.16th
Street
20th Avenue
old Dixie Hwy.
970
2060
16th/17th St.
old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
970
2210
12th
Street
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
890
2220
12th
Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
830
2230
12th
Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
830
2240
12th
Street
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
830
2310
Old Dixie Hwy.
Oslo Road
4th Street
830
233S
old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
2420
27th
Avenue
Oslo Road
4th Street
830
2480
27th
Avenue
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
830
2510
�7th
Avenue
Atlantic Blvd.
Aviation Blvd.
830
2530
691c
Road
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
630
2540
Oslo
Road
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
2550
Oslo
Road
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
630
2560
Oslo
Road
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
830
2S70
Oslo
Road
20th Avenue
old Dixie Hwy.
830
2580
Oslo
Road
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
830
1810
20th
Avenue
Oslo Road
4th Street
630
2820
20th
Avenue
4th Street
Sth Street
630
2830
20th
Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
630,
2850
20th
Avenue
S. VB City Limits
16th Street
1760
2870
20th
Avenue
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
1760
2910
43rd
Avenue
Oslo Road
4th Street
630
2915
43rd
Avenue
4th Street
Sth Street
630
2920
43rd
Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
630
2925
43rd
Avenue
12th Street
16th Street
830
2930
43rd
Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
830
2935
43rd
Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
830
3005
58th
Avenue
Oslo Road
4th Street
630
3010
S8th
Avenue
4th Street
Sth Street
630
3015
58th
Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
630
3020
58th
Avenue
12th Street
16th Street
630
3025
58th
Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
630
3030
58th
Avenue
S.R. 60
41st Street
830
3120
66th
Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
630
3130
66th
Avenue
26th Street
41st Street
630
3170
66th
Avenue
69th Street
C.R. 510
630
3310
82nd
Avenue
Oslo Road
4th Street
630
3320
82nd
Avenue
4th Street
12th Street
630
3330
82nd
Avenue
12th Street
S.R. 60
630
4220
49th
Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4230
49th
Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4240
49th
Street
43rd Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
630
4250
49th
Street
old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
630
4720
26th
Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4730
26th
Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue -
630
4740
16th
Street
43rd Avenue
Aviation Blvd.
630
4750
26th
street
Aviation Blvd.
27th Avenue
630
4830
Sth Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4840
Sth Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
630
4850
Sth Street
27th Avenue-
20th Avenue
830
4860
Sth Street
20th Avenue
old Dixie Hwy.
830
4910
4th Street
82nd Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4930
4th Street
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4940
4th Street
43rd Avenue
27th Avenue
630
4950
4th Street
27th Avenue
20th Avenue
630
4960
4th Street
20th Avenue
Old Dixie
630
4970
4th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
630
10
M M M
M M M
Roadway
segment
CapaeLty
Road
From
TO
LOS "D"
1370
U.S.
I
45th
Street
49th Street
26SO
137S
U.S.
I
49th
Street
65th Street
2650
1380
U.S.
I
65th
Street
69th Street
2650
138S
U.S.
I
69th
Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
2650
1390
U.S.
1
old Dixie Hwy.
Schumann Dr.
2370
1395
U.S.
I
Schumann Dr.
C.R. 512
2370
1400
U.S.
I
C.R.
512
N. Seb. City Lmt-
2300
1720
C.A.
512
1-9s
C.R. slo
630
1730
C.R.
S12
C.R.
510
W. Bob. City Lmt.
630
1810
C.R.
510
C.R.
512
66th Avenue
630
1820
C.R.
S10
66th
Avenue
58th Avenue
630
1830
C.R.
510
58th
Avenue
U.S. 1
630
1910
S.R.
60
C.R.
512
1-95
540
191S
S.R.
60
1-95
82nd Avenue
1680
2920
S.R.
60
82nd
Avenue
66th Avenue
1760
1925
S.R.
60
66th
Avenue
58th Avenue
1760
1930
S.R.
60
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
2650
1935
S.R.
60
43rd
Avenue
27th Avenue
2650
1940
S.R.
60
27th
Avenue
20th Avenue
2600
1945
S.R.
60
20th
Avenue
old Dixie Hwy.
1638
1950
S.R.
60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Avenue
1638
19ss
S. A.
60
10th
Avenue
U.S. 1
1638
2020
16th
-Street
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
830
2030
16th
Street
43rd
Avenue
27th Avenue
830
2040
16th
Street
27th
Avenue
20th Avenue
830
2050
16th
Street
26th
Avenue
old Dixie Hwy.
970
2060
16th/17th St.
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
970
2210
12th
Street
82nd
Avenue
58th Avenue
890
2220
12th
Street
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
830
2230
12th
Street
43rd
Avenue
27th Avenue
830
2240
12th
Street
27th
Avenue
20th Avenue
830
2310
Old Dixie Hwy.
Oslo
Road
4th Street
830
2335
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th
Street
S.R. 60
830
2420
27th
Avenue
Oslo
Road
4th Street
830
2480
27th
Avenue
S.R.
60
Atlantic Blvd.
830
2510
27th
Avenue
Atlantic Blvd.
Aviation Blvd.
830
2530
Oslo
Road
82nd
Avenue
58th Avenue
630
2540
Oslo
Road
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
2550
Oslo
Road
43rd
Avenue
27th Avenue
630
2560
Oslo
Road
27th
Avenue
20th Avenue
830
2S70
Oslo
Road
20th
Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
830
2580
Oslo
Road
old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
830
2810
20th
Avenue
Oslo
Road
4th Street
630
2820
20th
Avenue
4th Street
Sth Street
630
2830
20th
Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
630
2850
20th
Avenue
S. VB City Limits
16th Street
1760
2870
20th
Avenue
S.R.
60
Atlantic Blvd.
1760
2910
43rd
Avenue
Oslo
Road
4th Street
630
291S
43rd
Avenue
4th Street
Sth Street
630
2920
43rd
Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
630
2925
43rd
Avenue
12th
Street
16th Street
830
2930
43rd
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R. 60
830
2935
43rd
Avenue
S.R.
60
26th Street
830
3005
58tl%.Avenue
Oslo
Road
4th Street
630
3010
58th
Avenue
4th Street
Sth Street
630
3015
58th
Avenue
Sth Street
12th Street
630
3020
58th
Avenue
12th
Street
16th Street
630
3025
58th
Avenue
16th
Street
S.R. 60
630
3030
58th
Avenue
S.R.
60
41st Street
830
3120
66th
Avenue
S.R.
60
26th Street
630
3130
66th
Avenue
26th
Street
41st Street
630
3170
66th
Avenue
69th
Street
C.R. 510
630
3310
82nd
Avenue
Oslo
Road
4th Street
630
3320
82nd
Avenue
4th Street
12th Street
630
3330
82nd
Avenue
12th
Street
S.R. 60
630
4220
49th
Street
66th
Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4230
49th
Street
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4240
49th
Street
43rd
Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
630
4250
49th
Street
old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
630
4720
26th
Street
66th
Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4730
26th
Street
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4740
26th
Street
43rd
Avenue
Aviation Blvd.
630
4750
26th
Street
Aviation Blvd.
27th Avenue
630
4830
Sth Street
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4840
Sth Street
43rd
Avenue
27th Avenue
630
4850
Sth Street
27th
Avenue
20th Avenue
830
4860
Sth Street
20th
Avenue
Old Dixie Hwy.
830
4910
4th Street
82nd
Avenue
58th Avenue
630
4930
4th Street
58th
Avenue
43rd Avenue
630
4940
4th Street
143rd
Avenue
27th Avenue
630
4950
4th Street
27th
Avenue
20th Avenue
630
4960
4th Street
20th
Avenue
old Dixie
630
4970
4th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
U.S. 1
630
11
JUN 212 1993 BOOK 89 875
FF,— 30 22 1993 BOOK 8 91 F -A �') F876
Zxistinq Demand Total Available Positive
Roadway ExletLng Vested segment segment project Concurrency
Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination
1220
1030
4
1034
249S
123
Y
1230
1120
1
1121
2409
94
Y
1305
1102
56
1158
1142
20
Y
1310
1526
43
1569
6S1
160
Y
1315
1526
42
1568
702
40
Y
1320
1526
44
1570
700
70
Y
1325
1526
58
1584
786
40
Y
1330
1341
57
1398
872
81
Y
1335
1341
56
1397
873
70
Y
1340
1143
57
1200
1100
24
Y
1345
1143
72
1215
2085
34
Y
1350
1309
81
1390
910
43
Y
135S
1309
34
1343
957
54
Y
1360
1309
74
1383
917
54
Y
1365
1309
41
1350
1300
67
Y
1370
1309
33
1342
1308
93
Y
1375
747
39
786
1864
93
Y
1380
747
30
777
1873
91
Y
1385
779
36
sis
1835
156
Y
1390
815
68
883
1487
58
Y
1395
950
74
1024
1346
54
Y
1400
945
26
971
1329
23
Y
1720
310
47
357
273
88
Y
1730
288
24
312
318
22
Y
1810
162
54
216
414
263
Y
1820
162
33
195
43S
164
Y
1830
360
31
391
239
229
Y
1910
292
19
311
229
75
Y
1915
734
57
791
889
311
Y
1920
9SO
ss
1005
755
217
Y
1925
972
59
1031
729
57
Y
1930
972
110
1082
1568
137
Y
1935
612
73
685
196S
175
Y
1940
878
51
929
1671
167
Y
194S
747
41
788
850
126
Y
1950
747
33
780
ass
103
Y
1955
747
31
778
860
81
Y
2020
121
35
156
674
172
Y
2030
337
32
369
461
121
Y
2040
463
33
496
334
101
Y
2050
ssi
30
Bel
89
al
Y
2060
851
19
870
100
81
Y
2210
81
8
89
801
60
Y
2220
81
12
93
737
75
Y
2230
225
13
238
S92
10
Y
2240
400
11
411
419
10
Y
2310
427
20
447
383
10
Y
233S
139
39
178
652
20
Y
2420
391
32
423
407
40
Y
2480
369
6
375
455
10
Y
2510
319
2
321
509
309
Y
2530
162
11
173
457
250
Y
2540
162
10
172
458
320'
Y
2SSO
265
20
285
345
320
Y
2S60
265
17
282
S48
280
Y
2570
360
41
401
429
230
Y
2580
414
is
429
401
220
Y
2810
144
56
200
430
so
Y
2820
274
is
292
338
5
Y
2830
310
10
320
310
43
Y
2850
297
5
302
1458
20
Y
2870
265
10
275
1485
21
Y
2910
22S
34
259
371
210
Y
2915
360
17
377
253
15
Y
2920
454
14
468
162
20
Y
2925
454
17
471
359
20
Y
2930
373
2S
398
432
142
Y
2935
373
31
404
426
97
Y
3005
144
5
149
481
310
Y
3010
144
6
ISO
480
109
Y
3015
144
9
153
477
20
Y
3020
144
10
154
476
165
Y
3025
400
21
421
409
241
Y
3030
414
31
445
385
98
Y
3120
ISO
5
185
445
se
Y
3130
ISO
7
187
443
72
Y
3170
139
a
147
483
142
Y
12
M M M
M
M
- Water
Of the subject property's 3200 acres, 840 acres lie in the north
county water service area, and 2360 acres lie in the south county
water service area.
Residential development of 840 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the north county water service area will have a
water consumption rate of 840 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU),,
or 210,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service
standard of 250 gallons /ERU/day - The nearly complete North County
Water Plant will have a capacity of 2,000#000 gallons/day and will
be capable of accommodating the additional demand generated by the
proposed amendment.
Residential development of 2360 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the south county water service area will have a
water consumption rate of 2360 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU),
or 590,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service
standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The South County Water Plant has
a remaining capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed
amendment.
- Wastewater
Of the subject property's 3200 acres, 480 acres lie in the north
county wastewater service area; 360 acres lie in the central county
wastewater service area; and 2360 acres lie in the west county
wastewater service area.
Residential development of 480 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the north county wastewater service area will
have a wastewater generation rate of 480 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 120,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level
of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The North County
Wastewater Plant has a remaining capacity of approximately 860,,000
gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand generated by
the proposed amendment.
13
19, 93 BoPK 89 �xIJF. 877
ZzLet
Demand.
Total
AvaLlable
PosLtLve
Roadway
zxIstLng
vested
segment
segment.
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume
volume
Demand
capaofty
Demand
Lon
3310
162
5
167--
463
183
Y
3320
162
7
169
461
so
Y
3330
162
19
lei
449
240
Y
4220
153
7
160
470
72
Y
4230
153
7
160
470
72
Y
4240
153
12
165
465
72
Y
4250
153
11
164
466
52
Y
4720
117
6
123
507
119
Y
4730
117
is
135
495
95
Y
4740
117
3
120
510
48
Y
4750
117
2
119
511
31
Y
4830
99
33
132
498
140
Y
4840
193
23
216
414
120
Y
4850
342
19
361
469
83
Y
4860
342
33
375
455
40
Y
4910
103
6
109
521
324
Y
4930
103
6
109
521
250
Y
4940
216
17
233
397
235
Y
4950
315
23
338
292
235
Y
4960
315
26
341
289
210
Y
4970
450
14
464
166
160
Y
- Water
Of the subject property's 3200 acres, 840 acres lie in the north
county water service area, and 2360 acres lie in the south county
water service area.
Residential development of 840 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the north county water service area will have a
water consumption rate of 840 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU),,
or 210,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service
standard of 250 gallons /ERU/day - The nearly complete North County
Water Plant will have a capacity of 2,000#000 gallons/day and will
be capable of accommodating the additional demand generated by the
proposed amendment.
Residential development of 2360 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the south county water service area will have a
water consumption rate of 2360 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU),
or 590,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service
standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The South County Water Plant has
a remaining capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed
amendment.
- Wastewater
Of the subject property's 3200 acres, 480 acres lie in the north
county wastewater service area; 360 acres lie in the central county
wastewater service area; and 2360 acres lie in the west county
wastewater service area.
Residential development of 480 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the north county wastewater service area will
have a wastewater generation rate of 480 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 120,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level
of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The North County
Wastewater Plant has a remaining capacity of approximately 860,,000
gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand generated by
the proposed amendment.
13
19, 93 BoPK 89 �xIJF. 877
80 OK 89 FVF
JUW 22 1993 11. 8 78
Residential development of 360 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the central county wastewater service area will
have a wastewater generation rate of 360 Equivalent Residential
Units (ERU), or 90,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level
of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The Central County
Wastewater Plant has a remaining capacity of approximately 500,000
gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand generated by
the proposed amendment.
Residential development of 2360 units on the portion of the subject
property lying in the west county wastewater service area will have
a wastewater generation rate of 2360 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 590,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The West County
Wastewater Plant's remaining capacity is approximately 490,,000
gallons/day, which is less than the additional demand generated by
the proposed amendment. However, as indicated in Table 3.A.12.
"Recommended Wastewater System Improvements" of the Sanitary Sewer
Sub -Element, the county has programmed and budgeted for expansion
of the West County Wastewater Plant. Construction to expand the
capacity of this facility to accommodate an additional 1,000,000
gallons/day will begin when the facility is at 65% of its capacity,
as mandated in Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.3. For this
reason, the West County Wastewater Plant will be capable of
accommodating the additional demand generated by the proposed
amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For 3200 residential units, solid
waste generation will be approximately 5120 waste generation units
(WGU) or 15,168 cubic yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a Waste
Generation Unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of
waste/year.
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 (5120 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 15,168 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
During the development approval process,, 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. For these reasons, drainage Level of
Service will not be lowered by the proposed amendment.
14
M M M
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed land use designation
indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained.
While the Urban, Beachl and River Park Districts serve the entire
county,, the Community Park District is divided into north and south
areas. of the subject property's 3200 acres, 480 acres lie in the
North Community Park Districts, and 2720 acres lie in the South
Community Park District. The table below illustrates the
additional park demand associated with the proposed development of
the property and the existing surplus acreage by park -type.
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
cohcurrency-mandated facilities,, including drainage,, roads,, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater 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(l) of
the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only
be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also
show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important# some have
more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element 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:
15
JUN 22 1993 BOOK 89 F',A!"IF. 879
LOS.
Project
(Acres per
-Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
(Acres)
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
36-80
211.48
Community (north)
3.0
3.31
25.75
Community (south)
1.25
7.82
11.47
Beach
1.5
11.04
73.84
River
1.5
11.04
34.84
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
cohcurrency-mandated facilities,, including drainage,, roads,, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater 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(l) of
the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only
be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also
show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important# some have
more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following objectives and policies.
- Future Land Use Element 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:
15
JUN 22 1993 BOOK 89 F',A!"IF. 879
JUN 221993
• a mistake in
• an oversight
• a substantial
property.
BOOK 89 PnF 89
Ii . _
the approved plan;
in the aDoroved plan; or
change in circillm tances affecting the subject
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets two of policy 13.3's criteria.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted on February 13# 1990F the
boundaries of the USA were established along major roads because
roadways are easily identifiable on maps. At that time, the county
did not consider the economic feasibility of providing utility
service to both sides of roads whose rights-of-way contain utility
lines. This fact constitutes an oversight and meets the second
criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
There has also been a change in circumstances. Since adoption of
the comprehensive planf the utilities master plan has been revised.
This revision includes changes to the county's proposed utility
collection and distribution systems in order to provide service to
residentially and commercial/industrially designated areas in the
county. While the utilities master plan identifies the location of
all existing water and sewer lines, the most important part of the
plan is its program to install utility lines needed to serve areas
within the approved USA that are not presently served.
According to the revised utilities master plans utility lines are
presently in place, and service is presently available, to most
land comprising the subject property. By 1995, utility lines will
be in place and service will be available to the remaining lando
and in the case of the southern portion of 58th Avenue by 1998.
Since the revision of the utilities master plan constitutes a
change in circumstances affecting the subject property, this meets
the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 states that the county shall
identify existing and programmed water and sewer lines running
along road rights-of-way that serve as USA boundaries. This policy
further states that after identifying these linesf the county
should consider a comprehensive plan amendment expanding the USA
one quarter mile from these lines. To economically and efficiently
serve areas designated for urban developmentf the county must
occasionally install lines outside the USA. Attachments 3# 4f and
5 graphically depict the location of and the installation timing
for lines which will be located on the boundary off or outside off
the USA. The following table identifies existing and programmed
water and sewer lines running outside the USA or within road
rights-of-way that serve as USA boundaries. The table also
identifies the proposed timeframe for line installation.
16
--1L
M
UTILITY LIKES LOCATED ON THE BOUNDARY OFt OR OUTSIDE THE USA
Road
From
To
Water
Wastewater
C.R.
510
66th
Ave.
90th
Ave.
existing
1994
77th
St.
66th
Ave.
90th
Ave.
2000
2005
66th
Ave.
33rd
St.
C.R.
510
2010
N/P
33rd
St.
66th
Ave.
74th
Ave.
1998
N/P
74th
Ave.
33rd
St.
26th
St.
1998
N/P
26th
St.
74th
Ave.
90th
Ave.
1996
available*
16th
St.
58th
Ave.
74th
Ave.
2002
existing
82nd
Ave.
16th
St.
5th
St. S.W.
existing
1997
74th
Ave.
16th
St.
Sth
St
1996
1997
Sth
St.
58th
Ave
82nd
Ave.
N/P
1997
58th
Ave.
16th
St.
9th
St. S.W.
2008
1998
5th
St. S.W.
58th
Ave
82nd
Ave.
2007
N/P
9th
St. S.W.
58th
Ave.
74th
Ave.
1993
N/P
4th
St.
1-95
98th
Ave.
2007
1998
98th
Ave.
8th St.
4th
St.
2007
2000
*available through subdivisions south of 26th St.
N/P: not programmed
This request proposes USA expansion and land use redesignation
amendments based on the existence and the programmed installation
of water and sewer lines running along the boundary of the USA or
outside of the USA. The request is limited to areas where service
will be available by 1995 and to the 58th Avenue corridor which is
designated a high priority in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment implements Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.37.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will
have an efficient land use pattern that reduces urban sprawl. One
reason that urban sprawl is considered an undesirable land
development pattern is that sprawl development is expensive and
inefficient to serve with infrastructure. In contrast,, land
adjacent to utility lines can generally be served efficiently. The
proposed amendment will allow the provision of urban services to
land adjacent to utility linest thereby increasing the efficiency
of urban service provision. For that reason, the proposed
amendment implements Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.9
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.9 states that the Rural land use
designation contains a mix of agricultural, residential, and open
space lands and should serve as a buffer between agricultural and
urban areas. Land uses on the subject property are a mix of
agricultural, residential, and open space, and all land comprising
the subject property is located between agricultural and urban
areas. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.9.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 2.2 and 2.3
Future Land Use Element Policies 2.2 and 2.3 state that the USA
shall include areas that receive or are programmed to receive
services deemed necessary to support urban or suburban development.
All lands comprising the subject property receive or are programmed
to receive all county services. Therefore, the proposed amendment
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 2.2 and 2.3.
17
JUN 221991 BOOK 89 P�ku 8S I
-A
BOOK 8 9
JUN 22 1993
- Future Land Use Element Objective 5
Future Land Use Element Objective 5 states that the county will
provide for a mix of land uses which permit and encourage a variety
of development patterns and densities to accommodate a diversity of
lifestyles. Currently, only a small amount land in the county is
designated Rural. The proposed amendment would create more Rurally
designated landf thereby allowing a more diverse mix of housing
types and densities. In this way the proposed amendment implements
Future Land Use Element Objective 5.
- Economic Development Element Objective 1
Economic Development Element Objective 1 states that the county
will reduce its unemployment rate. The proposed amendment will
allow the most efficient and economically feasible delivery of
water and sewer service to the Oslo Road & 74th Avenue and the 1-95
a C.R. 512 commercial/industrial nodes. The availability of water
and sewer service at these nodes will make the nodes significantly
more attractive to potential new employers. Therefore, the
proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element
objective 1.
- Economic Development Element Objective 7
Economic Development Element Objective 7 states that, by 1995, the
county will upgrade its water and sewer facilities to provide
adequate capacity for future economic growth. By delivering water
and sewer service to the Oslo Road & 74th Avenue and the 1-95 &
C.R. 512 commercial/ industrial nodes,, the county is providing
adequate capacity to accommodate future economJr- growth. The
proposed amendment will ensure that water and sewer service is
efficiently and economically provided to these nodes, Therefore,
the proposed amendment implements Economic Development Element
Objective 7.
Based on this analysis, it is staff's position that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Amending the subject property's land use designation to Rural will
result in development which will be compatible with surrounding
areas. As indicated in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.90 Rural
residential areas serve as buffers between agricultural and urban
areas.
There are several areas where the subject property will act as a
transitional zone between residential areas of up to 8 units/acre
and agricultural areas of only 1 unit/5 acres. Presently, the
allowable density often increases by a factor of 40 from one side
of the street to the other. A Rural, 1 unit/acre designation will
reduce the abruptness of this transition from agricultural to urban
areas.
While there will be a density increase, the subject property will
remain low density. Therefore,, the impacts of developmentg, such as
increased traffic and noise, on adjacent residential areas will be
minimal. Additionally, the relatively large lot sizess even at the
maximum density of 1 unit/acre,, will function to somewhat mitigate
impacts by providing physical separation.
18
M M M
It is also anticipated that impacts on adjacent agricultural areas
will be minimal. As required by Future Land Use Element Policy
6.3. urban uses which encroach on active agricultural areas must
provide adequate buffers.
For these reasonsp staff feels that the proposed Rural land use
designation will be compatible with surrounding areas.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
As indicated in the Existing Land Use Pattern section of this
report-, much of the subject property has been altered for
residential or agricultural development. Since most of the land
has been disturbed, few natural areas remain within the bounds of
the subject property. Therefore,, the proposed change will not have
a significant effect on environmental quality.
With respect to the natural area within the subject property's
limits, it should be noted that any residential development will
need to comply with the * county's land development regulationsr
including its environmental provisions. Various environmental
permits, including land clearing and tree removal permits'r must be
obtained prior to development. In addition, the county's native
upland plant community set-aside requirement will apply to
properties at least five acres in size.
The,proposed amendment will not result in an increase in potential
adverse environmental impacts on the subject property.
Agricultural use is largely exempt from county permitting,, and
therefore is not required to obtain the above mentioned permitst
and is exempt from the county's native upland plant community set-
aside requirement. For these reasons, the county,, has more
opportunity to regulate impacts associated with residential
development than impacts associated with agricultural use.
Need for USA Expansion and Land Use Redesignation
In order to efficiently and economically expand the county
utilities system to serve approved development,, density along
programmed and existing lines must be increased. The most feasible
action to increase density along new lines is to allow development
on both sides of roads that serve as USA boundaries to connect to
the system and to redesignate land adjacent to lines. TO
accomplish this the USA must be expanded.
Of particular importance with this request in the impact of the
land use change on the county's residential allocation ratio. A
residential allocation ratio is the measure of total residential
units allowed under the land use plan compared to the number of
residential units expected to be needed through the plan's planning
horizon based on population projections. The following formula is
used to calculate the residential allocation ratio:
Total number of units allowed - Existina units
Projected number of units needed (1990-2010)
When Indian River County and DCA entered into a stipulated
settlement agreement, to bring the county's plan into compliance
with state requirements,, both parties agreed to a residential
allocation ratio. Given the agreed upon ratio,, the county's
residential land use designations were acceptable to DCA.
Subsequently, the stipulated settlement agreement was implemented
through an amendment to the county's comprehensive plan. That
amendment,, which was found in compliance by DCA,, formally
established an acceptable residential allocation ratio for the
county. 19
JUN 22 1993 89 893
-A
'JUN 22 0011
k), -7
BOOK 89 N" 894
Since adoption of the comprehensive plan, the county has issued
building permits for over 1939 dwelling units. The effect of this
construction activity has been to lower the county's residential
allocation ratio.
While the number of units allowed by the comprehensive plan based
upon established densities remains essentially unchangedg, the
number of existing units has increased by over 1939. Because the
projected number of units needed can be revised to reflect a new 20
year period (now 1993-2013),, the denominator of the allocation
formula has increased somewhat. Consequently, the ratio is now
lower than that reflected by the Indian River County/DCA agreement.
Staff's position is that densities allowed by the comprehensive
plan can now be increased to the extent that the additional units
which can be accommodated by the density increase do not exceed the
number of units that have been permitted since plan adoption. In
this way, the residential allocation ratio will not increase above
the approved level.
With respect to the proposed amendment, staff has determined that
the increase in potential units associated with the proposed
density increase will be 1920. That is based on the following
information:
1. Total Acres: 3200
2. Net Acres: 2400 (Total Acres X 0.75)
3. Maximum Units in Rural Designation (1 unit/acre): 2400
4. Maximum Units in Agricultural Designation (1 unit/5 acres): 480
5. Net Increase in Units (2400 - 480): 1920
Using a conservative estimate, 800 acres, or 25%, of the subject
property's 3200 acres will be used for infrastructure such as roads
and stormwater retention. Removing land used for infreetructure
leaves up to 2400 acres for residences. At the proposed density of
up to 1 unit/acre,, 2400 units could be built on the subject
property. This is an increase of 1920 units over the 480 units
that could be built under the existing designation of up to 1
unit/5 acres.
As indicated, the proposed amendment's increase of 1920 units is
slightly less than the 1939 units for which building permits were
issued in the years 1990-1992. For that reason, staff's position
is that the proposed amendment- will not increase the county's
residential allocation ratio.
Alternatives
With respect to this issue, there are several alternatives
available to the Board of County Commissioners. These are:
1. Deny transmittal of this amendment to the DCA.
2. Approve transmittal to DCA of an amendment enlarging the USA
to include the approximately 3200 acres depicted on attachment
2 where service is available, or is programmed to be available
by 1995, and the 58th Avenue corridorl but retaining the AG -10
Agricultural -1, land use designation for affected properties.
20
M
M
M
This alternative was recommended by the Planning and zoning
Commission. Staff feels that, while this alternative would
retain the existing land use plan designation for all land
currently designated for agriculture,, it is economically
inefficient and unnecessary. Staff's position is that, if
urban services are to be provided to an area, then that area
should be allowed to develop with urban uses.
3. Approve transmittal to DCA of an amendment enlarging the USA
to include the approximately 2280 acres depicted on Attachment
8; and redesignating the areas depicted on Attachment 8 from
AG -1 to R. Staff supports this alternative.
This alternative is designed to retain as much agriculturally
designated land as possible, and keep the county's residential
allocation ratio as low as possible while still providing for
the efficient provision of urban services to approved areas.
Representing almost 1000 acres less than alternatives 2 and 4.
this alternative omits two areas included in those other
alternatives.
The two areas which are included in alternatives 2 and 4 and
not in alternative 3 are the 12th Street corridor and the Oslo
Road Corridor. In this alternative,, land along the 12th
Street corridor which was included in alternatives 2 and 4
even though it is hot within one-quarter of a mile of a line
is excluded. Besides the 12th Street exclusion, land along
Oslo Road between 58th and 74th Avenues is not included in
this alternative.
The reason that the Oslo Road land is excluded from this
alternative is that the predominant use of land in this
corridor is agricultural. Besides the agricultural land use
factor, another reason for exclusion of this land is that it
is the only area proposed for USA expansion where one side of
the road is not already within the USA. Finally, it should be
noted that the line programmed for 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road)
is a main linel and adjacent land will not be assessed for the
cost of installation.
The analysis in this staff report, including the impacts on
public services and the residential allocation ratio,, was
conducted for a 3200 acre area. Since this alternative
involves only 2280 acres, the impacts would be even less.
4. Approve transmittal to DCA of an amendment enlarging the USA
to include the approximately 3200 acres depicted on Attachment
2; and redesignating this land from AG -1 to R. This was the
original staff recommendation to the Planning and Zoning
Commission. Based on input received at the Planning and
Zoning Commission public hearing,, however, staff developed
alternative 3. which retains more agriculturally designated
land, while still providing for the efficient provision of
urban services to approved areas.
Approve transmittal to DCA of an amendment expanding the USA
and redesignating land in a different configuration than the
above alternatives. Such an alternative could include
expanding the USA to include areas where utilities service is
programmed to be available by 1998 or 2010 (see attachments 6
and 7). This alternative could also include USA and density
reductions in some areas to compensate for USA expansion and
density increases in other areas. Finally# this alternative
could include redesignating land added to the USA to a land
use designation other than Rural.
21
L_ JUN 22 1993 BOOK 89 phlu.885
�A
MWIMN'�
BOOK 89 PA"F 896
Based on its analysis, staf f believes that alternative 5 is
not feasible. Expanding the USA to include areas where
service is programmed to be available by 1998 or 2010,, or
redesignating land added to the USA to a designation other
than Rural will increase the county's residential allocation
ratio above that stipulated in the Indian River County/DCA
agreement. USA and density reductions in some areas to
compensate for USA expansion and density increases in other
areas are not feasible due to existing development patterns.
Conclusion
For economic and engineering reasons, utility lines needed to serve
several of the county's commercial/industrial nodes must run along
the boundary of, or outside of, the USA. To make efficient use of
these lines, it is necessary for the lands adjacent to these lines
to be incorporated within the USA and to have their density
increased to at least 1 unit/acre. Consequently, the USA must be
expanded and land must be redesignated in order to ensure that
utility provision is economical and efficient.
Alternatives 3 and 4 are compatible with the surrounding areap
consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the
comprehensive plan, and meet all applicable concurrency criteria.
In fact# both alternatives serve to implement Future Land Use
Policy 1.37. The subject property is located in an area deemed
suitable for rural uses, and the request has met all applicable
criteria. Alternative 3, howeverl retains the most agriculturally
designated land and has the lowest residential allocation ratio.*
For these reasons, staff supports Alternative 3.
Recommendation
Based on its analysis,, staff recommends that the Board of County
Commissioners approve transmittal to the Department of Community
Af fairs of Alternative 3, a land use amendment enlarging the USA by
approximately 2280 acres to include areas depicted on Attachment 8;
and redesignating the areas depicted on Attachment 8 from AG -1 to
R.
Community Development Director Bob Keating explained that
since the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission made its
recommendation, staff did more analyses, studied the aerial
photographs, and determined that the agriculturally designated area
in the Oslo Road corridor has characteristics which are unlike the
other areas, and staff is recommending that the Oslo Road corridor
be excluded from this request. Staff also concluded that increases
in density were substantial and that scaling back the amount of
land would be more compatible with State objectives as well as the
County's plan, so staff changed the distance in the 16th Street
corridor to a quarter mile from the roadway. These changes reduce
the total acreage from 3200 to 2280 acres.
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the change in land use
designations. He is aware that citrus grove owners are concerned
about whether they will be assessed for the water and sewer lines
even though they do not need those services. They also are asking
22
-ql
whether the land use designation change will affect the appraisal
of their property and their property taxes. Chairman Bird saw
inequality in a situation where property on one side of a road
would be within the urban service area and be designated for one
use, while on the other side of the road the land use designation
would be a lower density.
Utility services Director Terry Pinto responded that when
there is a need for water and sewer service, the lines are
installed down a particular road which may be the boundary of the
urban service area. People on one side of that road receive the
service because they are in the urban service area, but the
opposite side of that road is not in the urban service area and
those people cannot have the service. If we expand the urban
service area so that the property on both sides of the road are
included, more people will receive the benefit.
Director Keating responded that we are not proposing changes
in the zoning. The property would still have the underlying
agricultural zoning but the owners would have the ability to
request rezoning. He was not sure whether the property appraiser
considers the land use designation, availability of utilities and
zoning in calculating appraisals. Director Keating further
explained that the requested land use change takes into
consideration the allowed density. The recommended R-1 designation
(1 unit per acre) is to allow transition between the AG -1
designation (1 unit per 5 acres) and the higher density areas. The
State recommends higher density in urban service areas which are
closer to facilities and where eventually we will have mass
transit. The principal reason for recommending R-1 is the fact
that we already have an overallocation of dwelling units.
Discussion ensued regarding the effect on property values and
commissioner Eggert felt that land use designation does not change
property values.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac agreed, and added that
property used for growing citrus will be entitled to the
agriculture exemption.
commissioner Adams was concerned that downsizing these areas
could contribute to urban sprawl. She recalled that rezoning
recently was granted on Mr. Feldman's property because the property
was on the side of the road which was not in the urban service
area. The argument was that he ought to have the same right as the
property owner on the other side of the street. However, she did
not agree with the contention that having more utility customers
results in less cost per unit.
23
JUN 22 19,9"1
boox. 89 PAI,)F89,7
,A
-,N
BOOK 89 PAIF
JUN 22 1993
Director Pinto explained that when utility lines are installed
on a street, the property owners within the urban service area who
benef it from the installation of the utility lines must pay the
full cost if the property on the other side of the road receives no
benefit. He further clarified that this discussion refers only to
the construction of utility lines and does not involve the reserved
capacity at the treatment plant.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
George Hamner, 650 Highway AlA, operator of Indian River
Exchange Packers at Oslo Road and 74th Avenue, noted that his
business is located in one of the areas which staff recommended
should be excluded from this change. He employs 400 to 450 people,
including independent contractors. He characterized his operation
as noisy, with tractor trailer units coming in and going out.
They operate 10-11 months of the year and when the international
market demands it, they operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week.
These circumstances make the area unacceptable for residential
development. Mr. Hamner urged the Board to leave the Oslo Road
corridor out of the proposed change.
Larry Barkett, local attorney and owner of property in the
agriculturally zoned area which is proposed to be redesignated,
opposed the proposed change in land use designation. Mr. Barkett
stated that at the April 26, 1993 meeting of the Planning & Zoning
Commission, staff confirmed that: (1) land use redesignation is
not required before extending utility lines, (2) land use
redesignation is not required before extending the urban service
area, and (3) even if the urban service area is expanded or
utilities are extended to an agricultural or an rural area,
mandatory hookup is not required. He contended staff's arguments
were not valid. Staff mentioned mass transit, but there is no mass
transit in the county. Mr. Barkett recounted that it is County
policy never to initiate agricultural rezoning. He argued that if
the Board allows the redesignation based on the expansion of the
urban service area, any owner will have the ability to rezone their
agricultural property. If the County changes the land use
designation, the next step is rezoning. While it is County policy
not to initiate rezoning, this is a backdoor method to rezoning.
Mr. Barkett emphasized that land use designation does not have to
be changed to extend the utility system and he urged the Board to
deny the change in land use designation.
24
G.1enn Legwen,
presentation:
Dear Commissioners:
5900 5th Street S.W.,
�&41,� 14 MOV1441
5900 51h. Street S.W.
Vero Beach, Mdda 32968
Telephone: (407) 778-77911
made the following
You will be asked on June 22nd by the Planning Department to make a substantial
change in the USA (Urban Service Area) that will affect 3,20 ' 0 acres. In addition to
increasing the size of the USA you will also be asked to change the land use designation
from Agriculture (1 unit per 5/acres) to R-1 (1 unit per I/acre).
I would ask that you reject the request to change the land use designation on the areas
west of Kings Highway from Rt. 60 to 9th Street SW (Oslo Road) for the following reasons:
1.Kings Highway does not have the carrying capacity to accommodate the
increased traffic flow and the changes it will bring about to those of us living in this
area.
2.The water plant located on Oslo Road was never designed to provide water to
the entire county.
3.111-11 land use designation are the most destructive to the environment and are the
major contributing cause of 'urban sprawl."
4.The county needs to attend to the present USA (Urban Service Area) of the city.
first before increase it present boundaries.
5.The Department of Community Affairs feel that densities in IRC are too low in
comparison with other counties and that we should increase densities within the
present USA before expanding further into the community.
I am a Landscape Architect and I have had training in the field of planing and I would
like to rebut some of the Planning Departments thoughts. But before I do I would like to
tell you what my recommendations would be:
My recommendations
1. Consider opening up 66th Avenue and make it a through avenue between Oslo and
Route 60 to alleviate some of the large truck traffic that is using Kings Highway to get to
Oslo and the Sanitary Land Fill.
2. Take care of the areas within the present USA before increasing it
3. Increase the densities in areas within the existing USA and provide incentives to
developers to'build more multi -family dwellings.
4. Indian River County should make every effort possible to retain as much land in
Agriculture as possible.
Mr. Legwen reappeared later in the meeting and asked that the
Board concentrate on the present urban service area rather than
expanding it.
25
- 89 pg- 8.99
L -JUN 22 im BOOK, ur.
Fr- 800% 8 9
JUN 22 1993
Bill Wodtke, 6325 lst Street S.W., formerly a County
Commissioner, quoted the following excerpt from staffs 'memo:
Need for USA Expansion and Land Use Redesignation
In order to efficiently and economically expand the county
utilities system to serve approved development, density along
programed and existing lines must be increased. The most feasible
action to increase density along now lines is to allow development
on both sides of roads that serve as USA boundaries to connect to
the system and to redesignate land adjacent to lines. TO
Accomplish this the USA must be expanded.
of particular itkl?ortance with this request Is the impact of the
land use change oft the county's residential allocation ratio. A
residential allocation ratio is the measure of total residential
units Allowed uftdGk the land use plan compared to the number of
residential units ftected. to be needed through the plan's planning
horleon based oft 06pulation projections. The following formula in
used to calculate the residential allocation ratios
Mr. Wodtke presumed that the only reason f or this proposed
change is because the County wants to expand utilities. He
understood that the County wants to extend utilities to the
commercial nodes to encourage business and employment, but there
are no developers requesting utilities. He also pointed out that
policy 1.37 requires that we must reduce the urban service area by
3200 acres in other parts of the county if we add the proposed 3200
acres. Mr. Wodtke also felt this redesignation could be considered
an increase of urban sprawl.
Michael Zeigler, 3375 12th Street, representing property north
of 26th Street between 82nd and 90th Avenues, opposed the proposed
land use changes and urged the Board not to transmit the amendment.
He contended that priority has been shifted from the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan For the Year 2010 to the Master Utility Plan which
was presented to the Board on March 30 by Brown and Caldwell. The
Master Utility Plan enumerated $154 million worth of utility
projects which would be triggered by certain events. Mr. Zeigler
argued that the trigger events have not been satisfied in any of
the elements. The residential allocation ratio is not a real
problem and we have excess capacity both in water and wastewater
treatment. He quoted from the Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37
as follows:
26
M M M
FINAMM" IMPACTS Or EXPANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA
Utility line expansion In funded through assessmentsr revenue
bonds,, impact feeds, developer's agreementsj,.and other appropriate
funding mechanisms. Expanding the USA to allow property on both
sides of utility lines to receive service would increase the number
of units connecting to main lines and paying impact fees and
assessments. Thig makes it more feasible to provide utility
service.
Increasing the density of land adjacent to planned utility lines
further enhances the feasibility of providing utility service,,
since a density increase will allow an increase in the number of
units connecting to main lines and paying impact fees and
assessments. Increading density is particularly applicable to new
land added to the USA,, since this land is currently limited to only
I unit/5 acres. Without the expansion of the USA, the burden of
paying for line expansion will fall on fewer units. This will
increase the per unit assessment amount and in some cases will make
line expansion prohibitively expensive.
Mr. Zeigler characterized this as circular reasoning and not
profound. He quoted further from Future Land Use Element Policy
1.37:
Agricultural use# however, is exempt from requirements to obtain
county environmental permits,, and from the county's native upland
plant community oat-aaide requirement.
Mr. Zeigler did not believe that to be a valid statement. He
requested that the Comprehensive Land Use Plan of 1990 should be
clarified and that the Commissioners should recognize the trigger
events that are needed to change any land use designations. Mr.
Zeigler further requested that the County Commissioners direct the
utilities director to establish a procedure whereby a person could
inquire about an individual assessment, as he has not been able to
obtain that information.
Dr. Ron Jaffe, 6420 12th Street, stated that his neighborhood
was excluded from this proposed change. He referred to Policy 13.3
of the Future Land Use Element and stressed that there has been no
oversight, no mistake and no change in the use of that land f or the
last 17 . years. He emphasized that the residents there wish to
preserve their peaceful, quiet lifestyle, they do not wish to have
the dirt road paved, and they do not need improvements in their
area. He is opposed to rezoning the land to 3 units per acre.
27
BOOK 89 P,�,F n.
JUN 2 P,
JUN 22199.3
BOOK 89 PACE 8,92 -7
Chairman Bird emphasized that he is not recommending a
rezoning to 3 units per acre across the board. He was pointing out
that it is unf air if property on one side of a road is zoned 3
units per acre while directly across the road it is I unit per 5
acres or 1 unit per acre, and they are being assessed the same.
Dr. Skip Barkett, 5850 12th Street, appreciated being excluded
from this proposed land use designation change and encouraged the
Board not to proceed with the transmittal. He felt there were
inconsistencies in staff's justifications for proposing these
changes. He gave the example of one paragraph arguing that this
change will reduce urban sprawl while in the next paragraph
development is being encouraged. He requested the opportunity for
the public to debate the reasons f or the proposed changes. He
accused the staff of circular thinking. He posed the questions:
If we can establish the urban service area without changing the
comprehensive land use designation, why change it? If the answer
is to create more utility customers to finance the urban service
area, why is the urban service area needed? We are establishing an
urban service area, we don't have the customer base to do it, we
are changing the land use designation to provide the customers to
establish what we have already established that we don't need. He
f elt that although he and his neighbors have been excluded this
time, they want to voice their opinion about an issue that they
think is basically wrong.
Peter Robinson, 315 Greytwig Road, representing several
property owners including himself, presented the following letter
from John H. Stockamore:
28
M M M
June 18, 1993
STOOMIM am
2419 EAST COMMERCIAL BOULEVARD
FORT LAUDERDALE, FLORIDA 33308-4042
(305) 491-0100
Return Receipt Requested
Members of the Planning & Zoning COMMission
Indian River County, Florida
County Administration Building
1840 25th St. - -
Vero Beach,, Florida 32960
Re: County Initiated Request to Amend the Comprehensive -plan by
Enlarging the Urban Service Area and Redenignating
approximately 3200 acres from AG -1 to R (LUDA 93-01-0100)
Dear Honorable Members:
I respectfully request that this letter be read at your meeting an
June 22, 1993 by Mr. peter Robinson.
I am a very concerned Property owner of approximately 80 acres
lying on the north side of 9th Stop S.W. (Oslo Rd.) between 58th
Avenue and 74th Avenue, Vero Reach, Fl. My concerns are that the
final decision makers, being yourselves, of this proposed land use
plan change. axe being partially misdirected by some of the
surrounding vocal neighbors and also by the planners and Staff.
I feel that the Oslo Road corridor should be.Included in the Land
Use Plan change due to the fact that this land along the corridor
does lie within the j mile corridor of the U.S.A. utility expansion
program. Most importantlyr by allowing the one unit per acre
denuity development will be efficient and facilitate the economical
use of the utility lines that are going to be installed in this
corridor. Development will enable the repayment of the cost of
Installing these lines In the nelghboring right-of-ways. And, as
Indicated by staff in It's April 16th, .1993 memorandum.. "the not
Increase In the total number units over the proposed 3200 acres
would not exceed the building permits issued in the years 1990 thru
19920. "Thereby, Including the entire 3200 acres an originally
proposed would not increase the counties allocation ratio.-"
Thus, I am in favor of Including the Oslo Road corridor in the
proposed land use change from AG -1 to R, or increasing the allowable
housing units from I per 5 acres to I residence per I acre. I feel
this land use change would be a benefit to all; better utilization
of the utilitieal employment opportunities,* and an increased tax
base for the county.
I apologize for not being able to attend this meeting in person, due
to the fact that I had a prior commitment with another governmental
agency in Ft. Lauderdale.
Sincerely yours,
? 1"""
ohn H. Stockamore
11
President
JHS/Ihrc
c.c. Faxed to Peter Robinson
1-407-234-4107
29
BOOK 11.0
JUN 22 1993 89, PA,,- '93
F JUN 22 1993
U -1
BOOK 89 PA,F 8.94
Mr. Robinson pointed to his property on the enlarged map and
demonstrated how his 17 -acre parcel is divided into urban service
area and non -urban service area. He has a 150 -acre parcel with so
acres of it on Kings Highway within the urban service area and the
remainder on Oslo Road which is outside the urban service area. He
felt that the County should into consideration the fact that
agriculturally zoned property value which fluctuates. He requested
that his property be included in the urban service area as
originally proposed by staff. Mr. Robinson discussed the fact that
the Board was hearing only from those opposed to the change. There
are property owners who are in favor of the change, thought they
were to be included, and are not aware of the exclusion.
Raymond Sawyer, 39th Place in Wabasso, came before the Board
representing Ruth Sawyer and Aileen Farley wh6 own 39.5 acres next
to Mr. Feldman's property which was recently rezoned. Mr. Sawyer
urged the Board to change the land use designation so that Ms.
Sawyer's and Ms. Farley's 39.5 -acre parcel could be developed.
aohn Eddy, 7370 Oslo Road, spoke in favor of excluding the
Oslo Road corridor from this proposal. He could not foresee any
development from 54th to 75th Avenues because of the two packing
plants that currently exist and the proximity to the industrial
node. He urged the Board to exclude the Oslo Road corridor from
the proposed change.
Rebecca Rudenberg, 1832 39th Avenue, owner of a grove on 19th
Street, opposed the proposal and urged the Board to make no change
in the land use designation.
Chairman Bird clarified, and Director Keating agreed that
according to Policy 5.9 of the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water
Sub -Element of Future Land Use Policy, property which is located
outside the urban service area cannot access the County utility
lines even if the property is physically accessible to the lines.
The urban service area boundary delineates where we provide the
service.
Discussion ensued, and Director Pinto recounted the history of
urban service areas. The Master Utility Plan contains the design
of the master lines and these master lines are paid for from impact
fees. The internal lines which access proposed developments are
paid for through assessments because there is a specific benefit to
that specific development. Director Pinto emphasized that the
Utility Master Plan was created at the direction of the Board based
30
M M M
on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. The urban service area was
established and utility services are required within those areas.
The Utilities Department is not requesting an expansion of the
urban service area nor construction of more lines to service that
area. There are properties which have physical access to the
utility lines and we must refuse to provide service because of our
policy. As a result, the cost of those lines must be borne only by
those who benefit.
commissioner Adams reasoned that the policy needs to be
changed if that is the only reason we refuse service. She thought
we should not make a blanket change but rather take the requests
for service on a case by case basis.
Director Keating pointed out that urban service areas are the
principal tools used in urban planning.
commissioner Adams emphasized that her intention is not to
eliminate urban service areas.
Discussion ensued, and commissioner Eggert pointed out that
this policy was dictated by the State Department of Community
Affairs (DCA) and we are dealing with DCA definitions of urban
service area and utility services.
Chairman Bird asked whether we are prohibited from making a
change if a property owner requests service.
Director Keating explained that the Board can make changes to
the Comp Plan at any time, but it is a question of whether the DCA
finds us in compliance -with our plan. He further explained that
the proposed change was initiated because of the change to the
Feldman property. The DCA reluctantly agreed to the Feldman change
and suggested that there may be other situations with the same
circumstances which we should analyze to see what the relationship
might be because adequate data and analysis is needed to justify a
Comp Plan change. Their philosophy is that if circumstances
warrant a change and that set of circumstances also could apply to
other property, they should be treated equally. The plan should be
driven by consistent applications of principals and policies. The
urban service area is our plan, our management tool to decide where
services will be put, how they will be expanded, how funds will be
spent, and how and where capital improvements will be made. It is
also the driving force to establish boundaries within which we
allow urban development and outside of which we only allow
agricultural and rural development. When we say the urban service
area boundary does not really mean anything and we can expand
outside that boundary, or we do not have to provide the services
within it, we have essentially lost the reason for having the urban
service area boundary.
31
BOOK 8 9 NA " F
!".895
J U N 2 2 1993
BOOK 89 phi") F 8-96
Commissioner Adams thought the property owners have indicated
they want to maintain a low density and not make this change. She
felt we need to investigate our policy because this policy seems to
be a stumbling block. If people need water we should provide it.
She felt that increasing density in a blanket change would not be
fair to the property owners who have spent time and money building
these estates and who expected to maintain their property that way.
Commissioner Adams contended that although rezoning does increase
the value of property, agricultural property has more value than
just a tax base - it is America's blood and soul.
Commissioner Eggert pointed out that this change is not
rezoning. There are people who are devoted to keeping their
property in agriculture and most of them will.
Commissioner Macht noted that too often we look upon zoning as
an economic adjustment, but economics should not be a consideration
in the process of zoning. Staff accurately advised the Board
regarding their evaluation of this situation and it is the Boardfs
responsibility to remember that we have a community of people who
have rights. We are confronted with the result of following a
policy that has come down from Tallahassee and has caused some
unpleasant situations for our community. Commissioner Macht did
not want to deny the request but preferred to defer this matter and
have more discussions in a workshop format at which we could bring
all the elements together, revalidate our utility plan and our
urban service area, and study this matter more fully.
commissioner Tippin concurred with Commissioners Adams and
Macht.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously denied
transmittal of the Comprehensive Plan Amendment at
this time, directed staff to present it again with
the next set of amendments in the October time
frame, and to schedule workshops in the meantime to
discuss the proposed changes.
32
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT,
THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE
SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, THE CAPITAL INPROVE14ENTS ELEMENT, AND
THE PORTS, AVIATZON AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT OF THE
COMPRERENS M PLAN
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A. M. having passed, the county
Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly
advertised as follows:
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT
Th6 Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County; Florida, will
-consider a proposal to chang the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public,.
hearing on the proposal wil be held on Tuesday, June 22, 1993, at 9:05
V.,a.m., in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Build -
in located of 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing
tht Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal
of these amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs for their
review. The proposed amendments are included in the proposed ordinance
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach. Florida 32961 562-2315 entitled:
6OUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Troo3ournat AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
STATE OF FLORMA THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCU-
LATION ELEMENT, THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, THE
Before the undersigned authority pe rinally appeared J.J. POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -EL -
Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business manager of the EMENT, AND THE PORTS, AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES EL -
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In EMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING
Indian River County, Florida; that CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regard -
3 3 ing the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
t The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the,
Community Development Department located on the second floor of the
874--A
County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 540 p.m. on weekdays. , ,
billed to NO'FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE . AT,THlS MEETING FOR THESE RE-'.
QUESTS.
was published in said newspaper in the Issue(s) Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made i of 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
or 42zi�ogkejrz be based..
All Anyone who needs a special occommoclation for this meeting must contact
the county's Americans with Disabilities Act IADA) Coordinator at 567-8000
Sworn to and subscribed before me this extension 408 at least 48 hours. in advance of the meeting.
Indian River County
day A.DZ1?q-3 Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
Business Manager
(SEAL)
Fw" P�ft. Suft of "Wa
my ftq�
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY- UNINCORPORATED AREA
Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following
presentation:
33
FAr-F
JUN 221,991, BOOK 89 ,,.897,
,ij
2 1993
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
= DE HEAD
CONCURRENCE
Robert 9_._XeAtincj,,qkI�CP
a
Community Development tDoctor
THRU: Sasan Rohani 15 - 9, -
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel),/
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: June 4, 1993
U -7
BOOK 89 FAU 8.98
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO ANEND T11E TRAFFIC CIRCULATION
ET NTF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELENENTF THE POTABLE WATER
SUB-ELENENTr THE SANITARY SEWER SUB-ELENENTr nm CAPITAL
INPROVENENTS ELENENTr AND THE PORTSr AVIATION AND REIATED
FACILITIES ELENENT OF THE CONPREHENSIVE PLAN
(CPTA 93-01-0102)
It is requested that the
consideration by the Board
meeting of June 22, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND-CONDXTIONS
data herein presented be given formal
of County Commissioners at their regular
On February 13,, 1990,, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive
plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be
consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities
must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be
updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to
address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must
periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the
community's changing needs and desires. For those reasons, the
county has initiated this amendment.
After reviewing the plan, staff determined that several elements
need to be revised. The affected elements are the traffic
circulation element,, the future land use element,, the sanitary
sewer sub -element,, the potable water sub -element,, the capital
improvements element, and the ports, aviation and related
facilities element.
The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on
attachment 3. In this attachment,, deletions are indicated by
strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and
figures are labeled as either existing or proposed.
On April 22,, 1993,,the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to
recommend the transmittal of the proposed amendment request to the
state Department.of Community Affairs for their review.
34
Traffic Circulation Element
This amendment updates the Traffic Circulation Element to:
incorporate the proposed Citrus Highway (County Road 609) on the
County Future Traffic Circulation Map and in the Recommended
Roadway Needs Plan;
revise the Recommended Roadway Needs Plan to ref lect the widening
of S.R. 60 west of 1-95 to four lanes; and
change the functional classification of Roseland Roadl from
U.S. 1 to Indian River Drivel from subdivision collector to
collector.
- Citrus Highway (County Road 609)
The Citrus Highway is a proposed Florida Department of
Transportation (FDOT) funded four -lane roadway to be located within
a corridor traversing Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties
(see attachment 2). The purpose of the highway is to provide a
roadway to serve citrus trucks traveling from groves to
packinghouses and from packinghouses to markets. It is anticipated
that the diversion of this heavy truck traf f ic will relieve present
and anticipated future congestion on U.S. 1 and several east -west
corridors (e.g. S.R. 60, S.R. 68, and S.R. 70). Beginning at S.R.
710 (the Beeline Highway) in Martin County and extending north
through St. Lucie County to C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road) in Indian River
Countyl the highway is proposed to serve mainly large citrus
hauling trucks. St. Lucie Countyl acting as the lead agencyl is in
the process of hiring a consultant to assess the need for and
impacts of the highway. This consultant will also recommend a
specific alignment for the highway.
In Indian River Countyl FDOT has identified 66th Avenue,, 74th
Avenuel and 82nd Avenue as possible routes for the Citrus Highway.
Of these routes, staf f determined that 82nd Avenue is the best
alternative for the county. One purpose of this amendment is to
incorporate the Citrus Highway on the Indian River County Traffic
Circulation Map. Without such a plan designation, FDOT would be
prohibited from expending funds on the Citrus Highway, since all
state expenditures must be consistent with local comprehensive
plans. As part of this amendment, the appropriate sections of the
Traffic Circulation Element must be amended to reflect the number
of lanes and width of public road right -of -way proposed for the
Citrus Highway (see tables 4.7.2 and 4.7.3, and figures 4.11 and
4.13 of attachment 3).
Presently, 82nd Avenue is a two-lane road classified as an urban
minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. It is
paved from its southern terminus, 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road), to
26th Street, and unpaved north of 26th Street. South of S.R. 60,
82nd Avenue has approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way.
This segment of 82nd Avenue is programmed for expansion to 110 feet
of public road right-of-way by 2010. North of S.R. 60, 82nd Avenue
has no public road right-of-wayl although there is some canal
right-of-way that is used for public access. This segment of 82nd
Avenue is programmed for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-
of-way by 1995.
Land uses surrounding 82nd Avenue consist mostly of agriculturally
zoned citrus groves and vacant land. However, 82nd Avenue runs
throughl or along the border ofl some residentially designated
areas in the southern part of the county. Additionally, 82nd
Avenue passes through commercial/ industrial nodes on 9th Street
S.W. (Oslo Road) and S.R. 60. A small percentage of the vacant
land bordering 82nd Avenue may contain environmentally valuable
scrub or pine forest. The consultant's report will include a
detailed environmental assessment.
35
JUN 22 1993 BOOK 89 P'Au 8,99
JUN 22 191V BOOK �, 89 FAI,JF900
- S.R. 60 west of 1-95
Since the 1990 adoption of the Indian River County Comprehensive
Plan, FDOT's classification of S.R. 60 has changed. Because of
S.R. 60's function as a major east -west road connecting the east
and west coasts of the state, FDOT designated S.R. 60 as part of
the Intrastate Highway System. With its designation as a component
of the Intrastate Highway System, the four laning of S.R. 60 became
a requirement.
In its Fiscal Year 1994-1998 Tentative Work Program, the FDOT has
included projects to facilitate the widening of S.R. 60, from two
lanes to four lanes, from 1-95 to the Osceola County line.
Presently,, the county's comprehensive plan indicates that this
segment of S.R. 60 will remain two lanes. The purpose of this
amendment is to amend the county's Traffic Circulation Element to
make the county's plan consistent with the Florida Intrastate
Highway System requirements relative to S.R. 60 (see tables 4.7.2
and 4.7.3, and figures 4.11 and 4.13 of attachment 3).
S.R. 60 is a major road that crosses the state from the Atlantic
Ocean to Tampa Bay. It is Indian River County's primary east -west
corridor, providing the only direct access to Osceola County and
the Florida Turnpike. It is also the county's only road with an
interchange on both 1-95 and the Florida Turnpike.
East of 1-95, S.R. 60 is either four or six lanes and is classified
as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. From 1-95 west to the Osceola County line, S.R. 60 is a
two-lane paved road with 100 feet of existing public road right -of -
way and is classified as a rural principal arterial on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of S.R. 60 is
programmed for expansion to 200 feet of public road right-of-way by
1995.
Generally, the'land along this part of S.R. 60 is zoned and used
f or citrus groves,, cattle grazing,, and other agriculture uses.
Much of the land remains uncleared. However, a largely undeveloped
section of the I-95/S.R. 60 commercial/ industrial node extends west
of 1-95 for approximately one mile.
S.R. 60 passes through the environmentally sensitive St. John's
Marsh in the western part of the county. Since most of that land
is owned by the St. John's River Water Management District and is
zoned Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (C-1. Conservation
- 1 land use designation),, that area will not experience urban
development.
- Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
This proposed amendment would change the functional classification
of Roseland Road,, between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive,, from a
subdivision collector to a collector (see figures 4.13.2 and 4.13.3
of attachment 3). Roseland Road extends from C.R. 512 to Indian
River Drive, but only the easternmost segment of the road is the
subject of this amendment. To the west of the subject segment,
Roseland Road is a two-lane paved roadway with 80 feet of public
road right-of-way and in classified as an urban minor arterial on
the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The eastern 0.6 miles of
this segment of Roseland Road is programmed for expansion to four
lanes by 2010.
36
The segment of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
is approximately 1700 feet long and is classified as a subdivision
collector on the subdivision collector map. The public road right-
of-way of this segment of Roseland Road varies from approximately
18 feet to approximately 70 feet.
The subject roadway segment begins at the intersection of Roseland
Road and U.S. 1; this area is within a commercial/industrial node.
Two corners of this intersection accommodate shopping centers,,
while a third corner contains a convenience store and a fast food
restaurant; the other corner is vacant. Between this node and
Indian River Drive are residential areas.
Future Land Use Element
Recentlyl the research needed to revise the county's Data Source
for Commercial & Industrial Development has been completed. This
amendment is a result of information gathered during this process.
This research has provided staff with accurate land use information
where previously only estimates were available. The revision of
the data source has also allowed staff to re-examine the system of
labeling nodes.
- Table 2.30
Future Land Use Element Table 2.30 lists each commercial/ industrial
node in Indian River County. This table shows the type, location#
and size of each node. Much of this information is based on
estimates. However,, as a result of the research completed to
revise the county's Data Source for Commercial a industrial
Developments exact information for this table is now available.
The proposed amendment updates Future Land Use Element Table 2.30
using the best available data (see attachment 3).
- Policy 1.25
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25 designates all nodes as eithery
commercials industrials commercial/ industrial F tourist commercial,
or hospital commercial. This amendment proposes to eliminate these
labels (see attachment 3). As a consequences all nodes will be
known as commercial/industrial nodes.
Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Figures 6.2, and 6.3
The purpose of this amendment is to update the maps of the Vero
Beach Municipal Airport and the New Hibiscus Airport. Several
changes have recently occurredr including a change in a clear zone
at Vero Beach Municipal Airport,, and these changes should be
reflected in the comprehensive plan (see attachment 3).
ement Policv 1.3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -El
Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1. 3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 1.31 and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5 set the
utilities Level of Service (LOS) standards for the county. Each of
these policies refer to county ordinance 84-18 which has been
replaced by ordinance 91-9. Consequently, 84-18 is no longer
current. The purpose of this amendment is to update these policies
to refer to the "County Utilities Ordinance,, as amended" instead of
a specific ordinance number (see attachment 3). This change will
ensure that the policies are and remain accurate.
37
JUN 22 BOOK 89 NVU.E�'901
JUN 22 1993
ANALYSIS.
Boox 89 p4GE 9,02
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of each of the
proposed changes will be presented.
As part of the staf f analysis,, comprehensive plan amendment
requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the
comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(l) 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."
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 decision@.
While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability to these requests are Land Use Element
Policies 13.3 and 3.4, Traffic Circulation Element Policies 1.1 and
3.1,, Economic Development Element objective 4 and Policy 1.1,
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6, and Ports,, Aviation aid
Related Facilities Element Objective 3.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment requestp the most
important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in
order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria
are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circum tances.
While some policies are particularly applicable to certain
comprehensive plan amendments,, - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
is applicable to all comprehensive plan amendments.
The following table shows how these comprehensive plan amendments
relate to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
CORRECT A CORRECT AN CHANGE IN
AMENDMENT MISTAKE OVERSIGHT CIRCU14STANCE
Citrus Highway
x
S.R. 60
x
Roseland Road x
Aviation
x
FLUE Table 2.30
x
FLUE Policy 1.25 x
Utilities
x
CIE
x
FLUE: Future Land Use Element
CIE: Capital Improvement Element
38
- Citrus Highway (County Road 609)
Since the comprehensive plan was adopted, there has been a
substantial change in circum tances regarding the Citrus Highway.
At that time, there were no formal plans for a Citrus Highway.
Subsequent to plan adoption,, however,, the citrus industry
approached FDOT and representatives of Indian River, Martin, and
St. Lucie Counties, regarding the need for a multi -county roadway
to serve the citrus industry. FDOT and county representatives
determined that such a roadway may provide multiple benefits by
getting citrus trucks off other arterial roads and on the Citrus
Road. Based upon the initial determination of potential benefits,
FDOT has programmed a corridor study for the Citrus Road. These
actions constitute a substantial change in circumstances affecting
the Citrus Highway and meet the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
- S.R. 60 west of 1-95
In the period since adoption of the comprehensive plan, there has
been a change in circum tances regarding S.R. 60 west of 1-95. As
a major east -west corridor, S.R. 60 has been designated part of the
recently established Intrastate Highway System. State law requires
that roads which are part of this system be four -lane facilities.
This, therefore, constitutes a substantial change in circumstances
affecting S.R. 60 and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
- Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
The segment of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
was mistakenly designated as a subdivision collector instead of a
collector in the adopted comprehensive plan. Since this segment
acts as a tr4nsition roadway, connecting an urban minor arterial
(programmed for expansion to four -lanes) to a two-lane subdivision
collector, the road should have been given the intermediate
"collector" designation.
Additionally,, the characteristics of the U.S. 1/Roseland Road
intersection indicate that this segment of Roseland Road should
have been designated as a collector road when the comprehensive
plan was adopted. This intersection of two major roads is located
within a commercial /industrial node. Since each corner of this
intersection has commercial zoning which attracts a significant
volume of traffic, this segment of Roseland Road should have been
designated as a collector road in the comprehensive plan.
Therefore, because there was a mistake in the original
comprehensive plan with respect to this road, the first criterion
of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met.
- Future Land Use Element Table 2.30
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the best available data
regarding the amount of commercially and industrially designated
.land in the county were not completely accurate. Recently, staff
revised the county's Data Source for Commercial & Industrial
Development. Research for this project provided staff with more
accurate and up-to-date information for Future Land Use Element
Table 2.30. The availability of these data constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances affecting Future Land Use
Element Table 2.30 and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
39
JUN 22 1993 BOOK DIU 903
L
JUN 22 1991 BOOK
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25
F�r" -1
89 t �,,- 904
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.25 designates all nodes as either
commercial, industrial, commercial/ industrial, tourist commercial,
or hospital commercial. This policy does not include any criteria
for designating or changing types of nodes, and these designations
have no regulatory purpose since any commercial or industrial
zoning is permitted within any node. In practice, the existence of
various types of nodes confuses the public without providing
specific benefits. For these reasons, designating five different
types of nodes was a mistake in the original plan. Therefore, this
amendment meets the first criterion of Future Land Use Element
Policy 13.3.
- Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities
Since the adoption of the comprehensive plan, several changes have
been made to the layouts of Vero Beach Municipal Airport and New
Hibiscus Airpark. These changes include moving a runway and
changing a clear zone. Together,, these actions constitute a
substantial change in circumstances affecting both airports and
meet the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1.3. Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Element Policy 1.3. and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5
Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 1.3, Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 1.3, and Capital Improvements Element Policy 3.5 all refer
to a county ordinance which was current when the comprehensive plan
was adopted but has since been amended. The amendment of the
county ordinance constitutes a change in circum tances. Therefore,,
this comprehensive plan amendment meets the third criterion of
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
At least one of the Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 criteria is
met by each proposed amendment. Therefore,, all proposed amendments
are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
Traffic Circulation Element
- Citrus Highway
The proposed Citrus Highway will provide several benefits. First#
it would serve the citrus industry by providing more efficient
movement of citrus from groves to packinghouses and then to
consumers, Second# the highway would remove many large,, slow
moving citrus hauling trucks from U.S. 1. Presently# there are no
deficiencies on U.S. 1 in Indian River County. However , as
indicated in Table 4 .7.2 of the Traf f ic Circulation Element of the
comprehensive plan, deficiencies will begin occurring in 1995, if
no improvements to the transportation system are made. According
to Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.7.3# the entire length of
U.S. 1 in Indian River County and parts of old Dixie Highway# 27th
Avenue,, and 58th Avenue will be deficient by 2010j, if no
improvements are made.
Objectives and. policies of the comprehensive plan which are
particularly applicable to this amendment are Traffic Circulation
Element Policy 1.1,, Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 and
Objective 4, Future Land Use Element Policy 3.4, Capital
Improvements Element Policy 1.6,, and Ports,, Aviation,, and Related
Facilities Element objective 3.
40
Traf f ic Circulation Element Policy 1. 1,, Economic Development
Element objective 4,, Future Land Use Element Policy 3.4,, and Ports,,
Aviation,, and Related Facilities Element Objective 3 all relate to
LOS standards on roads within the county. These policies and
objectives state that the county must take steps to maintain a
specified minimum level of service on all roads within the county.
By removing many large,, slow,, citrus hauling trucks from other
arterial roads, the Citrus Highway will increase the level of
service of these roads. Therefore, this amendment is consistent
with these comprehensive plan objectives and policies.
I
Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county
shall encourage expansion of existing businesses. The Citrus
Highway will provide for the expansion of the citrus industry by
providing more efficient movement of citrus from groves to
packinghouses and consumers. Therefore, this amendment is
consistent with Economic Development Element Policy 1.1.
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6 states that the county
shall encourage the FDOT to reallocate budgeted appropriations for
traffic facilities in Indian River County. Since this amendment
facilitates the construction of an FDOT funded traffic facility in
Indian River County by incorporating the Citrus Highway into the
county's comprehensive plan,, the amendment is consistent with
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6.
- S.R. 60 west of 1-95
The current traffic volumes on S.R. 60 from 1-95 to Osceola County
do not justify additional lanes. Howevers several factors indicate
that, despite existing traffic volumes, there is a need for
additional lanes. Evidence indicates that this portion of S.R. 60
is so dangerous that drivers who would otherwise use it to reach
the Florida Turnpike or the Tampa Bay area instead use much longer
alternate routes.
Several factors combine to make this portion of S.R. 60 dangerous.
It is a longr narrow road, covering a distance of approximately
22.5 miles from 1-95 to 'Che Osceola County 'Line. Even though the
comprehensive plan indicates that this portion of S.R. 60 currently
has 100 feet of public road right-of-way, the paved portion of the
road is actually only 28 feet wide. Deep ditches run along each
side of this road. Additionally, this portion of S.R. 60 has no
median and, until recently, had no shoulders or guardrails.
In the last five years, there have been at least 123 accidents and
seven fatalities on this portion of S.R. 60. This is despite the
fact that many drivers are using alternate routes. This statistic
demonstrates the hazards of this road in its current condition.
In August,, 1991,, a petition requesting that S.R. 60 be
substantially improved from 1-95 to the Osceola County line was
presented to the Board of County Commissioners. The petition, one
of the largest ever received by the commission, was signed by more
than 14,000 people.
Other important benefits of four-laning this section of S.R. 60
would be the increased speed and efficiency of evacuations for
hurricanes and other emergencies,, and the economic benefits of
more efficient transportation of goods and services.
in addition tc
as part of th
least four lan
A preliminary
$33.6 million.
being dangerous in its current condition, S.R. 60,
e Intrastate Highway System, must be widened to at
es to meet FDOT's minimum standards for this system.
estimate of the cost of this project is approximately
41
BOOK 89 PAGFP05
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 89 MU, 906
Policies of the comprehensive plan which are particularly
applicable to this amendment are Traf f ic Circulation Element Policy
3.1, and Capital Improvements Element 1.6.
Traffic Circulation Element Policy 3.1 states that the county will
collect, maintain and review data on all accidents in the county,
and that the county will identify above average accident locations
as well as safety projects to reduce accidents at these locations.
Based on accident data, staff has identified this portion of S.R.
60 as an above average accident location. Further,. staff has
identified the widening of this portion of S.R. 60 as a needed
safety project. For these reasons, this amendment is consistent
with Traffic Circulation Element Policy 3.1.
Capital Improvements Element Policy 116 states that the county
shall encourage the MOT to reallocate budgeted appropriations for
traffic facilities in Indian River County. Since this amendment
facilitates the construction of an MOT funded traffic facility by
incorporating it into the county's comprehensive plan, the
amendment is consistent with Capital Improvements Element Policy
1.6.
Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
The portion of Roseland Road between U.S. 1 and Indian River Drive
should be designated as a collector road rather than a subdivision
collector road for several reasons. First, this segment provides
• transition from a road with a higher functional classification to
• road with a lower functional classification. This seament
n - 1- �— b
connects an urban minor arterial to a subdivisio c6l ector.----- inc--e--
collector roads are designed to accommodate traffic volumes at
levels between those of arterials and subdivision collectorsl this
segment of Roseland Road should be designated as a collector road.
The land uses in the area also indicate that this segment of
Roseland Road should be designated a collector road. This segment
begins in a commercial/industrial node, at the intersection of two
major roads (U.S. 1 and Roseland Road). All four corners of this
intersection are zoned CG, General Commercial. Uses located at
this intersection include major shopping centers, a grocery store,
a convenience store, a fast food restaurant, and a drug store.
Traffic Circulation Element -Policies 1.1 and 3.2, and Objective 5
are particularly applicable to this amendment. These parts of the
comprehensive plan relate to the regulation and monitoring of the
thoroughfare roadway system.
Despite high volumes, this segment of Roseland Road is not part 'of
the thoroughfare roadway system and,, therefore, is not monitored
for LOS. In reality, this segment performs the same functions as
other thoroughfare roads. If designated a collector road, this
segment would become part of the thoroughfare roadway system and
would have to meet minimum LOS standards. Therefore, this
amendment is consistent with Traffic Circulation Element Policies
1.1 and 3.2, and Objective 5.
Staff also reviewed potential environmental impacts of this
amendment. Since the areas surrounding this segment of Roseland
Road are already disturbed, this amendment is not anticipated to
have any significant adverse environmental impacts.
42
M M M
Future Land Use Element
- Table 2.30
As a result of the county staf f I s revision of the county I s Data
Source for Commercial a Industrial Development,, the county has
produced better, more accurate maps of nodes. These revised maps
reflect minor differences from the previous node maps. When the
comprehensive plan was adopted, the node sizes were estimated for
Future Land Use Element Table 2.30. This amendment will update
Future Land Use Element Table 2.30 using the best available data.
The minor increase in total acres is due to the increase in
accuracy of information,, not due to node expansion.
Staff has also found that the boundaries separating adjacent nodes
were in some cases inappropriately located. An important task
associated with revising the data source was to use the best
available data to determine appropriate "break points" between
adjacent nodes. Changes associated with this task also have been
incorporated into Future Land Use Element Table 2.30.
- Policy 1.25
When the comprehensive plan was adopted, nodes were labeled either
commercial,, industrial,, commercial /industrial,. hospital commercial,,
or tourist commercial. These labels were unnecessaryl vague,. and
confusing. The labels described basically the same type of land,
commercial/industrial land. Therefore, with the adoption of this
amendment,, there will be only one type of commercial or industrial
land use, the commercial/industrial node.
Ports, Aviation, & Related Facilities Element Figures 6.2. and 6.3
The Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element contains maps
depicting the general layout of each airport in the county, the
clear zones associated with each airport, and pertinent surrounding
features such as trees or towers relatin—g-to-each airport. These
maps need to be updated as changes occur. In this case,. the end of
a runway and its clear zone have changed. These amendments reflect
the changes at Vero Beach Municipal Airport and New Hibiscus
Airpark.
1. 3. Sani
Presently, these policies are not accurate. The policies refer to
an ordinance that has since been amended. This amendment will
update these policies to ref er to the "County Utilities Ordinance,
as amended", instead of a specific ordinance number. This change
will ensure that the policies are and remain accurate.
Conclusion
It is staff's position that these proposed amendments will enhance
the plan by facilitating needed projects within the county, and by
adding accuracy and clarity to the comprehensive plan. Also, it
has been demonstrated that these amendments maintain the plan's
internal consistency. For these reasons, staff feels that the
proposed amendments should be adopted.
43
BOOK 89 PAcF 907
JUN 22 1993
JUN 22 10" BOOK.. 89 PviF 908
Recommendation
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners transmit these amendments to the Department of
Community Affairs for their review.
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 Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-107, approving the transmittal of a
proposed amendment to the Indian River County
Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida
Department of Community Affairs for their review, as
recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-107
A RESOLUTION. OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its January., 1993 amendment submittal window,,
and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 22, 1993 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment
listed below to the State of Florida Department of Community
Affairs; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a TFansmittal Public Hearing on June 22, 1993, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
44
RESOLUTION NO. 93-107
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTYf FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Traffic Circulation Element,
the Future Land Use Element, the Potable Water Sub -
Element, the Sanitary Sewer Sub"Element, the
Capital Improvements Element, and the Ports,
Aviation, and Related Facilities Element of the
Comprehensive Plan.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Macht and seconded by Commissioner Adams and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John V. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran Adams -Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Ken Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 22nd day of June 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Richard N. gird, Chairman
45
L_ JUN 22 1,993 BOOK 89 F'�Gr 909
JUN 22 1993
A& 404""%.L PH -BE
RES)LUTLON III
The hour of 9:05
Attorney announced that
advertised as follows:
do OK 8 9 Ni rJ'F 9,10 1
O'clock A. M. having passed, the County
this public hearing has been properly
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-ioumal, a daily newspaper Published
at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being NOT=
The BQQfd of Co" Conimmionanil
River of ham
"026 hMW- govid" MOM of
PUBLIC
L sdisduled for
Tuesday - jurle - A.M. on
resolution ma* 22, -1993* -to dSCuss a
- --------- --- In the matter of—e-1,0,14el PROJECT In _V to 111 'SOECIAL iA=
hCrAn R'M Cotffq for ft installation
Of PHASE ill OF THE WATER MAIN EXTENSION
GROWTH KAN, and pmWft for MXXW aSsaW
ment RM to be made Of 1`10� on ft
to be swal
In the Pubho hm' p
M was
Court, was pub-' Ild"Ided for itine a, 1993, but was poSipponed
untiJune22.19M.
lished In said newspaper In the Issues o (7,
Anyone who May Wish to appeal
any decision whiCh
May be made at INS mee*V wil need to awe
#0 a vabatim record Of the Moceeangs is we*
which ftlixies lesijitiony,and QMW tipon Wfft
the appeal is basect,
Anyone WhO Mods a
Afflant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at' this f0000111`10dafion for
m MtW the COA
Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida. and that the said newspaper has heretofore With =_tIasayW* - ty*s Amertans
(ADA) CoofcWtor at %7_
been continuously Published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been 8M. Ext 408. at least 48 hours In advance of the
entered as second class mail matterat the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian RlverCoun- mee".
ty, Florida. for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of JUN 1, 8,1993 10=70
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person firm M,
or corporation any discount rebate. commission or refun for the Purpose of securinj this
advertisement for publlcatio� in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before thi a
a--" #of Jr. A. D. 19 !gF
(Business Manager)
(SEAL)
stoe 'If �ri&
Aty 11"W'Salm 1h A
Assessment Projects Manager James Chastain made the following
Presentation:
46
DATE:
TO:
14 �10 IF
PREPARED
AND STAFFED
BY:
SUBJECT:
31 1993
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA'
TERRANCE G. PINTQ
DIRECTOR OF UTILr
JAMES D. CHASTAW
MANAGER OF ASOSO
DEPARTMENT OF UTI:
r PROJECTS
Y SERVICES
PHASE III - WATER MAIN EXPANSION GROWTH PLAN
RESOLUTION III - PUBLIC HEARING
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -91 -15 -DS
On May 11, 1993 the Indian River Board of County Commissioners
approved Resolutions 93-91 and 93-92, which contained the
preliminary assessment roll and established the date of the public
hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been notified
of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution 93-91 was
published in the PRESS JOURNAL on May 17, 1993. (See attached
agenda item and minutes of the above meeting.)
ANALYSI
Design of the water distribution system is complete. Approval of
the attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary
assessments.
Informational meetings were held for the property owners on May 19,
26, and June 2 at 7:00 p.m. in the County Commission Chambers.
Attached are Resolutions I and II for the assessment project. The
attached map displays the area to benefit from the assessment
project. The project will generally serve the following' described
areas:
Subdivision
Pinetree Park
Diana Park
Greenbriar
Westgate Colony
Rivera Estates
Cherrywood Estates
Sunniland Homesites
Cherry Lane Manor
Location
South of Sth Street, west of 60th Avenue to
66th Avenue, north of 4th Street
61st Avenue, north of 4th Street
South of S.R. 60/20th Street to 18th
Avenue, from 78th Avenue west to 79th Avenue
80th Avenue on the west, 79th Avenue on the
east, 22nd Street on the north (Route 60),
20th Street on the south
24th Street, west of Kings Highway/58th
Avenue
59th Avenue, south of 33rd Street (Cherry
Lane)
62nd Avenue and 62nd Drive, south of 33rd
Street
62nd Court, south of 33rd Street (Cherry
Lane)
47
BOOK
JUN 22 1993
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 8 9 ul-N. 9 1 12
Floral Park 57th Avenue, east to 56th Avenue, 43rd
Street on the north and 41st Street (S.
Gifford Road) on the south
Ranch Estates East side of Kings Highway to 57th Avenue,
43rd Street on the north and 4lSt Street
(S. Gifford Road) on the south
Metes and Bounds Various, abutting various streets
Acreage Parcels throughout the above
(non -platted)
The total estimated project cost is $2,166,044.27, less a
non -assessed transmission main cost of $418,669.82. The total cost
to be assessed is $1,747,374.45. The cost per square foot is
$0.118489. This project contains 901 parcel I.D.1s, including 1,137
parcels and platted lots, of which 1,069, or 94%, are substandard or
"undersized," according to Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan
and the County Public Health Unit, Division of Environmental Health,
which require that new lots utilizing well and septic systems be a
minimum of one-half acre. If served by a public water system, the
lot may be reduced to one-quarter acre in size. Lots not meeting
these minimum standards are called "undersized lots."
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of county commissioners approve the.attached Resolution.
Utility Services Director Terry Pinto explained that the first
two phases of water expansion are virtually completed. The water
lines are being constructed within the urban service area as
required by the Comprehensive Plan. In the Utilities Master Plan
we have the priority of serving areas with substandard lots, those
under a half acre, with the eventual goal of serving the entire
urban service area. In extending water lines to the undersized -lot
areas, we construct lines through other areas, including
agricultural, and the process of assessment by square footage has
been found to be the most equitable to everyone. Director Pinto
directed the Board's attention to the enlarged graphs and drawings
showing the areas included in the assessment.
Community Development Director Bob Keating referred to the
discussion on the earlier item regarding the urban service area
requirements. our Comprehensive Plan provides the blueprint for
growth and development in the county and identifies where and when
services and facilities will be provided. We identify areas with
problems or deficiencies and provide services in those areas first,
and at some point in the future the County will provide utility
services in the entire urban service area.
Director Pinto pointed out that the previous discussion
regarding urban service area expansion would have an effect on this
assessment. If the Board does not, include the areas that currently
fall outside the urban service area, this assessment will have to
be recalculated.
�, N
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Jim Wright, 6255 Cherry Lane, presented a petition with the
names of 31 residents who are opposed to the extension of the water
line to their neighborhood. Mr. Wright stated that most of the
residences are on oversized lots, there are some empty lots, and
presently there are 47 residences on 160 acres, so there is no
problem with density. Mr. Wright related that he asked the
utilities department for the.cost estimate of the water line for
his specific neighborhood and they were not able to supply that
information. They were only able to tell him that his individual
assessment would be $10,000. Mr. Wright urged the Board to exclude
his neighborhood from this Phase III water line expansion because
the residents do not want it. They have excellent water and do not
want the expense of a water line which they have no intention of
using.
PETITIONS ON THIS MATTER
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
Chairman Bird explained that the entire project is designed,
the total cost is estimated, and that cost is broken down into the
various phases, but not for individual subdivisions.
Discussion ensued regarding the assessment formula, and
Director Pinto explained that the assessment is based on the total
project. It is not possible to break it down to an individual
street because there are other major parts of that project that
must be built to reach that individual street. The 'formula takes
into account the total cost and the entire amount of benefitted
area, and it is divided and assessed by the square foot.
Dean Lockwood, 6586 Fifth Place, had a photocopy of a petition
with 176 signatures which was originally presented to the Board on
March 17, 1992. Those petitions represented 219 lot owners in Pine
Tree Park Subdivision who oppose this water expansion project. He
recounted that the residents asked for a special meeting to discuss
this project, but that meeting was never scheduled. They feel they
are having something forced upon them and do not agree with the
argument that it is mandated by the State Department of Community
Affairs. He argued that 67 percent of the residents must petition
for a project that is to be financed through a special assessment
such as this and they have not done so. Mr. Lockwood urged the
Board to exclude Pine Tree Park Subdivision from this water line
expansion special assessment project.
49
JUN 22 1991 B0QK 89 PACF.913
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 89 PA,UE 9-14 -7
Jim Wilson, local attorney, 1601 20th Street, came before the
Board representing Bob Havlin who is a resident of Cherry Lane.
Mr. Wilson also represented the residents of Cherry Lane who signed
the petition. He argued that this project is a result of County
staff following the Comp Plan without considering the wishes of the
residents. He argued that while it may be necessary at some future
time to build water lines to this area, it is premature right now.
The residents are opposed to the water expansion because they
cannot afford it and do not need it because their parcels are
bigger than most platted subdivisions. There is no health hazard
necessitating the water line. Mr. Wilson reported that staff
argued that the water line is mandated by the State, but there is
nothing in the Comprehensive Plan that states that a water line
must be placed down Cherry Lane at this time. The County is
required to provide water to 30 percent of the residential units
-within the urban service area having undersized lots. Cherry Lane
is not in that category. Mr. Wilson pointed out that staff is
following policy which was created by staff, and the residents feel
it is bad policy. He urged the Board to look at the policy and if
it is bad, change it. He noted that 90 percent of the 47
residences in the Cherry Lane area are opposed to this project.
since it is not required by the Comp Plan, Cherry Lane should be
excluded from this project.
County Attorney Charles Vitunac reminded the Board that the
Comp Plan requires that the whole urban service area shall be
served with water in due time. Since Cherry Lane is within the
urban service area and since it is connected physically with areas
that are substandard sized lots, it was convenient to include it in
this project.
Commissioner Eggert emphasized that the decisions regarding
water service expansion were made by the Board, not staff. There
were a number of public hearings and advertisements, and she
understands why people do not see the urgency, but the opportunity
was available for people to become informed.
Mr. Wilson agreed that the Cherry Lane area lies between
Lateral A and Kings Highway and is within the urban service area,
but he pointed out that it is not necessary to pass through Cherry
Lane to serve the other subdivisions with smaller lots. There are
other areas that are in more critical stages and they should be
served first. Water service for Cherry Lane can be addressed at
some future time.
50
Gary Purdee, resident of Greenbriar Subdivision, presented a
petition from residents of Greenbriar Subdivision, who are opposed
to the water line expansion into their subdivision. Mr. Purdee
admitted that 4 out of 57 residents were in f avor of the water line
expansion. He admitted that the lots are substandard size but the
lots are long and the septic tanks have a 75 -foot separation. Mr.
Purdee reported that they have contacted the County Health
Department, they have had the water tested by several agencies and
everything is fine. He stated that the residents cannot af ford the
assessment. His assessment for 3 lots is $15, 000. He has kept
these lots as a buffer between the homes and the condominiums, but
if he is assessed this amount, he will be f orced to consider
developing those lots. He urged the Commissioners to exclude
Greenbriar Subdivision from the Phase III water expansion project.
Bruce Barkett, local attorney, representing Glen Johnston,
distributed a copy of the County Appraiserl's map showing Mr.
Johnston's property. The property has 240 feet of frontage on 8th
Street west of Kings Highway. The property contains a grove with
irrigation pond and the house occupies approximately one half acre.
The assessment on this property is $10,322 while his neighbor on
one half acre is assessed $2,580. Mr. Barkett contended that Mr.
Johnston's assessment is unfair because Mr. Johnston has limited
use of the property for his home, and that his one half acre of
benefitted property should be assessed exactly the same as his
neighborls.
Tom Schlittp owner of a 5 -acre tract at the end of Cherry Lane
with a 2 -acre lake on that property, explained that his house is
located in the middle of the property, making the property almost
undevelopable, but this assessment will force him to consider
development. Mr. Schlitt agreed with providing water service to
smaller sized lots, such as Pine Tree Park Subdivision where he
owns two lots, but he urged the Board to exclude Cherry Lane from
this project. He stated that some people paid $10,000 for their
homes 20 or 30 years ago and now are being assessed $15,000 for the
water line. Mr. Schlitt asked the Board for their consideration in
this matter because the economy is in tough times and a lot of
people cannot afford this assessment.
Edward Waddell, 6050 26th Street, stated that his family has
been on that property since 1912. He has talked to his neighbors
and none of them want the water line to be brought through there.
He requested that Cherry Lane be excluded from this project.
51
BOOK 915
JUN 22 1991
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 89 P,�U916
Peter Robinson, representing Guy Poteet, showed that Mr.
Poteet's property is outside the urban service area. County
regulations deny water and sewer service to that property but he is
included in the assessment. Mr. Robinson noted that Bruce
Barkett's client also is outside the urban service area.
Director Pinto explained that the preliminary assessment roll
for Water Expansion Phase In included the owners of property
outside the urban service area along the corridors referred to in
the discussion in the earlier agenda item. Based on the Board's
decision not to change the urban service area boundaries, the
assessments will be recalculated to exclude those parcels.
Venda Burgess, 3335 58th Avenue, corner of 58th Avenue and
Cherry Lane, is opposed to the water line for Cherry Lane. Her
house faces 58th Avenue and there is a fire hydrant directly in
front of her house. She wants to hook up to that water line rather
than from the rear of her property because that water is available
right now. She commented that she had to close her driveway
because of County policy, and now she cannot get hooked to water
that is available because of County policy. She feels penalized
for living on a corner.
John Christina, 3235 59th Avenue in Cherry Wood Estates, spoke
in favor of the water line expansion and he contended that at least
one third of the residents are in f avor of the water line. He also
urged the Board to pave his street because grading the road is
costly and is not successful. He assured the Board that not
everyone in Cherry Wood Estates is opposed to the water line.
Worth Auckshire, Gainesville, Florida, part owner of 3-1/2
acres in Greenbriar Estates, was opposed to the water line and did
not want to be subjected to benefits he does not want.
Elizabeth Nason, 665 27th Avenue, also owns lots in Pine Tree
Park Subdivision and was in favor of the water line expansion. She
recounted that she just went through the assessment on 27th Avenue.
There are benefits: no water conditioner, no salt for the water
conditioner, no dependence on electrical power for water, and no
need to drill another well. She does not like paying the fee, but
she does like the water.
John Parent, 2910 55th Avenue, Cherry Wood Estates, is in
favor of the water line expansion.
52
Alan Waters, 3165 62nd Drive, opposed the water line on Cherry
Lane. He felt the assessment was too high. He is in f avor of
public water but he thought that the County should run the lines
down Kings Highway and down 66th Avenue and if anybody wants to run
a line to their homes or developments, they can bear the cost. The
homes on Cherry Lane are not congested and the people do not want
the water.
Wayne Russ, 6276 7th Place, Pine Tree Park Subdivision, stated
that Pine Tree Park has poor water and anybody who thinks otherwise
is f ooling themselves. Pine Tree Park is in a low area, homes must
be constructed at high elevations and water quality is variable.
He is concerned because when they have heavy rainfalls, some of the
septic systems are not usable. He goes to his mother's house in
Laurel Oaks Subdivision when he wants good water. He emphasized
that it is time to get good water to Pine Tree Park Subdivision.
Richard Votapka, 5875 24th Street, Rivera Estates, was in
f avor of the water line. He asked how his subdivision will be
affected if some subdivisions are excluded from this project.
Chairman Bird explained that if the Board deletes certain
portions, the total cost of the project would be recalculated, that
cost would be divided among the remaining parcels, and there would
be another public hearing.
Lynn Williams, 5840 Cherry Lane, was opposed to the water
expansion project. He disagreed with the statement that if
assessments were calculated on 150 -foot depths, all assessments
would be higher. His lot is 218 feet deep and by his calculations,
his assessment would go down $1600. He reported that he asked the
Utilities Department for the cost of installing the water line only
on Cherry Lane. He felt that if the assessment is fair, leaving
Cherry Lane out of the project would not make any difference to the
cost to other subdivisions. He insisted that the residents on
Cherry Lane would not hook up to the water line and asked whether
the County has met its obligation to serve the urban service area
if no one hooks up. If there is no mandatory hookup to the water
line, what is accomplished by installing the water line? The
residents will pay for the water line but they will not use it and
they will not own it. If they do connect to the water line, there
is another expense for that. Mr. Williams noted that other
counties install water service to residents who petition for it,
and he suggested that Indian River County should follow that
53
22 1991) Ur
BOOK 89 FA -917
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 8 9 p,, lu, 918
course. He urged the Board to exclude Cherry Lane from this water
expansion project. Mr. Williams further commented that he is a
county employee on leave for the purpose of voicing his opposition
to this project and would take whatever consequences follow.
Chairman Bird assured Mr. Williams that county employees never
have to worry about voicing their opinions, and no retaliation
would ever occur.
Bob Schlitt, 505 66th Avenue, attended the meeting to hear the
earlier discussion regarding the expansion of the urban service
area which affects his property. He is also concerned about the
water service because his property is across from Pine Tree Park
Subdivision. He currently is appealing the County to change his
zoning so he can sell a portion of his property. He is outside the
urban service area and does not know if he will be able to receive
water service or not. If he is assessed for the water service, he
does not know if he will be able to sell a portion of his property
to pay for that assessment. He wished to be kept informed and
asked whether he will be allowed to attend the workshops. He
favored the change to one unit per acre and the water line
expansion.
Glenn Schuessler, 6356 7th Place in Pine Tree Park, spoke in
favor of the water expansion project. He did not sign Mr.
Lockwood's petition and his immediate neighbors did not sign that
petition. Mr. Schuessler f elt that Mr. Lockwood has a vested
interest in the petition because he lives on three lots and owns 3
or 4 others that are vacant. He stated that there are quite a few
signers of the petition who live out of town and do not know what
is going on. They see a set amount of money and do not want to pay
it. Mr. Scheussler talked about the expenses over the past 12
years for 3 hot water heaters, 4 water pumps, 3 water conditioners
and leaking plumbing in his house. He cannot afford to move. He
knows there are wells in the area with less than 75 feet of
separation because that subdivision was built in the fifties. He
has been told by well drillers that he cannot get better water.
Mr. Scheussler urged the Board to approve the water expansion
project to Pine Tree Park Subdivision.
Mike Galanis, director of Environmental Health, stated that in
his capacity he was involved in the development of the
Comprehensive Plan. The plan was based on state law but staff used
their knowledge from working in the community for a number of years
54
M M M
to set the priorities for utility service. Mr. Galanis mentioned
several small subdivisions which have been provided with water
service, and he stated that Pine Tree Park Subdivision is included
in the list of areas of greatest need for water service. The
County has set down an orderly pattern for growth and even the
areas like Cherry Lane with low densities must be serviced with
water because there is a problem with disposing of sewage. The
water table is high, the drainage is poor and the soil is not like
the sandy soils where septic tanks work well.
Commissioner Macht asked if there has ever been an incidence
of illness caused by drinking the water in Pine Tree Park, and
whether the Health Department has the ability to test that water
and perhaps condemn it if it is bad.
Director Galanis responded that there is no regulation
relative to potability of an individual's drinking water. There
are construction standards to protect the ground water. If the
Health Department finds bacteria in water, they can tell the
homeowner, but they have no authority to condemn it. He could
recall no cases with documented proof of illness caused by the
water in that subdivision.
The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard
and thereupon closed the public hearing.
Discussion ensued regarding the assessment and methods of
payment for the water line.
Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding the planned
workshop on the urban service area and felt that the expansion of
water service was related to that. He did not like forcing
property owners to develop their properties in order to pay this
assessment. He considered petitions for water service as a viable
policy, except in cases where there is a health issue.
Commissioner Tippin agreed, and thought we could find ways to
provide utility service to those who want it without forcing others
to pay for something they do not want or need.
Commissioner Eggert agreed that water service should be
discussed at the same time we discuss the urban service area
expansion and the Comprehensive Plan. She also commented that it
would be a public hearing so that the Board can make a decision at
that time.
55
JUN 22 1993 BOOK
F-- - I
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 89 pnF 920 -1
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the Phase III Water
Expansion project and asked what portion of that project would be
affected by an expansion of the urban service area.
Director Pinto responded that it would not be a major change,
but the costs must be recalculated.
Chairman Bird led discussion regarding the differences in
paving projects and water service projects, and why petition paving
works while water service projects are not always feasible on the
basis of petitions.
Chairman Bird favored deleting the Cherry Lane area from this
Phase III water project and refiguring the costs for the balance of
the project. He thought we must provide water to the rest of the
areas because of the undersized lots and for the protection of our
environment as well as for future development of those areas.
Director Pinto pointed out that we have four other phases of
water expansion to build, and the engineering and design of those
water lines is part of the assessment. If the Board intended to
reduce the urban service area or to specify that areas like Cherry
Lane will not receive water service, we should address that change.
Chairman Bird explained that he did not propose that we
reconfigure the urban service area to cover projects which are
planned for the next year or two. Cherry Lane will remain in our
20 -year plan, but the Board should have the flexibility to decide
whether it is in the priority category.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously directed
staf f to proceed with Phase III of the Water Main
Expansion Growth Plan excluding Cherrywood Estates
and Cherry Lane Manor, recalculate the costs and
assessments, and schedule a public hearing on this
project.
(Resolution 93-108A adopted at meeting of
7/27/93 after clarification of Board's
intent to do so)
TOURIST TAX STATUS REPORT
The Board reviewed memo from County Administrator Jim Chandler
dated June 17, 1993:
56
TO: Board of County Commissioners
I
DATE: June 17, 1993 FILE:
SUBJECT-. Tourist Tax Status Report
FROM.-,.,,�a es E. Chandler
. County Administrator REFERENCES:
At the June 22 meeting a tourist tax status report will be presented including a
draft ordinance, financing, and proposed meeting with the Vero Beach City
Council.
Acting City Manager Tom Nason advised that the City Council Is agreeable and
would prefer a meeting before the end of June, with which county staff concurs.
June 24 or 25 have been suggested, with the afternoon of 25 perhaps the
convenient.
The Board agreed to schedule the meeting on Thursday, June 24,
1993, at 9:00 a.m. in the First Floor Conference Room of the County
Administration Building.
COUNCIL ON AGING"S REQUEST FOR INSURANCE COVERAGE
The Board reviewed memo from Community Development Director
Bob Keating dated June 16, 1993:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICPkfAY1
Community Development Director
DATE: June 16, 1993
SUBJECT: COUNCIL ON AGING'S REQUEST FOR
INSURANCE COVERAGE
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of June 22, 1993.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Since 1990, the Board of County Commissioners has served as the
Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) for transportation
disadvantaged matters in Indian River County. With the formal
creation of the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning
Organization (MPO) in April, however,,. the role of DOPA will soon be
taken by the MPO.
57
j I
JUN 22 IqQl BOOK .89 Fk- 921
L�
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 8 9 9 9
At this time, the Board is still the DOPA. As the DOPA,. the Board
is responsible for overseeing and assisting the County's Community
Transportation Coordinator (CTC).- Presently, the Indian River
County Council on Aging (COA) serves as the County's CTC.
The principal role of a CTC is to coordinate the provision of
transportation disadvantaged services in its area. That involves
brokering trips; in essence, connecting transportation
disadvantaged clients with available seats. By so doing,, the
Coordinator should produce a more efficient transportation
disadvantaged system, with less duplication, fewer empty seats, and
a lower per trip cost.
In its effort to best utilize available resources, the Council On
Aging has attempted to use several of the School District's busses
for transportation disadvantaged trip purposes. In fact,, the
Council On Aging has previously used school busses for
transportation disadvantaged purposes. The COA's use of school
busses ended, however,, when it was determined that there was
inadequate insurance coverage for the busses, at those times that
the busses are used by the COA. Because the Council On Aging could
not obtain insurance coverage for School Board busses at a
reasonable cost and because the School Board's insurance does not
cover busses when used for transportation disadvantaged purposes,
the Council On Aging is currently unable to use these busses to
increase its transportation disadvantaged services.
In an attempt to resolve this insurance issues the County's Risk
Management Division has been working with both the Council On Aging
and the School Board. Recently, Risk Management determined that
the County can include the School Board on its excess insurances
Based upon that determination, Tom Fritz of the Council On Aging
has formally requested that the Board of County Commissioners
provide insurance coverage for school busses used for
transportation disadvantaged purposes.
ANALYSIS
To address the Council on Aging's request,, Risk Management and
Community Development have done a cursory analysis and have
identified some issues. Foremost among these issues is whether or
not the County should provide insurance coverage under its program
for the school busses. The second major issue is who should pay
the cost (and assume the risk) associated with insuring the busses.
0 Benefits
Before addressing the insurance issue, it is important to consider
the benefits of using school busses for transportation
disadvantaged purposes. According to the Council On Aging, these
benefits would be a 15.9% increase in total yearly one-way
passenger trips and a 6.5% increase in total yearly vehicle miles.
Specifically,, the busses will be used to transport clients to
congregate meal sites.
Besides the enhanced service, there may also be a funding benefit
in using the busses. Because total passenger trips and total
vehicle miles are two factors in the state's formula for
distributing transportation disadvantaged funds, the increase in
trips and miles associated with school bus use could increase the
Council on Aging's transportation disadvantaged grant funds. In
fact, the projected increase in passenger trips and vehicle miles
could provide sufficient additional transportation disadvantaged
funds to compensate for the approximate $20,,000 shortfall in
transportation disadvantaged revenue (for the Council On Aging)
projected for the next year. 58
0 insurance
According to the County's Risk Manager,, adding the School Board
busses (for transportation disadvantaged purposes) to the County's
coverage involves various costs - There are premium costs , and
there are costs/risks associated with deductibles. These costs are
associated with general liability and with physical damage.
In premium costse adding two busses to the County's policies will
raise the County's bill by $3,340 (see attached memo from Both
Jordan). Even with the coverage provided by these policies, the
County will still be responsible- for a $25,,000 deductible per
accident for physical damage and up to the $200,000 per occurrence
sovereign immunity limit for liability.
Being self-insured, the County has an obligation to minimize risk
and exposure. By covering the busses under the County's program,
both risk and exposure would be increased. Besides the potential
for a costly judgement,, the County would face the probability of
frequent claims for minor accidents and injuries. As a result,, the
County will incur the costs of paying the claims as well as the
cost of processing the claims.
Besides coverage under the County's self insurance program, there
are two other options for insuring School Board busses. One option
works only if the busses to be used have a capacity of sixteen
persons or less. In that case, insurance could be purchased by the
Council on Aging for only $1,,500. That alternative is not
feasible,, however,, because the School Board does not have any
busses as small as sixteen passenger size.
The other alternative involves the Council On Aging getting
insurance through the assigned risk pool. Though more expensive
from a premium standpoint than inclusion in the County's self-
insurance program ($6,000 for assigned risk pool insurance compared
to $3,340 for Premiums associated with the County self-insurance
program),, the assigned risk pool option does not involve the
exposure that the County would have if the busses were insured
under the County's self-insurance program.
0 Payment
Whichever option is chosen, the question arises as to who should
pay the cost. Last year,, the Council On Aging received $167,,878.
from the County. Their budget request for next fiscal year is
higher.
If the County paid the school bus insurance cost by incorporating
the school busses within the County's program at a cost of $3,340,
or paying the $6,,000 assigned risk pool premium,, this would
effectively increase the County's contribution to the Council On
Aging. Because of the potential exposure involved with insuring
the busses in the County's self-insurance program,, effective
subsidy of that option would far exceed the $3,340 premium cost.
In fact, the effective subsidy of the self-insurance option even
exceeds the $6,000 cost of the assigned risk pool premium.
0 Conclusion
Although a number of benefits would result from the County
providing insurance for the COA's use of School Board busses,, the
risk to the County is significant. That risk affects the County's
self-insurance program. Because the County has opted to be self-
insured, the County has assumed an obligation to minimize risk and
exposure. 59
9
BOOK
JUN 22 1993
JUN 22,
BOOK, 89 r,�,UE924 -7
Based upon that consideration, it is staff's recommendation that
the County not insure the busses. This recommendation reflects a
consensus among Community Development, Risk Management, and the
County Administrator.
As to the assigned risk pool option, staff feels that that is the
better alternative. Even with the higher premium cost, that option
represents a more cost effective choice.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners deny the
Council On Aging's request for the County to insure School Board
busses for transportation disadvantaged use. Alternatively, staff
recommends that the Council on Aging purchase insurance through the
assigned risk pool.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously denied the
request for the County to insure School Board busses
for transportation disadvantaged use and recommended
that the Council on Aging purchase insurance through
the assigned risk pool,.as recommended by staff.
Tom Fritz, Council on Aging director of transportation, spoke
as a representative of the Community Transportation Coordinator and
assured the Board that the funds which the County allocates to
Transportation Disadvantaged also benefits transportation to the
Veterans, ARC, Able Transport, All Florida, Yellow Cab of Sebastian
and Indian River Yellow Cab. The money is not used for operating
expenses but is used to obtain matching funds. He explained that
the school busses are operated under a coordinating agreement with
the School Board and those trips are counted and have a direct
impact on the Grants for the Transportation Disadvantaged.
APPROVAL OF ELECTRICAL MODIFICATIONS AND PANEL UPGRADE AT ROBART
TOWER TRANSMITTER BUILDING
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Management Coordinator
John King dated June 16, 1993:
MM
TO: James Chandler
County Adminis ator
THROUGH: Doug Wright', ector
Emergency X men* Services
FROM: John King, Emergency Management Coordinator
Division of Emergency Management
DATE: June 16, 1993
SUBJECT: Approval of Electrical Modifications and Panel Upgrade at
Hobart Tower Transmitter Building
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
Indian River County has a 4051 foot communications tower and
transmitter building located at Hobart Park. The transmitter
building houses 45 repeater -type radios. These transmitters include
public safety radios, E-911 dispatching microwave circuits, County
Department radios, and leased tower space transmitters.
When the com=4�,ons site was first activated in 1985,, the
construction budget only allowed for a single-phase electrical
service for, the transmitter building. As the need for county
co ' mmunications grew, the reserve electrical service at the site was
used to meet the demand of additional radios.
Now at maximum capacity, the electrical service panel has become
trip -sensitive due to electrical fluctuations caused by area FP&L
service customers. In recent weeks, county staff and communications
technicians have made repeated emergency calls to the transmitter
site to repair damaged radios and air conditioning systems caused
by the electrical fluctuations.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff met with both licensed electricians and communication
engineers to determine a solution. They recommended that the
electrical feed at the remote site be changed to a commercial
three-phase electrical service. Staff contacted the regional FP&L
Operations Upgrade representative and requested information
regarding the necessary modification costs. FP&L presently has
three transmitters located at Hobart Tower and are willing to
install the necessary electrical feeder lines at no cost to the
County.
Three electrical contractors submitted proposals to install a new
400 amp three-phase electrical service to replace the existing 200
amp single-phase service (see attached vendor sheet). Within their
proposals, two contractors submitted two types of breaker
panels --one type is consistent with the exiting "Square D" system
and the second type is a cheaper non-standard unit.
The bids/quotes were as follows with Option 1 being other brands
and Option 2 being the Square D electrical panel.
61
BOOK Use,
LAN 221993 89 n"1-5
JUN 22 1993
VENDO
McCall Electric, Inc.
Paragon Electric
Indian River Electric
OPTION 1
$2,747
$2,322
No quote
BOOK 89 PAGF .926
OPTION 2
$3j, 737
$4,040
$4,400
Staf f met with the County Building and Grounds Department who
recommended that the replacement electrical panel be the standard
uSquare DO electrical service, which is the type of service panel
and circuit breakers currently used.
Funding for the electrical upgrade is available in the
Communication/Emergency Service Account #107 of the General Fund.
No additional funding is requested, but staff requests the Board
approve a budget amendment to expend the funds.
RECOHMNDATION:
Staf f recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the
lowest most responsible bid to install Square D equipment as
requested, which was submitted by McCall Electric, Inc., in the
amount of $3737.00. McCall Electric has also agreed to coordinate
the electrical transfer with FP&L in a manner that no interruption
in communication service will occur at Hobart Tower.
Staf f also recommends the Board authorize the necessary budget
amendment to complete the electrical upgrade project.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
Commissioner Adams being temporarily absent)
directed OMB Director Baird to prepare a budget
amendment in the amount of $3,737.00 to complete the
electrical upgrade project, as recommended by staff.
62
APPROVAL OF AXENDMENT TO LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH SANDAD
COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED PARTNERBRIP, 11, FOR TOWER BITE
The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug
Wright dated June 14, 1993:
TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
THROUGN: Jim Chandler, County Administrator
FROM: Doug Wright, Director
Emergency Services
DATE: June 14,, 1993
SUBJECT: Approval of Amendment to License Agreement With Sandab
Communications Limited Partnership, II, for Tower Site
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be
given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at
the next regular scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
On March 17,. 1992,, Indian River County and Sandab Communications
(WGYL/WTTB) entered into a license agreement for the use of county
property at the South County Transfer Station for use as a radio
tower site. Sandab Communications is requesting approval to extend
the term of the license from sixteen (16) years to thirty (30) years
from the date of license amendment.
During the negotiations with Sandab Communications, staff sought and
obtained a second antenna space on the existing tower. This was
accomplished with the FCC spectrum refarming issue in mind wherein
space for some 800 MHz communications equipment may be needed on this
tower. Staff also negotiated annual increases for the site after the
first five years of the license agreement.
In the amended agreement, language was also included to the effect
that Sandab Communications will be held harmless by the County for
any and all costs that may be incurred to clean or remove any toxic
or unacceptable waste that may have been deposited in the landfill
prior to the construction of the WGYL tower.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The amended license agreement was prepared by the County Attorney's
office and coordinated with the Utilities Department since the South
County Transfer Station is adjacent to the communications tower.
One antenna space is now being utilized by the Department of
Emergency Services for a satellite receiver related to fire dispatch
and response. The second space will be reserved for potential use in
the future 800 MHz system if it is approved and implemented.
ION:
Staff recommends the Board approve the Amendment to License Agreement
with Sandab Communications Limited Partnership, IIj for a tower site
adjacent to the South County Transfer Station.
63
JUN 221993
BOOK 89 rku. 927
JUN' 22
f, F. I
BOOK 89 F�1�11 928
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously (4-0,
commissioner Adams being temporarily absent)
approved the Amendment to License Agreement with
Sandab Communications Limited Partnership, II, f or a
tower site adjacent to the South County Transfer
Station, as recommended by staff.
SAID AGREEMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PAYMENT OF TRAVEL FOR A STATE EMPLOYEE
The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated June
16, 1993:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: June 16, 1993
SLJBJECT. 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 to pay for a state employee, Sharon Puderer, 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 $321.00 budgeted in
the Circuit Court travel account and $565.00 in the tuition and registration account. Ms.
Puderer's travel cost is approximately $300.00 and the registration is $35.00.
RECOMMENDATION
Approve the travel request since there is sufficient funds budgeted.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams to deny the request.
Under discussion, OMB Director Baird explained that we have
funds budgeted for state employees' travel. Staff presents these
requests to the Board on a case by case basis to be sure the Board
is aware of these expenditures.
64
County Attorney Charles vitunac advised that the County is
required to pay the reasonable expenses of state employees, and
Judge Kanarek certified that this is a reasonable request.
Discussion ensued, and Chairman Bird recommended that travel
for state employees be addressed at budget time.
Commissioner Macht asked, and Director Baird responded that
there are funds budgeted at this time for this purpose.
COMMISSIONERS MACHT AND ADAMS WITHDREW THEIR MOTION AND SECOND
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the funds for travel expenses as requested by
Circuit Judge Paul B. Kanarek, as recommended by
staff.
BID NO. 31-05 - REPLACEMENT OF 43RD AVENUE BRIDGE OVER INDIAN RIVER
FARMS WATER CONTROL DISTRICT MAIN RELIEF CANAL
The Board reviewed memo from Purchasing Manager Fran Boynton
Powell dated June 15, 1993:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: H.T. "Sonny" D n
General ServicerDired or
FROM: Fran Boynton PowelIN
Purchasing Manager
SUBJECT: Bid No. 31-05
Replacement of 43rd Avenue Bridge over IRFWCD Main
Relief Canal - IRC Project #8940
DATE: June 15, 1993
0Y.Tfixt) &611JUMMS) 0 [OR
Bid Opening Date:
Specifications Obtained by:
Replies:
LjUN 22 1993
June 9, 1993
Fourteen (14) Vendors
Six (6) Vendors
65
BOOK PA.11F. 999
JUN 22 1993
BOOK 89 PAGF 9.'30 7
BID TABULATION
UNIT PRICE
Alternate "A"
Alternate "B"
Traffic Maintained
Road Closed
Murphy Construction
$795,682.80
$695,692.80
West Palm Beach, FL
LeWare Construction
$845,000.00
$710,000.00
Leesburg, FL
Sheltra & Son Construction
$874,901.03
$687,901.03
Indiantown, FL
ZEP Construction
$910,464.98
$890,630.09
Ft. Myers, FL
PLC Civil Constructors
$1,041,526.80
$885,526.80
Coral Springs, FL
tewat Construction
1,401,721.95
$840,680.95
Tampa, FL
1
11
=AL "ount OF BID: $795,682.80
SOURCE OF RMSO Road & Bridge Account No. 111-214-541-066.3 l.and Road Improvement
Fees.
BUDGYMD ADWUNT: Account No. 111-214-541-066.31, $627,000.00, the balance -to be made
up from Road Improvement Fees Fund.
Staff recommends that bid be awarded to Murphy Construction, West Palm Beach, Fl. as the lowest,
most responsive,- responsible bidder meeting specifications for construction of the 43rd
Avenue/Main Canal bridge north of SR60 while traffic is being continuously maintained. The
Contract Agreement is now being presented for approval and execution by the Chairman and
attesting by the Clerk. We have had four (4) Contract Agreements executed in the original by the
proposed contractor, Murphy Construction. Because this bid included alternatives and two different
contractors were lowest on the separate alternatives staff has not required the prospective contractors
to submit certificates of insurance, or performance bonds, which the contractor must pay a
substantial sum for, until the Board chooses the alternative it wishes and executes the appropriate
contract, thus assuring the contractor his bond expense will be for a valid contract. Staff will work
closely with Risk Management and the Attorney's Office in getting those offices! approval of the
insurance certificates and bonds prior to issuing the Notice to Proceed.
This project was bid with alternates in order to determine the cost of maintaining traffic over 43rd
Avenue. Sheltra & Son Construction, Indiantown, Fl. was lowest bid on building the bridge with
43rd Avenue closed, Sheltra's bid being $687,901.03. The increase in cost due to maintaining traffic
while building the bridge is the difference between the Murphy bid and the Sheltra bid, or
$107,781.77 increase in cost. The Board should bear in mind that the state is closing 27th Avenue
while replacing the 27th Avenue bridge over the Main Canal.
66
Alternative No- 1. Staff recommends that the Board award the contract to Murphy Construction of
West Palm Beach for Alternate A in the amount of $795,682.80 and direct the Chairman to execute
the agreement on behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. Staff further recommends that the
Board direct that all bonds, insurance certificates and other formalities as required by the terms of
the contract and bid documents be submitted and approved by the appropriate staff departments
responsible, including the Attorney's office prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the
Department of Public Works.
Alternative No. 2 The Board award the contract to Sheltra and Son Construction, Indiantown, Fl.
for Alternate B in the amount of $687,901.03 and direct the Chairman to execute the agreement on
behalf of the Board of County Commissioners. The Board directs that all bonds, insurance
certificates and other formalities as required by the terms of the contract and bid documents be
submitted and approved by the appropriate staff departments responsible, including the Attorney's
office, prior to issuance of a Notice to Proceed by the Department of Public Works.
Discussion ensued regarding the length of time the bridge
would be under construction. County Engineer Roger Cain advised
that the schedule calls for a notice to proceed on July 9, 1993,
with resumption of normal traffic by February 1, 1994, and final
completion of all details by March 1, 1994.
The Board reviewed the following letter:
51 L&O, & 05 C*LM gnv-
P.O. BOX E
JUNE 18, 1993 INDIANTOWN, FLORIDA 33456
597-3307
597-3180
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
1840 25TH STREET *
VERO BEACH, FL 32960
RE: 43RD AVENUE BRIDGE REPLACEMENT OVER THE IRFWCD
MAIN RELIEF CANAL COUNTY PROJECT NO. 8940
Dear Sir:
Prior to submitting a bid on the above project, I went to the
pre-bid conference and explained that the power line on the
east side of the existing bridge was in the way of the
construction ofthe east section of the new bridge and that
all of the material that had to be handled by the bridge
crane would swing over the traffic lane and would require
that the traffic be stopped while this material was being
placed. This was answered in the addendum that the power
would be interrupted for one week except in an -emergency.
This did not solve the problem in any way.
67
BOOK r'31
L_JUN 22 1993
FF__ J U N 2 2 1993
PIAU 91,32
Also, in this meeting, I stated that the bridge as designed
could not be constructed without closing the bridge to traffic
and still meet the criteria of safety as required by the DOT
and the county specifications. I was told to bid the project
with the bridge left open, Alternate A to traffic and to bid
the project with the bridge closed, Alternate B. I bid
Alternate A with one way traffic.
After the bids were opened, I sent a letter to the County
Commissioners c/o Mr. Jim Davist Public Works Director. and
stated that if I was awarded the job with the bridge closed,
I was low on Alternate B, the bridge would be opened for
uninterrupted traffic prior to December 24, 1993p and the job
be completed by February 1, 1994 without changing any of the
specifications or contract documents except therequired
completion dates.
I called Mr. Davis on June 14th and requested a meeting with
him and the engineers on the project.
The meeting was set for Wednesday June 16th,, 1993 at 11:00
a.m. On Tuesday June 15th, 1993 1 got a call from the design
Engineers and he stated that'they would be at the June 16,
meeting.
At this meeting composed of Mr. Davis, Mr. Cain and myself the
design engineers did not show up, and we were unable to get
them on the phone.
I told Mr. Davis & Mr. Cain, that the only way I could bid
this job under Alternate A, leaving the bridge open to traffic
was to have one-way traffic, as two way traffic could not be
maintained and still meet the DOT requirements as called for
in the plans & specifications. At this time both Mr.Davis &
Mr. Cain stated -that since I was the only contractor that
questioned the ability of the bridge being left opened and not
meeting the DOT requirements that I must be wrong.
There is a note on Sheet B-1 of the plans that the existing bridge
bents were omitted in plan & elevations for clarity. If Mr. Davis
Mr. Cain and the design engineer had taken the time and effort
to super impose the existing brige on the proposed bridge in
section they would have seen that the bridge as designed would
not meet the criteria of the DOT ascalled for in the plans and
specifications and they would have seen that I was not wrong.
' 1
Sheltra & Son was the low bidder on the project':�&S__called for in
Alternate B (bridge being closed and traffic rerouted). If the
plans or specifications are changed from the original bid to allow
traffic over the bridge, then in all fairness to the County and
Sheltra & Sont the project should be rebid, because all of this
was pointed out,at the pre-bid conference and could have been
corrected prior to the bid.
I understand that the commission is going to award this bid on
the regular meeting Tuesdayr June 22, 1993. 1 request permission
to be present and answer any questions that may
Sincerely yours,
Z.H. OUTLAW
68
be asked. -
E. H. Outlaw, representing Sheltra & Son Co., Inc., came
before the Board and contended that the specifications were changed
after the bid process began. He stated that he has done several
major construction jobs for the County and was sure he could
complete this bridge replacement under FDOT standards. He
cautioned the Board that Murphy Construction's presentation does
not follow FDOT standards, and that there is the possibility for
accidents.
Randy Cropp, representing Murphy Construction, assured the
Board that the bridge will be open to two-way traffic during
construction and it will be done within DOT Standards 19.25.
Director Davis advised that design engineers Williams,
Hatfield & Stoner feel that the bridge can be replaced safely while
maintaining two-way traffic. He clarified that there have been two
addenda to clarify the specifications but there were no changes.
Mr. Cain was aware that Mr. Outlaw is concerned about the lane
widths during construction, but he assured the Board that normal
field adjustments can be made to assure the correct widths.
Commissioner Eggert asked whether there might be problems if
FDOT inspects the work during construction, and Mr. Davis explained
that it is a County bridge so FDOT is not involved. The
specifications refer to FDOT standards merely for convenience.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
the contract to Murphy Construction of West Palm
Beach for replacement of the 43rd Avenue Bridge over
Indian River Farms Water Control District Mairf
Relief Canal for $795,682.80, as set out in
Alternative No. 1 in staff's memorandum.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
PERFORMANCE BOND IS RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND COPY OF SAME
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
FINAL PAYMENT - INDIAN RIVER MOSQUITO CONTROL DISTRICT INDIAN RIVER
BOULEVARD MITIGATION
The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry
Thompson dated June 8, 1993:
69
BOOK PAGE
AN 22 1993
JUN 22 1993
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
TEEROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.C-1\
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P. E
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Final Payment
Indian River Mosquito Control District
Indian River Boulevard Mitigation
(RIM Plan at Impoundment 22)
DATE: June 8, 1993
DESCUP=Cff = C=M=
90 OK #J
89',,,F93,4
The Indian River Mosquito Control District (IRMCD) has completed
construction of the pump station, culverts and bleed -down structures for
implementation of a Rotational Impoundment Management Plan f or Impoundment
22. The IRMCD is requesting that the County release final payment (copy
attached) in the amount of $7,,429.16
In accordance with the County's August 16, 1991 Agreement with the IRMCD,
the IRMCD will be responsible for operation and maintenance costs
associated with the completed system.
�� - 4� *': � I � I I I P 0 i �, , P D :to)" I I
kl " f� X P D � 14M
Staf f recommends release of f inal payment to IRMCD in the amount of
$7,429.16. Funding is from 309-214-541-066.51.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
release of final payment to Indian River Mosquito
Control District in the amount of $7,429.16 for
construction of structures for Rotational
Impoundment Management Plan for Impoundment 22, as
recommended by staff.
COPY OF FINAL INVOICE
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
Joe Beidler, representing the Mosquito Control District,
thanked the Board and County staff, especially Jim Davis and Terry
Thompson, for the cooperation received in this environmental
effort. He also mentioned other entities who gave assistance, and
he looked forward to future cooperative ventures for environmental
protection.
70
FINAL PAY REQUEST - WOOD HOLLOW WATER MAIN BID NO. 3079
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 10, 1993:
DATE: JUNE 101 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT VICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: ROBERT 0. WISEMEN r P. E.
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FINAL PAY REQUEST
WOOD HOLLOW WATER MAIN
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -92 -37 -DS
IRC BID NO. 3079
On April 6. 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners awarded the subject project to Treasure Coast
Contracting of Vero Beach,, Florida, in the amount of $42,,399.20 (see
attached agenda item).
ANALYSIS:
The original contract amount of the project was $42,399.20.
Adjustments (which are reflected on the attached change order) were
made during constructionj such as the reduction of 20 L.F. of 4" PVC
driveway boring and changes in the number of services. The net
adjustments amount to a reduction of $207.10, which reduces the
final total contract amount to $42,,192.10.
The final pay request, including the ten percent retainage of
Payment No. 1,, is $4,,219.21.
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve the attached change order and final pay
request to Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the change order and final pay request in the amount
of $4,219.21 to Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc., as
recommended by staff.
SAID DOCUMENTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
71
BOOK. 89 pAr n'.1 r
JUN 22 1993
JUN 221993
BOOK 89� �,,"F 9"1
ti. - 6 7
WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT CR510 AND 58TH AVENUE INTERSECTION,
BID 93-113, WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 14
The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Specialist Terry
Drum dated June 14, 1993:
DATE: JUNE 14, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI 0
DIRECTOR OF UT 6IT ::i�ERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: TERRY H. DRUM
ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER MAIN EXTENSION PROJECT
COUNTY ROAD 510/58TH AVENUE INTERSECTION
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BID NO. 91-113
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 14
BACKGROUND:
On August 6, 1991, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
award of the labor contract bid to Driveways, Inc., Bid No. 91-113
(see attached minutes). The Department of Utility Services proposes
to use this labor contract to extend the existing 2411 water main
within the south right-of-way line of County Road 510, a total
approximate distance of 100 L.F. to the east side of 58th Avenue
(Kings Highway). This action is to coordinate with the Public Works
Department's proposed roadway improvement project at the C.R. 510
and 58th Avenue intersection.
ANALYSIS:
The project is comprised of the extension of approximately 40 L.F.
of 24" and 60 L.F. of 20" ductile iron pipe water main. The water
main is to be extended to the east side of 58th Avenue within the
south right-of-way of County Road 510.
The cost of the labor to construct the water main under the labor
contract is $4,167.45 (see attached Work Authorization No. 14 with
Driveways, Inc.). The pipe and fittings will be supplied by the
County at a cost of $6,702.43. In-house engineering, inspection,
administration costs, and contingencies are estimated to be
$1,625.00. Funding for this project will be from impact fees.
REC )N:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners execute the subject agreement, which
approves Work Authorization No. 14 to construct the subject project
with Driveways, Inc., for the amount of $4,167.45 to extend an
estimated 100 L.F. of water main and authorize expenditure of
$8,327.43 for materials and in-house support, for a total project
cost of $12,494.88. 11
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Work Authorization No. 14 with Driveways, Inc., in
the total amount of $12,494.88, as recommended by
staf f .
SAID DOCUMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
72
GLENDALE LAKES WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM CHANGE ORDER NO. I AND
FINAL PAY REQUEST
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 11, 1993:
DATE: JUNE 111 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRA
FROM: TER1WCE G.
DIRECTOR OF
STAFFED AND --
PREPARED BY: XO�D
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: GLENDALE LAKES WATER DISTRIBUTION SYSTEM
IRC PROJECT NO. UW -92 -11 -DS
CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 AND FINAL PAY REQUEST
BACKGROUND:
Construction of the subject project has been completed, and the
Department of Environmental Regulation clearance has been received.
The contractor, Driveways,, Inc.,, of Titusville, is requesting final
payment.
ANALYSIS:
On September 8. 1992, the Board of County Commissioners approved the
subject project at a total cost of $176#219.75 (see attached); final
project cost, including Change Order No. 1, is $141,560.16.
On December 8,, 1992, construction of the project was awarded to
Driveways, Inc., in the amount of $95,,649.25 (see attached); the
total construction cost, including Change Order No. 1 " is
$112,263.90. Description of Change Order No. 1, with justification,
is attached.
The contractor has been paid $82,630-48 to date. The staff of the
Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the attached
Change Order No. 1 and of the f inal pay request in the amount of
$29,633.42 as payment in full for services rendered.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
Change Order No. 1 and final pay request to
Driveways, Inc., in the total amount of $29,633.42,
as recommended by staff.
CHANGE ORDER
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
73
JUN 22 1993 BOOK 8 9 F !93 7
JUN 2 2 1991
J
BOOK 89 PAF938
GLENDALE LAKES SUBDIVISION AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WATER
SERVICE, RESOLUTION IV AND FINAL ASSESSMENT
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 4, 1993:
DATE: JUNE 4, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTI T S ICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: GLENDALE LAKES SUBDIVISION AND NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES
WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UN -92 -11 -DS
RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL -
BACKGROUND
on September 8, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
commissioners approved Resolution III, No. 92-161 for the
preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project.
Construction of the project has been dompleted. We are now ready to
begin customer connections and request the Board of County
Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll (see attached
minutes and Resolution III).
ANALYSIS
The preliminary assessment was for a total estimated project cost of
$176,219.75, which equated to $0.144073 per square foot of* property
owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $141,560.16, which
equates to a cost of $0.115818 per square foot of property.
RECQMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-108, certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of a waterline extension to Glendale
Lakes Subdivision and such other construction
necessitated by such project, as recommended by
staff.
RESOLUTION 93-108, WITH ASSESSMENT ROLL ATTACHED
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
74
-1
RESOLUTION NO. 93-.108
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTYl
FLORIDA9 CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF A WATERLINE EXTENSION TO
GLENDALE LAKES SUBDIVISION9 AND SUCH
OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATEs AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT
PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that the waterline improvements for the properties
located in Glendale Lakes Subdivision (North of 8th Street to 10th
Street) were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, September 8, 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 held the County
Commission
adopted
Resolution
No.
92-161, which
confirmed the special
assessment
cost of
the project
to
the property
specially benefited by
the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution;
and
WHEREAS,
the
Director
of Utility Services has certified the actual
"as -built" cost
now
that the
project has been completed is less than in
confirming Resolution No. 92-161,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF, COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 92-161 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
months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the
passage of this resolution.
75
L_ J U N 2 2 19,93, BOOK 89 F,�GE939
FFP -JUN 22 1001
BOOK 89 FAGE 940 -1
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
92-161 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.
1
92-161,, 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 f9r adoption by Commissioner
Tippin P and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams
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 Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 2 2 day of June, 1993.
Attest:
Jeffrey K. BeAton, Clerk
13y'. udua� 06T �W. a (V�
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Chairman
76
WATER PLANT CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS
The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry
Pinto dated June 7, 1993:
DATE: JUNE 7, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATO
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCA
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR INEER
0IRT, ITNE
BY: DEPARTMENT 0 UT IT ERVICES
SUBJECT: WATER PLANT CONTINUING CONSULTING SERVICES
REQUEST FOR PROPOSALS (RFPs)
During the month of March 1993, the Utilities Department solicited
proposals (RFPs) for water plant continuing engine6ring consulting
services. A standard list of consultants was mailed notification by
the Purchasing Department, and advertisements were also run in a local
newspaper as required by the Consultants Competitive Negotiation Act
(CCNA) for engineering selection. As a result of our efforts, only one
submittal was received and that was from our current consultant, Camp
Dresser and McKee Inc. (CDM). The Utilities Department is satisfied
with the past performance of CDN and is proposing to proceed directly
with a contract for their services (see attached contract). The County
Attorney's Office was questioned as to whether or not receiving only
one submittal and proceeding would keep the County in compliance with
all CCNA selection process requirements and was assured that it did.
We have had CDX generate a contract for these services (see attached)
based on our previous agreement with them. In the Work Authorization,
we have set up for emergency and ongoing engineering services for the
first year to be authorized on an item -by -item basis by the Board of
County Commissioners. We negotiated a contract amount of $27,089.00
for quarterly report ing/ inspection and a final inspection and annual
report; this is an upper limit amount for a period of 12 ionths. This
contract will run for a period of two years with an option to renew for
an additional two years with Commission approval. Funding for this
work will be from engineering services and licenses and permits.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve and execute the attached contract
with CDM for water plant continuing consulting services.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the contract with Camp, Dresser & McKee, Inc., for
water plant continuing consulting services,
recommended by staff.
SAID DOCUMENT
IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
77
as
JUN ^4 21993 Bou 89
F, -JUN 22 1991, U %..d -7
BOOK 89 uu 949
CITIZENS FOR TOTAL ACCESSIBILITY OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
The Board reviewed the following memo from Commissioner Eggert
dated June 14, 1993:
Telephone: (407) 5674MM
To:
From:
Date:
Re:
Board of County Commissioners
Suncorn Telephone: 224-1011
Carolyn K. Eggert, County commissioner UE
June 14, 1993
Citizens For Total Accessibility of
Indian River County
As part of our ordinance for handicapped parking f ines,
we designated a certain portion of the fee to go to educate
the public about the ADA guidelines. Jeff Barton, Terry
O'Brien, Joe Baird and I have met to review the process now
that we have a few months experience and have tried to
correct any processing weaknesses or questions by the
judges. Money is slowly building up in this fund, and we
would like to designate a locally recognized group to do
that education work.
Citizens For Total Accessibility of Indian River County,
Inc. has been set up in a manner similar to Citizens For
Barrier Free Community in St. Lucie County. Education and
the handicap parking patrol are its main interest. Neil
Duval is the president and they have a Board of local
citizens. (See attachments.)
The Internal Revenue Service has given them notice they
will be treated as a publicly supported organization
described in sections 509 (a) (1) and 170 (b) (1) (A) (vi) for an
advance ruling period beginning February 18, 1993 and ending
December 31, 1997. If they meet the requirement during this
test period, they will then be designated as a 509(a)(1) or
509(a)(2) organization.
Please approve Citizens For Total Accessibility of
Indian River County, Inc. to be our official education
organization for ADA guidelines and to work with the
Sherif f I a Of f ice on a possible handicapped parking patrol,
which can also be funded by handicapped parking fines.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Citizens For Total Accessibility of Indian River
County, Inc., to be our official education
organization for Americans With Disabilities Act
guidelines.
78
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 1:55 P. M.
ATTEST:
S 2 ! �\)� � �')
J. K-.--BA-rton, Clerk
79
L- JUN 22 )993
Ri6bard N. Bird, Chairman
BOOK F. 9 4 3