HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/7/1993MINUrI'ATTACHED=
E6
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, F1'1RIDA
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
TUESDAY, DECEMBER 7, 1993
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING
1840 25TH STREET
VERO BEACH, FLORIDA
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Richard
N. Bird, Chairman (Dist. 5)
James E. Chandler,
County
Administrator
John W.
Tippin, Vice Chairman ( Dist.. 4)
ITEMS
Regular
Meeting
Fran B.
Adams
( Dist. 1)
Charles P. Vitunac,
County
Attorney
Carolyn
K. Eggert
( Dist. 2 )
Kenneth
R. Macht
(Dist. 3)
Jeffrey K. Barton,
Clerk to
the Board
9: 00 A. M. 1.
CALL TO ORDER
2.
INVOCATION - Rev.
Richard Speck
Unitarian
Universalist Fellowship
3.
PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE - Comm. John
W. Tippin
4.
ADDITIONS
TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY
ITEMS
Addition:
As Item 11-G-6, Emergency Shore Protection (Wabasso)
5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS _
Presentation of Proclamation to James E. Beaver
in Honor of Retirement
6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A.
Regular
Meeting
of
November
2,
1993
B.
Regular
Meeting
of
November
9,
1993
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Indian River Farms Water Control District
Minutes: Annual Meeting of Feb. 26, 1993
Regular Meeting of Sept., 1993,
Final Copy to replace rough draft
Delta Farms Water Control District, Audit
Report for Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 1993
Amended Form LGF-3, Special Revenue Fund - Non
Ad Valorem, for Year Ending Sept. 30, 1993,
from Property Appraiser David C. Nolte
B. Representation on Children's Services Advisory
Committee
(memorandum dated November 30, 1993 )
BOOK 91 F1EE :JS
DEC -71991
_ BOOK 91 FnF. ;99
DEC 7 �� �
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd. ):
C. Report on Voucher for Payment of Annual Contri-
butions - Housing Assistance Payments Program
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
D. Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) Annual
Report 1992-93
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
E. Request for Extension of Lindsey Lanes S/D
Ph. II, Land Development Permit
( memorandum dated December 1, 1993 )
F. Letter Agreement - Gordon S. Nutt
Water and Wastewater Capacity
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
G. A Resolution of Formal Acceptance of Utility
Easements - Club Grove Estates ( 35th Court off
5th Street, SW)
( memorandum dated November 2, 1993 )
H. Surplus Sale
( memorandum dated November 22, 1993 )
I. Award Bid #4029 / Small Tractor
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES
None
9:05 a. m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
1. Formal Presentation of Master Plan by the
Progressive Civic League of Gifford
(memorandum dated November 8, 1993 )
(re -scheduled from meeting of 11/23/93)
2. Request by John Laughlin of Island Harbor
Road to Speak Regarding a Problem Concern-
ing Living Aboard a Vessel Across Canal
(no backup provided)
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments
( memorandum dated December 1, 1993 )
a. Sebastian Grove Holdings, Ltd. Request
to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to
Redesignate Approx. 159 Acres
from R to L-1
( memorandum dated November 17, 1993 )
b. K E R Groves, A Florida General Partner-
ship, Request to Amend the Comprehen-
sive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 8.4
Acres from -M-1 to C/ I, and to Rezone
that 8.4 Acres from RM-6to CG; and to
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Rede-
signate Approx. 8.4 Acres from C/I to
L-2, and to Rezone that 8.4 Acres from
IL 8 A-1 to RM -6
( memorandum dated November 18, 1993 )
L DEC - 71993
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd. ):
B. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd. ):
1. Comprehensive Plan Amendments (cont'd. ):
C. Brewer International, Inc. Request to
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Rede-
signate Approx. 6.4 Acres from L-1 to
AG -1
( memorandum dated November 16, 1993 )
d. County Initiated Request to Amend the
Potable Water E Sanitary Sewer Sub -
Elements and the Capital Improvements
Element of the Comprehensive Pian
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
2. Petition Water Service in Club Grove
Est. (35th Crt, North - off 5th St. SW)
Resolution III
( memorandum dated November 3, 1993 )
10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS
Appeal Hearing
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
None
B. EMERGENCY SERVICES
Florida Division of Emergency Management
Request to Schedule Date for Public Officials
Conference
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
C. GENERAL SERVICES
None
D. LEISURE SERVICES
None
E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
None
F. PERSONNEL
None
G. PUBLIC WORKS
1. Additional R -O -W; CR512 6 CR510, Edmund N.
Ansin, 3 parcels
( memorandum dated November 17, 1993 )
2. I.R. Blvd. Ph. IV - Grace Locke Walker
Parcel
( memorandum dated November 23, 1993 )
3. R -O -W Acquisition - 41st St. & 45th St.
from I.R. Blvd. to U.S. #1
( memorandum dated November 29, 1993 )
4. Purchase Authorization - Oslo Road / Old
Dixie R -O -W, Parcel #114, Calmes E Pierce
( memorandum dated December 1, 1993 )
BOOK 91 PAGE 100
DEC - 7 1993
BOOK 91 PAGE 101
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd. ):
G. PUBLIC WORKS (cont'd. ):
5.
Purchase Authorization; 41st Street R -O -W
Acquisition, Virginia Walker Russell
Parcel, I.R. Blvd., Ph. IV
( memorandum dated November 1, 1993 )
H. UTILITIES
1.
Shady Oaks S/D Water Service, Res. IV
Final Assessment Roll
-
( memorandum dated November 22, 1993 )
2.
Flora Lane / 62nd Place Water Service,
Res. IV, Final Assessment Roll
( memorandum dated November 22, 1993 )
3.
Interlocal Utilities Agreement Between
Indian River County E the City of Seb.
( memorandum dated November 24, 1993 )
4.
Sunshine Travel Trailer Park Sewer
-
Connection
( memorandum dated November 8, 1993 )
5.
No. Beach Wastewater Evaluation - Sea Oaks
( memorandum dated November 17, 1993) ,
6.
Temporary Access Agreement with Universal
Engineering
(memorandum dated November 22, 1993)
7.
Interconnection of Grove Isle to South
County Wastewater Treatment Facility
( memorandum dated November 18, 1993) -
12. COUNTY
ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS
A. CHAIRMAN RICHARD N. BIRD
B. VICE CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN
C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS
Ordinance Concerning Voting Conflicts
( memorandum dated November 24, 1993 )
D. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT
- M M
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ):
E. COMMISSIONER KENNETH R. MACHT
Resolution Authorizing Chairman to Execute An
Interlocal Agreement Establishing a Council of
Local Public Officials on Behalf of the Board
of County Commissioners
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS
A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
None
B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE
AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF
THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND
EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED.
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.
BOOK 91 PKE ���
December 7, 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, December 7,
1993, at 9:00 o'clock 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 Barbara
Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order.
Rev. Richard Speck of the Unitarian Universalist Fellowship
gave the invocation, and Commissioner Tippin led the Pledge of
Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Adams requested the addition as Item 11-G-6 of a
request for emergency shore protection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the
above item to today's Agenda.
PROCLAMATION
Chairman Bird read aloud the following Proclamation and
presented James E. Beaver a plaque in honor of his retirement
from Indian River County:
L
�otiK 9�. F�,cE 103
DEC � 7 X993 .
P R O C L A M A T I O N
am 91 Fart 104 -7
WHEREAS, James E. Beaver announces his retirement from Indian
River County Board of County Commissioners effective December 13,
1993.
WHEREAS, James E. Beaver was hired on December 14, 1983, with
the Road & Bridge Division as a Maintenance Worker. In August of
1984 this position was reclassified to a Motor Equipment Operator
I. He was then promoted in October of 1985 to Motor Equipment
Operator II which is the position he currently holds.
WHEREAS, James E. Beaver has been responsible for the daily
operation and care of a ten yard dump truck for the past 10 years.
He has logged many hours of driving time without an accident or
down time due to breakdowns. This demonstrates his skill as a
driver and his knowledge of the vehicle. He will be greatly missed
by the Road & Bridge Division.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
wishes• to express its appreciation for the performance and
dedication of James E. Beaver on behalf of Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board wishes him the very
best in his future endeavors.
Dated this 7th day of December 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
r
BY
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of November 2 or November 9,-
1993. There were none.
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meetings of 11/2/93 and
11/9/93, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Reports Placed on File in the Office of the Clerk to the Board
Indian River Farms Water Control District:
Minutes: Annual Meeting of Feb. 26, 1993
Regular Meeting of Sept., 1993
Final Copy to replace rough draft
Delta Farms Water Control District, Audit
Report for Fiscal Year Ending Sept. 30, 1993
Amended Form LGF-3, Special Revenue Fund - Non
Ad Valorem, for Year Ending Sept. 30, 1993, from
Property Appraiser David C. Nolte
B. Representation on Children's Services Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/30/93:
November 301 1993
TO:
FROM:
RE:
Board of County Commissioners
Kenneth R. Macht, County Commissioner
Representation on Children's Services Advisory
Committee
We have been advised that Judge Joe Wild will no longer be the
Judiciary appointee on the Children's Services Advisory
Committee. He will be replaced by Judge Paul Kanarek until
January, 1994, when Judge L. B. Vocelle will become their
designated member.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously replaced
Judge Joe Wild with Judge Paul Kanarek until
January, 1994 when Judge L. B. Vocelle will become
the Committee's judiciary appointee.
C. Report on Voucher for Payment of Annual Contributions Housing
Assistance Payments Program -
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
3
L_ DEC ®71993 J
DEC -71993
BOOK 106
TO: The gable Members of the DATE: 11/29/93 FILE:
Board of County Caeni.ssioners
SUBJECT: Report an voubber for Payment of
Annual Cbntn�� - Homing
Assistance Payments Program
FROM: Fin Dint REFERENCES:
and Rental Assistance
The attached HIID Fbnns 52681 and HIID Fbnn 52595, covering the 1992/93
Fiscal Year, were prepared by the Section 8 Rental Assistance staff
with the concuzxence of the F`inanoe Department.
We respectfully request that the Hmx able members of the Board. of
County rte; ssioners autboriG ze the Clnairen's signature for sub -
m. Jon to the U.S. Deparbment of Housing and Urban Development
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized the submittal of the report to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, as
requested by staff.
REPORT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
D. Overall Economic Development Plan (OEDP) Annual Report 1993-93
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator _
DIV SION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keat n , AI
Community Development irector
FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP �;.6
Chief, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 29, 1993
RE: OVERALL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN (OEDP) ANNUAL REPORT
1992-93
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of December 7, 1993.
4
M
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
In June of- 1985, the Indian River County Overall Economic
Development Plan (OEDP) was originally adopted by the Board of
County Commissioners. Subsequently, the Economic Development
Administration (EDA) designated Indian River County as a Title IV
Redevelopment Area.
To maintain its redevelopment area designation, Indian River County
has had to prepare an OEDP progress report and submit this report
to EDA on an annual basis. The county has done this each year
since the 1985 approval of its OEDP. To meet the 1992 progress
report requirement, the county opted to readdress the entire OEDP
instead of just submitting a progress report. The county's
decision to revise the OEDP was prompted by the availability of
more accurate data from the.1990 census, as well as the perception
that the county's economic development strategies needed to be
revised.
The county's Economic Development Council and the OEDP Committee
reviewed and approved the revised Overall Economic Development Plan
on October 27, 1992. The Board of County Commissioners then
approved the OEDP at their meeting of November 10, 1992, and a copy
of the revised OEDP was forwarded to the EDA.
Consistent with Economic Development Administration (EDA)
regulations, staff has prepared the 1992/1993 OEDP Annual Report.
This report covers the period from November 1, 1992 to October 31,
1993. This is essentially a status and evaluation report of the
OEDP. A copy is attached to this agenda item.
This Annual Report is required in order for Indian River County to
maintain its "redevelopment area" status and its eligibility to
apply for federal technical assistance funds.
The Annual OEDP Report includes the following items:
1. A review of the past year's accomplishments;
2. A report on any significant changes in the economy and
its development potentials; and
3. An update of the county's development policies and
courses of action planned for the coming two years,
including any projects that may require EDA financial
assistance.
On November 23, 1993, the Economic Development Council and the OEDP
Committee reviewed and approved the attached OEDP Annual Report and
directed staff to forward the _report to the Board of County
Commissioners for approval prior to submittal to the Economic
Development Administration.
Alternatives and Analysis
Upon approval of the OEDP, the most important task was
implementation of the OEDP policies and achievement of its
objectives. As part of the progress report procedure approved by
the EDC on January 26, 1993, staff must maintain the OEDP
implementation matrix. For each policy of the plan, this matrix
identifies the type of action needed, responsibility, timeframe,
final product, and completion status. This matrix is updated
regularly.
5
DEC ® 7 1993 BOOK 91 PAGE 107
DEC ®7 1993 BOOK 91 FACE 108 ,
The Community Development staff coordinates on a regular basis with
the Indian River County Council of 100 staff. As a result, county
staff has compiled information on council and county implementation
actions and has entered this information into the implementation
matrix. The attached matrix, which indicates progress in
implementing the OEDP policies, was a useful tool in preparing the
OEDP Annual Report.
Also, the OEDP Annual Report indicates all economic development
initiatives that the county has taken within the last year and the
status of these initiatives. As part of its long-range economic
development planning, the county has received an EDA grant to
update the county's Commercial/Industrial Data Source, prepare an
economic base study, and prepare an economic development strategy
plan for the county. the results of the economic base study will
be utilized to further refine the county's plans and policies in
regard to economic development.
RECOMMENDATION
The EDC, the OEDP Committee, and the staff recommend that the Board
of County Commissioners approve the 1992/93 Annual OEDP Report and
direct staff to submit a copy of the report to the Economic
Development Administration.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized the submittal of the OEDP Annual Report
to the Economic Development Administration, as
requested by staff.
E. Reauest for Extension of Lindsey Lanes S/D Phase II Land
Development Permit
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/93:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E."
Public Works Director
FROM: Roger D. Cain, P }�
County Engin
SUBJECT: Request for Extension of Lindsey Lanes Subdivision Phase II, Land Development
Permit
DATE: December 1, 1993 CONSENT AGENDA
Land Development Permit No. 102C was issued on February 8 ,1991 to John F. Stolle to construct
Phase II of Lindsey Lanes Subdivision. Lindsey Lanes is located on the south side of 49th Street
6
with entrances at 47th Court and at 50th Drive. A certificate of completion for Phase I was issued
by the Public Works Department on June 26,1991. Phase I has also been platted with three model
homes. Phase II consists of 77 lots on 22.43 acres. Staff has determined Stolle Development
Corporation requested another extension of the Land Development Permit prior -to its expiration on
January 15, 1992. Delays in obtaining agency permits have caused a delay in going forward with
the Land Development Permit extension. This is the second request for an extension. Extensions
are permissible in Section 913.06(5)(J) of the Subdivision and Platting Ordinance. It is understood
that the construction of the Phase II improvements will occur prior to platting of Phase II and
therefore no surety has been posted Now, all necessary agency permits are still in effect, or have
been reissued, and the developer has presented all documents necessary to extend the permit.
The three original conditions of the February. 8, 1991 Land Development Permit approval would
also be applied to the extension.
Grant extension of the Land Development Permit and Land Clearing and Tree Removal Permits,
until June 7, 1995 (18 months) with the conditions described above.
Alternate No. 2
Deny extension and require the developer to submit new applications and review fees for land
development, land clearing and tree removal permits.
Staff recommends approval of alternate No. 1.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously granted
an 18 -month extension until June 7, 1995, with the
conditions set out in the above staff
recommendation.
F. Letter of Agreement -Water & Wastewater Capacity Gordon S Nutt
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR NOVEMBER 29, 1993
�rFROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO r
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ERVICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: HARRY E. ASH
ASSISTANT DIRE TOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: LETTER AGREEMENT - GORDON S. NUTT
WATER AND WASTEWATER CAPACITY
BACKGROUND:
The County purchased the North Beach Water Company, Inc., in 1988
-and Sea Oaks Utilities, Inc., in 1989. With the purchase of these
7
DECGE 109
®"71993 BOOK zi F�ly
� I
Fr- DEC - 7 1993 50g 91 FA F lu -1
utilities, the County assumed various developer agreements in effect
at the time of the purchase. One of these agreements was with
Gordon S. Nutt for various water and wastewater capacity
reservations-.
ANALYSIS:
At the time of the assumption of the Gordon S.- Nutt developer
agreement, it was acknowledged that certain inconsistencies in the
agreement existed as to the number of units reserved and the
capacity related to each unit. Under the original developer
agreements, the County could have been committed to provide 208,000
gallons per day of wastewater capacity and 182,000 gallons per day
of water capacity. As a result of the inconsistencies in the
agreement, the Department has held various meetings with the
developer in an attempt to resolve the issues. As a result of these
meetings, the Department and Mr. Nutt have negotiated the attached
letter agreement to resolve the issues. Under the negotiated
agreement, the maximum capacity requirement is for 131,250 gallons
per day of wastewater capacity and 131,250 gallons per day of water
capacity.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the
approval of the attached letter agreement to resolve the issues in
the original developer agreements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the letter agreement to resolve the issues in the
original developer agreements.
SAID LETTER IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
G. Resolution of Formal Acceptance of Utility Easements - Club
Grove Estates
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/2/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 2, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI=V11 //-
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASS NT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION OF FORMAL ACCEPTANCE OF UTILITY
EASEMENTS - CLUB GROVE ESTATES (35TH COURT OFF STH
STREET, SW)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -18 -DS
8
BACKGROUND
On October 26, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution I (93-185) and Resolution II
(93-186), which contained the preliminary assessment roll and set
the date of the public hearing for the above -referenced subdivision.
ANALYSIS
In connection with installing water lines by the Department of
Utility Services for Club Grove Estates (35th Court off 5th Street,
SW), it is necessary that the County formally accept the utility
easements in accordance with the subdivision plat dedication
certification condition.
RECOMMENDATION
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve and authorize the chairman to sign the
attached resolution accepting the necessary utility easements.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-205, formally accepting for utility
purposes only the maintenance of streets and
easements, or any part thereof, in Club Grove
Estates Subdivision, as recommended by staff.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-2 0 5
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, FORMALLY ACCEPTING FOR UTILITY
PURPOSES ONLY THE MAINTENANCE OF STREETS
AND EASEMENTS, OR ANY PART THEREOF, IN
CLUB GROVE ESTATES SUBDIVISION.
WHEREAS, Indian River County is in the process of installing water
lines in Club Grove Estates Subdivision; and
WHEREAS, in connection with this project, it is necessary for the
County to install its water lines in certain streets and easements, or any
part thereof, in Club Grove Estates Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book
10, Page 27, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida;
E
r �•
BOOK 91 FADE 111
rDEC - 71993
BOOK 91 FAGE 112
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board
hereby formally accepts for utility purposes only the maintenance of streets
and easements, or any part therof, as offered to the County on the plat of
the above -referenced subdivision.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p in , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin A y e
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 7 day of December , 1993.
Attest:
1�
Jeffrey K. Barton Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
oe
By.
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
H. Surplus Sale
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/93:
DATE: November 22, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing anagerZ?Ir, 122 iaxc�
,
SUBJ: Surplus Sale
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
The following equipment (attached memo) which has no asset
numbers has been declared surplus.to the needs of Indian
River County.
10
330
ANALYSIS:
Staff recommends that authority be granted by the Board of
County Commissioners to declare these items surplus and
authorize its sale.
FUNDING:
The monies received from this sale will be returned to the
appropriate accounts.
RECQM ENDATION:
This will be placed on the Surplus Property Sale open to
the public as per State Statutes.
DATE: November 22, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: -James E Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny",Dean, Director
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager_
SUBJ: Surplus Equipment with No Asset Numbers
Description Department
One (1) Brazing Pan
Sheriff Dept (Jail Kitchen)
Seven (7) File Buggies
Finance Department
Two (2) Calculators
Family Relations
Six (6) Roll Film Carriers
Clerk's Office
One (1) Microfilm Camera
Clerk's Office
Dodge Pick -Up Body
Utilities Department
Ford Pick -Up Body
Utilities Department
IBM Disp.Station w/Keyboard
Tax Collector
Goldstar Monitor
Data Processing
AS400 Rack Enclosure
Data Processing
Tandy Printer
BOCC
one (1) Secretarial Chair
Dictaphone Transcribers (2)
BOCC
One (1) Cassette Recorder
BOCC
Two IBM Selectric Typewriters
BOCC
One (1) Alton Monitor
Engineering Dept
11
DEC - 71993 BOOK - 91 FAGF. �lc�
DEC - 7 1993
BOOK
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously declared
as surplus the items listed and authorized their
sale, as recommended by staff.
I. Award Bid #4029 - Small Tractor
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
DATE: November 29, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Direc
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Award Bid #4029/Small Tractor
Sandrige Golf Course
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
Advertising Dates:
Specifications Mailed to:
Replies:
VENDOR
Nucrane Machinery
Riviera Beach, FL
Hector Turf
Deerfield Beach, FL
Berggren Equipment
Ft Pierce, FL
Sarlo Power Mowers
Ft Myers, FL
November 10, 1993
October 20, 27, 1993
Twenty (20) Vendors
Four (4) Vendors
BID TOTAL
$18,750.00
$20,400.00
$21,200.00
$23,093.00
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $18,750.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Sandridge Golf Course Other Equipment
ESTIMATED BUDGET
RECOMMENDATION
$20,000.00
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Nucrane
Machinery as the lowest, most responsive and responsible
bidder meeting the specifications as set forth in the
Invitation to bid.
12
91 FACE 114 -7
ML - 030 ,
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #4029 to Nucrane Machinery for $18,750.00, as
recommended by staff.
OF GIFFORD
The Board reviewed the Gifford Master Plan, as revised
11/1/93:
A. Ronald Hudson
Dlreetor
Dick Bird, Chairman
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach,' n 32960
Pr ve Civic LojWe of Gifford
P. 0. Dos: 5103
Gifford, Florida 3961
Gifford Community Center
4855 43rd Avenue - Vero peach. Florida 32967
Tele0hone 407-567-1435
Hoven-Wer 8, 1993
(576-1- 97 #-t 0
Dear Sir:
For the years -1966s 19689 and 1972, the Progressive Civic League of Gifford
has formally presented to you a Master Plan which entailed a concerted and
detailed survey of needs for the Gifford community.
Again this year, the Progressive Civic League of Gifford is sending to you
a revised and updated Master Plan for your consideration.
After your review of the plan we humbly request the opportunity to formerly
present it to you.
4S acerely,
Freddie . Woo rk, President
nW/kew
13
BOOK 91 F'AGE ffi
MAMR PLAN
QW#I. e. Maa'ber t. "M
Prepared E1
The Progressive Civic League Of Gifford
Mr. Freddie 1. Weogork, President .
Presented Ta
The Board Of County Comothislonere of Indian River County.
The Indian River County Tnoeportationr Planning and
Other Agencies Involved
INTRODUCTION
BOOK 91 FADE 116
This Master Plan proposal was prepared by the Progressive Civic Lug" of
Gifford. A special committee was appointed by the league to conduct a study of the
conditions and needs of the Gifford community. Following their study, the committee
made the recommendations included in this master plan proposal to the league. Also
included in the proposal are the results of a sunray conducted in 198243. This proposal is
being submitted in the year of 1993.
The intent of the proposal is two -fold: 1.) it is hoped the it will ensure the
awareness of county commissioners and other county officials of the problems and desires
of the citizens of the Gifford communis : and 2.) it writ save time and • money by
eliminating the need for Indian River County to survey the community.
The Progressive Civic Leaps of Gifford will lend its support in any areas needed,
and will solicit and coordinate support resources from Gifford Citizens
A master plan was submitted to the Indian River County Board of Cormty
Commissioners in 1966 -and. in 1968. It requested overall improvamemts needed in the
Gifford community based on a four-week asrrve:y. It cited the need for. street -paving,
sidewalks, recreation, water and sewer, heath and mon, street lights, traffic lights,
and drainage improvement. The plan was revised in 1972 and zoning, code enforcement,
ditch clearance, fire protection, and low4ncaome housing were added to time needs F.
Some strides have been made, and the arnrent members of the county commission
have shown interest in bringing about improv in the Gifford community Yet, many
of the same problems that were addressed in the 1966, 1968, and 1972 manta plans 80
VdsL An example of an eadsting problem is a dire need for low income housing for single
working mothers, senior citiz=6 and other citizens whose incomes prevent the purchase
of homes and the inability to pay todaf a ova rental fees,
The recommendations in the plan have been divided into three categories: (A) A
SHORT-RANGE PLAN, 1993-1995; (B) A FOLLOW-UP PLAN 1995-1997; and (C)
LONG-RANGE PLAN, 1997-.
With the hope that this revised master plan will pave the way for a smooth,
workable solution to the problems plaguing the Gifford conmmunky, the Pn*=ive Civic
League of Gifford humbly submits this master plan proposal to the officials of Indian River
County.
14
M M r L - 330
PLAN "A"- SHORT RANGE 1993-1995
on 45th Strad i tin
The problem of heavy traSic: and Ivo 8 et (I
Luther King Boulevard) dM exists. �'►!% e: trucim and ►
tractor traders using 45th Street (Martin r*mB Boulmrd) is not being
Lack of adequate sidewalks in busy areas, endangers t0 Sm of Citizens CwMamy.
cifdren going to and from schools in the community. The foIlowmB rexommeadations
are made in the area q sib in b9 traffic and business areas endangers then', Ives
A lack of adequate and
stops
of all of our citizens, noticeable are our Y going to from bus
schools in the Gifford eon►•
1. Post large sicgns on all entrances to 45th Street (Martin Luther MM Boulevard).
stating, "NO Large Truth or Heavy Tmctor-Tmflwv,"and signs indicating »B-
lanes off Kmgs H'*hmy and US# 1 onto 49th Strad (Lindsey Road) to mdicste that (49th
Street) is the only acus through GOwd to US# I.
2. Complete the sidewalks on 45th Street from 43rd Avenue to Kings Highway and
from Gifford bdiddle 7 to US# I. sidewalks along 41st
3. Widen and r+murBdoe 41st Street (South � ,, �k Put to IMP �.
Street; make terming lanes at needed points frons 8�Y
4. Widen, resufaoe and provide sidewal m on Old Dixie fLghway from 49th j Street
(Lindsey Road) to South Gifford Road. Install signal lights at the 49th Street (Lindsay
Road) 41st Strad (South Gifford Road) inns•
5. Complete the right-of-way on 386 Court North; It should be a through street to
49th sued (Lindsey Road). 49th street
6. Install traffic lights at all intersections, street Bonon8
Road) from MW 08bmw to US# 1, and sidewalks along (49th Strad) Lindsey Road
from Kings lfghway to US# I.
7. Fire hydrants are needed in various neighborhoodL R"urviy dee utiltyl of the
present hydrant for usefulness•
CODE ENP'OR�'E1�Ai'j
For various reasons,; we love tacognind. , and apse a of
stria ordinanoea„ and code eaforoaneat in the unity.
AFmNDATiONR
L All code ordinances and regulation be equally enfc 4 throuSbout the enti
iolations of codes and ordinance be protected by withholding
rqurt
2. Persons who report . vy the violations of the following:
their name from ny, _
L Animal ofd n==
b. Vacant/abandoned dwelling units
c. Junk cars and other debris on property and strads
d. Overgrown bushes, trees, and underbrush on straftso canals ditches and
prop"
e.
Lokering
15
BOOK
DEC ® 7 1993
Mr -
DEC - 7 1993
BOOK 91 FAGS 118
W -M 09BOVEOM which create
Overflowing cliches and csnM are two of ft many problems
flooding conditions in our, community. We contribute much of this overflowing to the
following:
1. Garbage of all description dumpW in ditches and canals
2. Overgrowa tree roots, bushes and thick grass in the 0cueaand along the banks
3. Old discarded car tires
1. All canals and ditches W cleared and cleaned of whatever debris
2. An amacted waste be removed from the bank and disposed of promptly
HOII The progressive Civic League strongly support low income housing. This support
for low income housing has been emphasized in each of our previous Master Plans.
. We recognize that strides have been made„ to some degre% for those who are
employed in either citrus or any other agricultural industry.
However, a vast majority of our low income faaiffies and individuals are not
employed in neither citrus nor agric ultur& HenM they suffer trmme mdoualy from a lack of
affordable and suitable housing.
The County through grants and other subsi&es where avagablk make low-income
housing available to our citizens
RECR�A.TfON:
We recogaiae . your. cow efforts and support to further improve the
recreational facilities in Gdrord Park.
Likewise, we appreciate the moral encouragement for the proposed recreational
building project which is Wdated by the citizens of Gifford through the Progressive Civic
League. This is an urgently needed fade in our park.
1. A covered (indoor) recreational f cF" be erected in the park
L During inclement weather, this would provide shelter for our youth and park
users
b. Door recreational get and activities can be introduced and provided
c. A busing which can be used by our youunpW for a "Teens Cater'
(Hopefully this building can be constructed on the a*cet property near the
present community cater.)
2. Coon of an out door shuffle board court for the elderly
3. pmeticing find, stands and a Little League Field with S, and PA
System
4. Construction of an office for park coordinator
S. Refurbish rest rooms
6. Construction of a pool at Gifford Park
7. Secaurity rights and rest stop beaches on the wdit train
S. Construct larger pavilions for the parkpicnic area to offer more shelter
9. Speed bumps to slow down traffic in Park
16
M M M
TAXING ISTR M
The Gifford Comm mity► needs to become the financial source for many proposed
projects which would enhance itself .
The County C mmissionaa, along with tine Progressive Civic League begin a
feasibility study to make the Gifford eou mmity► another taking district for fire projects.
PLAN "B"- FOLLOW-UP 1995 -1997
plan call for additional street improvements and other servi Ides. In
Goals for this p
addition to completing ecamundations in Plan A, the following recommendations are
made:
Ste:
Our suggestions and recommendations aro made to enhance Wprovements which
have been already startedrmitiated.
s_
1. Resurface and properly elevate the height of road surfaces to eliminate many, of the
pot holes which resulted from the water and sewage project.
2. Extend the paving ofboth North and South Gifford roads as well as Lindsey Road
to Lateral "A" firm Kings Highway (58th Avenue)
3. Install traffic signals on Lindsey Road to accommodate the traffic
4. Install needed fire hydrants
DRAINAGE:
1. During heavy rainstorms, a lack of proper drainage cause'rising water on US #1
between North and South Gifford Road to flood the neighborhood.
2. hnproPa drama8e into ditches and canals along 40th Avenue from Martin I�utb
King, Jr. Boulevard and Lindsey Rad cause fiood'mg into the yards of
residents.
Taxing District:
Eve=dy many much" problems which need repair are going to occur at the
Community Center. To offset the cost we will now extra revenue.
A taxing district be aCaW to provide fiords for the repair and up keep) of the
community center.
17
BOOK 91 fAF 119
r DEC - 7 1993
Recreation:
A f xi tyr for indoor activities is greatly needed.
Lkki i i AW
1. An indoor facility be constructed
2. A bike obstacle course be erected
3. Beaches and exercise stops be luded along the jogging trail
BOOK 91 PAGE 1,®
Low income housing which is not de mft on cow or agricultural employment
as a criteria is vu* needed in our community.
1. Grants and/or other subsidies be utilized to provide low income housing for our
. Citizens
2. Community housing for the elderly be provided
PLAN "C" - PLANS -1997 AND BEYOND
Future Planning:
In our ioZnoduction, we have b d'ic ated that Plan C - Future Plans - 1997 and
Beyond, hopefully, would have begun prior to this year (1997.)
Being aware of several external factors we know that the initiation of some of
these projects may be earlier don a mttdpated.
A Fine Station - A Fire Station which would be housed in the Gifford Community
B. Health Center/Clinic - A Health C bdc through the cooperation of other agencies
and centrally located in Gifford, would greatly improve in both the partiapation
and quality of health cine for al of the P P, I unws citimmy.
C. Sanitation and Transportation Updates - Continue to upgrade and monitor both of
these systems, » tiliang some ofthe most modern technology
A Community Swimming Pool - Efforts should be made to seek federal fimds to
construct this project.
E. Commissioners Mating - The Goners should conduct quarterly or semi-
annual workshops in the Gifford comer. In our opinion, this awareness by
our Gommissiomxrs will matte for abeam _mderstanding and rdWonship among an
concern.
18
�i Enforce all codeF. Code Enforanaent -The comamssioners should diligently
regulation in our community. With their assistance we can contimm to eliminate many of
the "eye sores" which exists. with the help of other
est that the
G. Branch I:ibrary - We raga County Commission►
agencies, establish a branch of the public library in the Gifford community.
As the community and county co= ues to grow, there will be, demands for
improvements in many areas, we hope that you do not consider these proposed plan as
the solutions to all of our present and future problems.
As citizens of Indian Riva County, our collective efforts wig make iiving
conditions better in our county and a cleaner, safer and healthier Gifford community.
Likewise, we are of the opinion that if the Commissioners would conduct quarterly
or semi- workshops worksho in the Gifford community this action would create atter
working relationship between the 'citizen and the county officials.
Freddie L. Woolf ork, president of the Progressive Civic League
of Gifford, highlighted portions of the Master Plan. He noted that
Gifford needs more sidewalks, better code enforcement, an indoor
recreational facility, a library, a fire station, a health clinic
for the elderly, better maintenance of ditches and canals that
frequently flood, and more affordable housing. Mr. Woolfolrk urged
the Board to consider a Gifford Taxing District to fund these
expenses. He realized the taxing district issue is a hot, hot
potato, but if they are allowed to tax themselves they can,improve
their own area. He felt the matter is touchy because it requires
setting boundaries for Gifford that would include some businesses
on U.S. #1 and possibly Grand Harbor. He pointed out that those
businesses and Grand Harbor are happy to be a part of Gifford when
it comes to benefitting from water and sewer service. Gifford
residents only ask that the Commissioners be fair to them and
include all of Gifford in the taxing district.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the Board would be happy to
consider that option whenever they are ready to move on it.
19
o
BOOK 91 FADE 121
®EG o 7 J4q3
BOOK 91, F,1F 122
Continuing, Mr. Woolfork stressed that Gifford needs
recreation because local children have no where to go when it rains
during summer day camp at Gifford Park. The only shelter for them
is in a hot, stuffy school bus, which is much less comfortable
shelter than children receive at Leisure Square in Vero Beach. In
addition, a recreation facility will take young people off the
street corners. He expressed the community's appreciation of the
Community Oriented Police Enforcement (COPE) program.
For better safety, Mr. Woolfork recommended that 41st Street
and portions of Old Dixie Highway be repaved and that additional
fire hydrants be installed. Better code enforcement could clear up
some of the more blatant violations such as the many stray dogs
cats, goats and even chickens that roam around Gifford. He
sometimes feels he is living in "Green Acres". They again are
proposing that a fire station be built in Gifford in the future
since it is one of the largest populated areas in the county.
Mr. Woolfork asked why the sign on U.S. #1 announcing Gifford
was removed, and Commissioner Eggert explained that she talked to
the Department of Transportation about it but nobody seems to know
who took down the Gifford sign.
Commissioner Eggert advised that she and Attorney Vitunac have
talked to Victor Hart in the past about the taxing district. We
need to meet to consider the boundaries and the benefits of the
district. So, just as soon as Gifford is ready to move on the
taxing district, we are too.
Mr. Woolfork assured the Board that they are ready!
Commissioner Eggert reported that Dr. Gary Norris,
Superintendent of Schools, is very excited about the library
concept, and the School Board has plans to locate a magnet school
in Gifford. She also reported that hospital trustee, Beverly
O'Neil is looking at the health facility needs in the Gifford
community.
Chairman Bird felt that the Gifford community would receive
excellent response time to a fire or emergency since it is between
the fire station at 43rd Avenue near the airport and the new Grand
Harbor fire station.
Chairman Bird commended Mr. Woolfork on his excellent
presentation of the Gifford Master Plan. He advised that the Board
looks forward to continuing working with the Progressive Civic
League of Gifford and that the recommendations made today will be
given to the specific areas where they best can be addressed.
20
r
ACROSS CANAL
John Laughlin, 6016 N. Island Harbor Road, wished tojexpress
the concern of a group of residents in Island Harbor about a
houseboat that has been moored across the canal from their
community for three continuous weeks since November 14. He
emphasized that the Code states that living aboard a boat for more
than 7 days will be in violation. The residents have notified the
Code Enforcement office several times. The residents demand that
action be taken because they believe that the sanitary miles are
being abused. People in their community are afraid to eat any fish
caught in the canal. Mr. Laughlin urged the Board to take steps to
get this boat out of their waterways.
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that the
Code Enforcement Dept. has issued a Notice of Code Violtion to
this couple; however, the code enforcement process is lengthy.
After the County received written verification from a resident of
Island Harbor that this boat has been moored and occupied longer
than 7 days, a notice was issued for the occupants to appear in a
hearing. The hearing is just like a trial and if they are found in
violation, an order is filed and they will be fined alcertain
amount for each day they are in violation.
Director Keating noted that rather than pursuing the lengthy
Code Enforcement process, the Board could authorize the pursuit of
court action.
Chairman Bird asked the earliest date the violation would come
before the Board of County Commissioners, if it came to that, and
Director Keating explained that we have a provision in our Code
that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissions can function
as a special master at a special judiciary hearing. He noted that
a hearing could be scheduled for late this month.
Roland DeBlois, Chief of Code Enforcement, understood that the
violation seems to have stopped a couple of days ago, the same date
as the date of compliance. We don't have sworn affidavits but we
do have letters signed by residents who have witnessed the
continuous living aboard the boat. He believed that in add tion to
the stopping of the sewage problem, the residents want he boat
removed from the slip. However, the mooring of the boat is not
necessarily a violation of the code, whereas the dumping of sewage
certainly is. '
Commissioner Eggert was concerned about the boat being moved
out of there for a couple of days and then returning for another 7
days and the repeat of that. She understood that our ordinance
21
DEC - 71993 BOOK 9,1 FACE123 23
DEC o 71993
BOOK 91 FAGE 124 -7
really does not speak to that situation or to whether or not living
aboard should be allowed only in commercial marinas.
Director Keating explained that our ordinance is specific in
the sense that if there is going to be occupancy for more than 7
days, it has to be in a commercial marina that is approved for
living aboard. The question is whether someone can circumvent the
ordinance by staying 5 days and then moving for 2 and back for 5.
That is an issue that is difficult to deal with, but we are going
to deal with that through the Code Enforcement Board and issue an
order and have some presumptions in that order. In this particular
case, the boat can be moored there longer than 7 days as long as it
is not a live -aboard situation.
Commissioner Adams felt it is obvious that we have to address
the stop and start situation by changing our ordinance to give it
more teeth.
Mr. Laughlin reiterated that the Code states very clearly that
living aboard for more than 7 days is in violation. This couple
have been aboard the boat for three continuous weeks. They eat,
they watch TV after 9 p.m., so they must be dumping sewage into the
river. The residents have seen the couple sneak aboard the boat
the last couple of nights.
Mr. DeBlois reported that the occupants have said that they
are staying in a house nearby and that the lights and the TV in the
boat were left on for security reasons. Therefore,, both sides have
to be heard and the legal process followed.
Discussion followed about rewriting our ordinance to restrict
someone from renting a boat slip in a residential area without
renting a residence.
Chairman Bird advised Mr. Laughlin that the Code Enforcement
process will be followed and that staff will address the stop and
start live -aboard situation in our ordinances.
Mr. Laughlin thanked the Board for allowing him the
opportunity to speak this morning.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/93:
22
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP AMM
Community Development Director
DATE: December 1, 1993
SUBJECT: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS
It is requested that the information herein presented be given
formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of December 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
Following this item are four comprehensive plan amendment reests.
These requests were submitted during the month of July, con istent
with the County's twice a year window for amendment submittal. The
proposed amendments are now being presented to the Board for
transmittal consideration. As in the past, the Board must
determine whether or not to transmit the amendment requestw to the
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. Amendments
not approved for transmittal are deemed to be denied.
Since June of 1993 when the Board last considered plan amendments
for transmittal to DCA, the applicable statute regulating the
amendment of local comprehensive plans has changed. These Changes
were approved by the legislature in its 1993 session as part of the
ELMS (Environmental Land Management Study) bill.
With respect to the transmittal of proposed plan amendments o DCA,
the principal change has been to provide local governments with the
opportunity to have minor amendments or amendments with few impacts
considered in a shorter time period. As provided by the ELMS
changes, a local government, as part of its transmittal, may direct
DCA not to initiate a full review of a proposed plan amendment.
This can speed up the process for some amendment requests, but
lengthen the process for other proposed amendments.
Attached to this report is a set of flow charts. These illustrate
the old procedure for the review of plan amendments as well as the
new review options.
Under the old amendment review procedure, DCA had ninety ays to
review a plan amendment request (this included obtainin other
agencies' review comments) and send its ORC -(Obje tions,
recommendations, comments) report back to the County.) The
legislature reduced this ninety day review time to sixty days.
This is illustrated in the attached "review requested" flow chart.
The sixty day timeframe applies if the County opts to have DCA
review proposed amendments in generally the same manner as has been
done in the past.
If, however, the County feels that a proposed amendment has
insignificant impacts and is generally non -controversial, the
County may direct DCA not to review the proposed amendment. In
23
9001 91 PAGE 12
DEC - 7 1993
� J
DEC - 7 1993 BOOK 91 Fa;F 126
such cases, the process may be quicker (45 days vs. 60 days for a
regular review) if the various agencies agree that the amendment
has insignificant impacts. When the agencies agree that a proposed
amendment does not warrant a full review, DCA notifies the County
that the amendment may be approved without change.
In opting to transmit a proposed amendment to DCA• with a "no
review" directive, the County takes the risk that none of the
agencies (state agencies, regional planning council, water
management district, other local governments, or affected persons)
will request a full review of the amendment. As illustrated in the
attached flow chart, agencies have forty-five days to decide
whether an amendment request needs a full review. If one or more
agencies request a full review, then the normal sixty review period
starts after the end of the forty-five day period. Consequently,
a "no review" directive to DCA by the County could result in a 105
day review process, if one or more agencies request a full review.
ANALYSIS:
Of the four plan amendment requests presently under consideration,
none requires expedited review. For that reason, the appropriate
option would be for the Board to request a full review of those
amendments that are approved for transmittal.
With the review request option, DCA will have sixty days to review
the amendments and issue an ORC report. Alternatively, the Board
could transmit the proposed amendments with a "no review" directive
to DCA. This could result in.a 45 day review period or a 105 day
review period.
It is staff's position that the subject amendment requests are
significant and that the various agencies would probably request a
full review. By requesting a review up -front, the County can be
assured that DCA's review of the proposed amendments will be done
within a sixty day timeframe.
RECON NENDATION :
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners request a
full review for those amendment requests that the Board approves
for transmittal to DCA.
Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the
Comp Plan amendment process, noting that there has been a change in
the process with regard to the length of time for review by the
DCA. The County has two options: 1) Pursue the standard 60 -day
review process. 2) If it is felt the amendments are not
controversial, we can tell the DCA that we do not want a full
review. If all the agencies feel the same way, the DCA says go
ahead and adopt the Comp Plan amendment. However, if an agency
wants a full review, they have 45 days to decide and then there is
another 60 days to review. So, this process could or could not
speed up the review process.
The consensus of the Board was to ask for a full DCA review of
any land use amendment approved today for transmittal to the State..
24
M M M
HOLDINGS, LTD.
The hour of 9:05 o'clock having passed, the County ttorney
announced that this Public Hearing has been properly adver,ised as
follows:
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-23115
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER t'cs� Journal
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before theundersigned authorityy personally appeared J.J.
'10 Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he fs Business Manager or the
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33 column inches -
at 11.35 per column inch
billedto Indian River County Planning Department
was published in said newspaper In the Issue(s)
o, November 30, 1993 on page 3A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
6 day of. December p A D 1993
p
rO�OTAAY,cG` •
P ru , jt c�,
.99I1R; ,
air.arba,uru..a,.:.t.r.,bi Manager
IN
j 291997" eee.m.a�wM. ecaansn
f tme 29.1997
i Ila CC300Sn
�' .• 'I'.4UBI;1Q•'�Or,,a sbnea:_ d ��6iGe-'t-4'u�
Q.,,. pry: /aAtM C SrRMi11F �-
'••:,F OF F �� •• ,
25
BOOK 1 PAF 127
DEC 7 1993
' BOOK 9 F�,F �� •- �
DEC 7 1993 B 1d :
1:
NOTICE -OF -CHANGE OF LAND' USE AND
J.01 `CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT..
The Board of Counommissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a 100-
ICposal to change the of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County
i` and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public- hearing on the proposal will be
held on Tuesday, December 7; 1993, at 9:0S a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of. of
the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this 4,;
public hearing the 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 entitledi •..!'!
AN.ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE '.:,,_•, •
POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP- .,.
ITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AMENDING THE FU-
TURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND '
USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510,•
AND 82ND AVENUE FROM R TO 1-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT - .r
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 61 .
+/-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND I-
95
}• 95, FROM L -I TO AG -1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COM- <>
PREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 & C.R. 510 [NORTH)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-284 ACRES TO +/-292.36 ACRES; •a:
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY RE-
DUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (C.R. 510 TO
HOBART ROAD) FROM +/-190 ACRES TO +/-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the ap
pproval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel-
opment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building lo-
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testi-
many and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 408 at least 48
hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County i• .
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman }
• .r {—Z O cus'� Afr NJA
N �,r uNu
Subject �'t��t ° L. G..�1lTblll �: A' o
Property °� w
"• f its C/I
L_2Subject
13 IT -- -
a l": t
10
Subject Subject
Property Property �•J�, fl... :
p
{ s, -•./ - '
s ,�, G
s
26
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/17/93;
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keati g, AIC
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP S'' '
Chief, Long-Rangj Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
.
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 17, 1993
RE: Sebastian Grove Holdings, Ltd. Request toend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately�159 acres
from R to L-1 (LURA 93-07-0170)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of December 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a -request to change the land use designtion of
approximately 159 acres from R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre} to L-1,
Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre). The subject
property is owned by Sebastian Grove Holdings, Ltd. A concurrent
rezoning is not part of this request.
Located at the northwest corner of C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road) and 82nd
Avenue, the subject property extends more than half a mile, north of
C.R. 510. In fact, a portion of the subject property's northern
boundary abuts the St. Sebastian River which forms the border
between the City of Sebastian and the unincorporated prtion of
Indian River County. A seven acre tract containing two ou -parcels
that are not part of the subject property fronts C.R. 10. The
purpose of this request is to secure the land use designation
necessary for developing the property with residential u es at up
to 3 units/acre.
On October 14, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission +voted 3-2
to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners tra smit the
proposed land use amendment to the state Department of ommunity
Affairs (DCA) for their review. Although a majority of Planning
and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the mendment
request, Section 103.02.12 of the County Code of aws and
Ordinances states that any matter or application consid red by a
board or commission with more than five members must rec.ive four
or more votes for passage. Since the Planning and Zoning
Commission has seven members and the subject application received
only three affirmative votes, the favorable reco endation
technically failed.
27
BOOK 9A PAGE 129
��
-71993
n
DEC - 7 IPQI KOK 91 F JF.1..30
Existing Land Use Pattern
Used exclusively as a grove, the subject property and all
unincorporated lands surrounding it are zoned A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Except for the St. Sebastian
River Floodway and isolated residences, the land surrounding the
subject property is used exclusively for groves.
A portion of the subject property and surrounding land may contain
wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River. Within the
unincorporated parts of the County, any wetlands associated with
the St. Sebastian River are deemed to be zoned Con -2, Wetland
Conservation District (up to 1 unit/40 acres). The limits of Con -2
zoning are determined by an environmental survey conducted by an
applicant at the time of site development and based upon soils,
vegetation, and hydrology. Consequently, the Con -2 zoning district
may apply to parts of the subject property and adjacent lands.
The portion of the City of Sebastian that is across the St.
Sebastian River from the subject property is zoned RS -10,
Residential Single -Family (10,000 square foot minimum lot size) on
the City's zoning map. The City of Sebastian's RS -10 zoning
district allows agricultural uses and single-family residential
uses with densities up to four units/acre on lots at least 10,000
square feet in size. This area presently consists of vacant
uncleared land within the St. Sebastian River Floodway right-of-
way, and groves north of the floodway.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and unincorporated areas to the north, east
and west are designated R, Rural, on the county future land use
map. The Rural designation permits residential uses with densities
up to 1 unit/acre. To the south, across C.R. 510, the land is
designated AG -1, Agricultural -1, on the county future land use map.
The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses
with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. The land north of the subject
property in the City of Sebastian is designated LDRF Low Density
Residential, on the City's future land use map. The LDR
designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with
densities up to 5 units/acre.
Within the unincorporated parts of the County, any wetlands
associated with the St. Sebastian River are designated C-2,
Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) on the county future land
use map. Since the subject property and surrounding land may
contain wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River, the C-2
land use designation may apply to these areas.
Environment
The subject property is currently used for agricultural purposes,
being a citrus grove. The land is not within a flood hazard area.
Although no native upland plant communities exist on the site,
there are three emergent freshwater wetland areas on the property,
two of which appear to be associated with the ditches that drain
these wetlands into the St. Sebastian River. The north boundary of
the subject property abuts wetlands associated with the St.
Sebastian River Floodway.
28
_ M
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of thef county.
Presently, wastewater lines do not extend to the sit Water
lines, however, extend to the site from the South Count Reverse
Osmosis Plant. When the North County Reverse Osmosis P1 nt, which
is currently under construction, is complete, it will erve the
site.
Transportati-on System
The property abuts C.R. 510, which is classified aslan urban
principal arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan
map. This segment of C.R. 510 is a two-lane paved oad with
approximately 80 feet of existing public road rig t -of -way.
Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of C.R. 510.
Eighty-second Avenue borders the east side of the subject property.
This segment of 82nd Avenue is an unpaved local road that dead ends
approximately one half of a mile north of C.R. 510. Currently, the
county has no plans to expand this segment of 82nd Ave ue . The
City of Sebastian's thoroughfare plan, however, calls for Laconia
Street, which aligns with 82nd Avenue, to eventually extend south
to C.R. 510. The City's thoroughfare plan also includes realigning
the north portion of Laconia Street to link directly Into Roseland
Road at the C.R. 512 intersection. Therefore, with the
implementation of these plans, 82nd Avenue/Laconia Street will
connect C.R. 510 and C.R. 512. No completion date or f nding has
been identified for this project at this time. Since this segment
of 82nd Avenue/Laconia Street crosses the City/County boundary,
this project would require coordination between the' City of
Sebastian and Indian River County.
Eighty-sixth Avenue, an unpaved local road, borders the 4est side
of the subject property.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES _
In this section, an analysis of the reasonablenes of the
application will be presented. Following an analysis of R and L-1
land use designations, this section will include a description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• impact on the residential allocation ratio;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• alternatives.
Analysis of R and L-1 Land Use Designations
Presently, there are 11,878 acres of L-1 land designatedhroughout
the county. Even accounting for the approximately 6,40 acres of
L-1 designated land that has been subdivided, alt ough not
necessarily developed, there are more than 5,400 acresQf raw L-1
designated land. Approximately 4,000 acres of this L-1 designated
land is one half of a mile west of the subject property. ,That area
includes several subdivisions, the largest of which is Vero Lake
Estates. At this time, less than 20% of these 4,OOOI acres is
developed.
29
BOOK 91 PAGE 131
DEC ti 1993 BOOK 91
In contrast, there are only 1,115 acres of R designated land in the
County, less than any other residential land use designation.
Except for 40 acres along 58th Avenue, all R designated land is
located between C.R. 510 and the City of Sebastian. Approval of
this amendment would reduce the amount of R designated land in the
County to 956 acres.
Approval of this amendment would affect the rest of the R
designated land in the County. Since the subject property has
similar characteristics to all other R designated parcels along
C.R. 510, redesignating the subject property would likely result in
redesignation of all other R designated parcels. This would
eventually leave the county with no R designated land.
While the R designation serves as a transitional designation from
agricultural to urban uses, the large required lot size often makes
development prohibitively expensive, especially where utility
service is available. In contrast, the L-1 designation allows for
more cost efficient, compact and affordable development.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained, the Comprehensive Plan and Land
Development Regulations also require that new development 'be
reviewed.
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 land use amendment requests, conditional concurrency
review is required. _
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use
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 land use designation.
For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use
(according to the County's LDR's) is the maximum number of units
that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and
the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The
site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Existing Land
Use Designation:
30
±159 acres
R, Rural (up to 1
unit/acre)
L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre)
159 dwelling units
5. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Proposed Land
Use Designation:
Transportation
477 dwelling units
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
- development of the maximum number of units allowed on the subject
property under the proposed land use designation indicates that the
existing level of service "D" or better on C.R. 510 would 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 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75%
3. Peak Direction of C.R. 510, from 66th Avenue to C.R. 512:
Westbound
4. 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 X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(159 X 1.01 X .65 X .75) = 78
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(159 X 9.55 = 1,518)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
c. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75%
3. Peak Direction of C.R. 510, from 66th Avenue to C.R. 512:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Soason/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour
Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(477 X 1.01 X .65 X .75) =-235
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
31
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 PA;F 133
n
DF r - 7 14 BOOK 91 FACE 1.3
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate
(477 X 9.55 = 4,555)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of C.R. 510, at a Level of
Service "D": 630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of C.R. 510:
422 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,518. This was determined by multiplying the 159
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 9.55 Average Daily 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 4,555. This was determined by multiplying the 477
units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 9.55 Average Daily 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. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on C.R. 510 is westbound.
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 78. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (159) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(104) will be inbound and 35% (56) will be outbound. Of the
inbound trips, 75% or 78 will be westbound.
To determine 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 proposed land use designation, the total
number of units allowed under the proposed amendment (477) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (482). Of these
trips, 65% (313) will be inbound and 35% (169) will be outbound.
Of the inbound trips, 75% or 235 will, be westbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land
use designation would generate 157 ( 235 - 78 = 157 ) more trips than
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 peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's Land
Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive five
percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more
of the project trips, whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
32
M
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of C.R. 510 adjacent to this
site is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level
of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on this
segment of C.R. 510 is 422 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction)._ The additional 235 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed amendment would increase the total peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of C.R. 510
to approximately 657, or 27 more than capacity at LOS "D".
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with this proposed land use amendment. As indicated in
this table, segments 1810 and 1820 do not have sufficient capacity
at LOS "D" to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the
request.
Prior to final consideration of this request by the Board of County
Commissioners, the applicant must enter into a developer's
agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to
make the necessary improvements to segments 1810 and 1820 to
provide the additional capacity required to maintain LOS "D" on
those roadways. The execution of this agreement will satisfy the
transportation concurrency requirement for this request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
Segment
Capacity
To LOS D
1020
S.R.
AlA
S. VBC Limits
17th Street
1320
1030
S.R.
AlA
17th Street
S.R. 60
1060
1040
S.R.
AlA
S.R. 60
N. VBC Limits
1120
1050
S.R.
AlA
N. VBC Limits
Fred Tuerk Road
1240
1060
S.R.
AlA
Fred Tuerk Road
Old Winter Beach Rd.
1310
1070
S.R.
AlA
Old Winter Beach Rd.
N. IR Shores Laine
1310
1080
S.R.
AlA
N. IR Shores Line
C.R. 510
1310
1160
I. R. Blvd.
S.R. 60
W. VBC Limits
1760
1210
I-95
N. County Line
C.R. 512
3530
1315
U.S.
1
4th Street & IR Blvd.
8th Street
2270
1320
U.S.
1
8th Street
12th Street
2270
1325
U.S.
1
12th Street
S. VBC Limits
2370
1330
U.S.
1
S. VBC Limits
17th Street
2270
1335
U.S.
1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1340
U.S.
1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm
2300
1345
U.S.
1
Royal Palm P1.
Atlantic Blvd.
2300
1350
U.S.
1
Atlantic Blvd.
N. VBC Limits
2300
1355
U.S.
1
N. VBC Limits
Old Dixie Hwy.
2300
1360
U.S.
1
Old Dixie Hwy
41st Street
2300
1365
U.S.
1
41st Street
45th Street
2650
1370
U.S.
1
45th Street
49th Street
2650
1375
U.S.
1
49th Street
65th Street
2650
1380
U.S.
1
65th Street
69th Street
2650
1385
U.S.
1
69th Street
Old Dixie Hwy.
2650
1720
C.R.
512
I-95
C.R. 510
630
1730
C.R.
512
C.R. 510
W. Seb. City Limits
630
1740
C.R.
512
W. Seb. City Limits
Roseland Road
630
1810
C.R.
510
C.R. 512
66th Avenue
630
1820
C.R.
510
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
630
1830
C.R.
510
58th Avenue
U.S. 1
630
1840
2120
C.R.
510
U.S. 1
S.R. AlA
630
3030
17th
Street
I.R. Blvd.
S.R. AlA
1760
3035
58th
Avenue
S.R. 60_
41st Street
830
3040
58th
Avenue
41st Street
45th Street
630
58th
Avenue
45th Street
49th Street
630
33
BOOK 9 1 PAGE 135
F_
BOOK 91 PAGE 1.36
Water
With the proposed land use designation, the subject property could
accommodate 477 residential units, resulting in water consumption
at a rate of 477 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 119,250
gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250
gallons/ERU/day. The subject property is presently served by the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When
the North County Reverse Osmosis -Plant is complete, it will serve
the subject property. This plant, which is currently under
construction, will have a capacity .of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and will be able to -accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed amendment.
34
Segment
Roadway
Capacity
Segment
Road
From
To
LOS "D"
3045
58th
Avenue
49th Street
65th Street
630
3050
58th
Avenue
65th Street
69th Street
630
3055
58th
Avenue
69th Street
C.R. 510
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
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand
Determination
1020
665
84
749
571
22
Y
1030
805
83
889
172
22
Y
1040
890
59
949
171
22
Y
1050
760
24
784
456
22
Y
1060
458
15
473
837
30
Y
1070
458
14
472
838
30
Y
1080
405
35
440
870
30
Y
1160
509
45
554
1206
30
Y
1210
1030
1
1031
2499
38
Y
1315
1228
86
1304
956
30
Y
1320
1228
83
1301
959
30
Y
1325
1526
90
1616
754
30
Y
1330
1341
99
1440
830
44
Y
1335
1341
109
1450
820
44
Y
1340
1143
91
1234
1066
89
Y
1345
1143
117
1260
1040
89
Y
1350
1309
86
1395
905
89
Y
1355
1309
38
1347
953
89
Y
1360
910
78
988
1312
89
Y
1365
910
45
955
1695
89
Y
1370
910
44
954
1696
89
Y
1375
910
53
963
1687
89
Y
1380
910
35
945
1705
89
Y
1385
988-
40
1028
1622
89
Y
1720
365
92
457
173
60
Y
1730
385
24
409
221
27
Y
1740
385
13
398
232
27
Y
1810
422
91
513
117
235
N
1820
422
35
477
173
187
N
1830
422
32
474
176
149 -
Y
1840
393
30
423
207
45
Y
2120
1179
53
1232
528
30
Y
3030
523
113
636
194
38
Y
3035
435
24
659
171
38
Y
3040
332
21
353
277
38
Y
3045
369
28
397
233
38
Y
3050
369
10
379
251
38
Y
3055
266
32
298
332
38
Y
3170
201
14
215
415
38
Y
3310
116
8
124
506
38
Y
3320
116
9
125
505
38
Y
3330
227
26
253
377
38
Y
Water
With the proposed land use designation, the subject property could
accommodate 477 residential units, resulting in water consumption
at a rate of 477 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 119,250
gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250
gallons/ERU/day. The subject property is presently served by the
South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When
the North County Reverse Osmosis -Plant is complete, it will serve
the subject property. This plant, which is currently under
construction, will have a capacity .of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and will be able to -accommodate the additional demand
generated by the proposed amendment.
34
- Wastewater
The site is within the urban service area; however, wastewater
lines do not extend to the site at this time. Prior to final
consideration of this request by the Board of County Commissioners,
the applicant must enter into a developer's agreement with the
county which states that the developer agrees to connect to the
county wastewater system at the time of development.
When the subject property connects to county lines, it will be
serviced by the North County Wastewater Plant. Based upon the most
intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of
the property will have a wastewater generation rate of
approximately 477 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 119,250
gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of
250 gallons/ERU/day. The North County Wastewater Plant currently
has a remaining capacity of.more than 800,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed
amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by a 477
unit residential development on the subject site will be
approximately 763 Waste Generation Units (WGU) or 2260'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 2 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 designation, staff utilized the following formula: Total
number of WGUs X 1.25 X 2.37 (763 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 2260 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 site
under the proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
subject property is located within the M-3 Drainage Basin.
Therefore, development on the site would be prohibited from
discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the -on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
approximately 4,155,624 square feet, or 95.4 acres. The maximum
35
BOOK 91 FnE 137
DEC - 71993
r DEC - 7 1001
BOOK 91 uv 138
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, would be approximately 4,356,000
cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of
service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately
217,800 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil
characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the
pre -development runoff rate is 245 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards would be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre -
development rate of 245 cubic feet/second and requiring retention
of the 217,800 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the
property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
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 amendment indicates that
the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed
development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by
park type.
The concurrency requirements for drainage, solid waste, water, and
parks have been met for the proposed amendment. With the execution
of the referenced developer's agreements for roads and wastewater,
the concurrency test will be satisfied for the subject request.
Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is 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 - Existing units
Projected number of units needed (1990-2010)
When Indian River County and the State Department of Community
Affairs (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
36
LOS
Project
(Acres per
Demand
Surplus
Park Type
1000 population)
Acres
Acreage
Urban District
5.0
5.48
206.154
Community (north)
3.0
3.29
24.715
Beach
1.5
1.65
72.246
River
1.5
1.65
33.243
The concurrency requirements for drainage, solid waste, water, and
parks have been met for the proposed amendment. With the execution
of the referenced developer's agreements for roads and wastewater,
the concurrency test will be satisfied for the subject request.
Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is 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 - Existing units
Projected number of units needed (1990-2010)
When Indian River County and the State Department of Community
Affairs (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
36
by DCA, formally established an acceptable residential allocation
ratio for the county.
For the time period beginning with the adoption of the
comprehensive plan in 1990 through the end of 1992, the county had
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 unchanged, 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 would be 239. That is based on the following
information:
1. Total Acres: 159
2. Net Acres: 119.25 (Total Acres X 0.75)
3. Maximum Units in Low Density -1 Designation (3 units/acre): 358
4. Maximum Units in Rural Designation (1 unit/acre): 119
5. Net Increase in Units (358 - 119): 239
Using a conservative estimate, 39.75 acres, or 25% of the subject
property's 159 acres, would be used for infrastructure such as
roads and stormwater retention. Removing land used for
infrastructure leaves up to 119.25 acres for residences. At the
proposed density of up to 3 units/acre, 358 units could be built on
the subject property. This is an increase of 239 units over the
119 units that could be built under the existing designation of up
to 1 unit/acre.
As indicated, the proposed amendment's increase of 239 units is
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.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the 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,
37
qqw��Ii 1'�,
BOOK 91 PAGEt1.39
® - BOOK, 9� FAr,F
DEC 7 t9 B 140
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:
a mistake in the approved plan;
an oversight in the approved plan; or
a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the subject
property was programmed to receive utilities service by 2010.
Water lines, however, already extend to the site, and wastewater
lines are programmed to do the same by 1994. The early provision
of utilities service constitutes a change in circumstances
affecting the subject property.
Additionally, the new St. Sebastian River High School is now under
construction on C.R. 510, approximately one mile from the subject
property. This high school will attract families with children.
Generally, housing at a density of up to 3 units/acre is more
affordable for this group than the up to 1 unit/acre density
permitted under the current land use designation. The siting and
construction of this High School has occurred since plan adoption.
Therefore, the building of the new St. Sebastian River High School
constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the third
criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met, and
the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will
have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl, while
maintaining the overall low density character of the County. By
increasing the density of land currently within the urban service
area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county
can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or
sacrificing compactness. Furthermore, with a density of up to 3
units/acre, the requested L-1 land use designation maintains the
overall low density character of the County. For these reasons,
the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Objective 1.
38
_ M M
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the L-1, Low -
Density Residential -1 land use designation is intended for areas
which are:
1. suitable for urban and suburban scale development;
2. within the urban service area; and
3. located in proximity to existing urban centers.
Located within the urban service area, on a major road, and with
potable water service currently available and sanitary sewer
service programmed to be available in approximately one year, the
subject property meets each of Future Land Use Element Policy
1.11's criteria. Additional nearby public services that are under
construction include the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant and the
St. Sebastian River High School. The subject property borders the
City of Sebastian and lies one half of a mile from Vero Lake
Estates which has the same land use designation as that requested
for the subject property. Additionally, the zoning of the land in
the City of Sebastian that abuts the subject property permits a
higher density than that requested for the subject property. For
these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
- Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2
Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 states that the County will,
through the future land use element, provide higher densities along
major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass
transit provision. Since the proposed amendment will increase the
allowed density along C.R. 510, which is a major transportation
corridor, this request is consistent with Mass Transit Element
Policy 1.2.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared _the proposed
request to all the policies in the plan and found no conflicts.
Therefore, it is staff's position that the proposed amendment is
consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
It is staff's position that granting the request to redesignate the
subject property to L-1 would result in development which would be
compatible with surrounding areas. Although bordered on all sides
by groves or the St. Sebastian River, the subject property, at
approximately 159 acres, is large enough to buffer itself from the
adjacent agricultural uses (as required in Future Land Use Element
Policy 6.3 and in section 911.04(3)(c)5b of the County LDRs).
Despite the fact that it is currently used for groves, the land to
the north, east, and west- is designated for future residential
development. In fact, the adjacent land in the City of Sebastian
is designated for a higher density than that requested for the
subject property.
For these reasons, staff feels the requested L-1 land use
designation would be compatible with the surrounding area.
39
DEC - 71993, BOOK 91 PAGF 141
n
�Q BOOK 91 FA;E14.2
DEC v I
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject
property would be essentially the same under either the existing or
the proposed land use designation.
Changing the land use designation of the subject property from R to
L-1 may enhance environmental quality by encouraging residential
development of the site which is currently a grove.
The environmental quality of the site may be enhanced by
residential development, because site development would result in
construction of a stormwater management system, installation of a
shoreline protection buffer, and protection of jurisdictional
wetlands on site. Due to the county's stormwater retention
requirements for residential development, residential development
on the subject property would also reduce the amount of stormwater
runoff outfalling to the St. Sebastian River. The requirements
for residential development contrast with the present agricultural
design that allows drainage directly into the St. Sebastian River
without any stormwater retention. Therefore, the required
stormwater management associated with residential development
should reduce the amount of pollutants and freshwater runoff that
is currently placed into the river via the approximately 159 acre
agricultural operation.
In conjunction with subdivision plat approvals, the applicant would
be required to maintain a shoreline protection buffer zone along
the St. Sebastian River (929.06). Since the new subdivision
parcels would be created after June 18, 1991, the applicant would
be required to maintain a 100 foot shoreline protection buffer zone
along the St. Sebastian River (measured from the mean high water
mark).
All jurisdictional wetlands located on the parcel are protected by
federal, state, and county regulations. Wetlands associated with
the St. Sebastian River must retain a Con -2, Wetlands Conservation
District, (1 unit/40 acre) zoning designation, in accordance with
the County Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations
(reference Future Land Use Policy 1.31, LDR Section 911.05(3)(a)).
For these reasons, it is anticipated that there will not be any
significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this
request.
Alternatives
The applicant has three alternatives regarding development of the
subject property. These alternatives are:
1. Create and develop a subdivision of one acre single-family
lots under the current land use designation. Because of
infrastructure requirements, the total number of lots created
will be less than one/acre.
2. Create a Residential Planned Development under the current
land use designation. This alternative gives the applicant
site design options such as the clustering of development.
With respect to the subject property, up to 159 units could be
built on a portion of the property, while the balance of the
land would remain in agriculture or open space. The
undeveloped land could be developed in the future if the
underlying land use designation were ever changed to a higher
density.
40
M
3. . Request a land use designation amendment allowing more intense
development of the subject property. This is the alternative
the applicant has chosen. If this request is denied, the
applicant's other two options for site development remain.
With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has
two principal alternatives. The Board can approve or deny
transmittal of this amendment to DCA.
The Board can also direct staff to examine the land use designation
of the entire C.R. 510 corridor. Given changes, such as new
utility lines that have been installed in that area, such an
examination may be warranted.
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land
use designation is compatible with surrounding areas, consistent
with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will
not increase the County's approved residential allocation ratio,
will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets
all applicable land use designation amendment criteria. Most
importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed
suited for low density residential uses. For these reasons, staff
supports the request to amend the land use designation of the
subject property from R to L-1.
Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners approve transmittal of this land use amendment
to the Department of Community Affairs.
Community Development Director Robert Keating indicated the
various land uses on a map of the area. He explained that this
particular request does not meet concurrency requirements in the
areas of traffic and wastewater, but the developer can agree to
enter into developer agreements to comply with the requirements.
The traffic analysis projected that traffic generated by this
development would create a concurrency problem on a couple of
lengths. The developer can agree to enter into a developer's
agreement that at the time of development he would make the
necessary improvements to upgrade those lengths to accommodate the
anticipated traffic. Therefore, concurrency is not a problem, but
that is one thing the applicant would have to do before final
adoption of the final request. A similar situation exists with
respect to wastewater. The developer can agree to enter into a
developer's agreement to insure that capacity would be available at
the time development occurs. All the other concurrency related
facilities are adequate. There is sufficient capacity available to
accommodate this development if it is improved. Staff recommends
approval of the request.
M1
BOOK91 P JC 143
®u -11993
BOOK 91 PAGE 144
Commissioner Macht asked if the two areas to the north would
be better protected by a Planned Development (PD), but Director
Keating felt that either a PD or a straight subdivision would
suffice. Either way, they would have to stay away from the
wetlands along Sebastian Creek.
Commissioner Adams inquired about the time frame for extending
82nd Avenue to Laconia Street to CR -512, and Director Keating
advised that we don't have that on our 20 -year capital improvements
plan.
Public Works Director Jim Davis advised that 82nd Avenue looks
like the probable route for the citrus highway but it will
terminate at CR -510. However, we have been in contact with the
developer of the property between Laconia and CR -512 because we had
hoped that their development would allocate the right-of-way for
the Roseland Road south extension onto Laconia. However, it
appears they are not going to move ahead on their development, so
we are going to communicate with that property owner and go ahead
and get the right-of-way because it is needed for a 4 -way
intersection at Roseland Road.
Chairman Bird 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 Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-206, approving the transmittal of a
proposed land use amendment requested by Sebastian
Grove Holdings, Inc. to the DCA for a full review.
42
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 206
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July .1993 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 1993 after
due public notice, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 3 to'2 to recommend
that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive
plan amendment listed below; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1-), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
.Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from R, Rural (up to 1
unit/acre) to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to
3 units/acre) for approximately 159 acres located
at the northwest corner of C.R. 510 and 82nd
Avenue.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Macht and seconded by Commissioner Eggert and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
TheChairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 7th day of December 1993.
ATTEST:
J y K. Barton Clerk
43
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
BOOK 91 pnr-145
n
DEC ` 199 900K 91 PA,UF 146
PUBLIC HEARING — COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST — R & R GROVES
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:
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER3Curnat
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authorityy rsonally appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he ispeBusiness Manager of the
Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33 column inches
at 11.35 per column inch
billed to Indian River County Planning Department
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s)
of November 30, 1993 on page 3A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
6 day of December A.D 1993
SA
PQe �pTAiq �4•ct
_ . •(n T� Blmd - O7Agv 00r� �i�
. My COMM. ExOm : = itaUa, u, Cmudna.v, E.P .twre?§V1 f Manager
= Jum 29.1997 : _ C.�mYnskn �4xnha.: CC9onS7x
= Na CC300572 i
+F O F`OP,"� insaua� rc
44
NOTICE -OF -CHANGE OF LAND, USE AND �tx,
t "CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT ,4
The Board of County Commissioners. of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a pro-
posal to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County
and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public -hearing on the proposal will be'•`
held on Tuesday, December 7; 1993, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this
public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal '.
of these amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs for their review. _ The
proposed amendments are included in the proposed ordinance entitled:
AN -ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE
POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP-
ITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FU-' : i •. ,
TURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND
USE DESIGNATION FOR +%159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510 t
AND 82ND AVENUE FROM R TO L-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
+/-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND I-
95, FROM L-1 TO AG -1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COM--:
PREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 & C.R. 510 (NORTH)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-284 ACRES TO +/-292.36 ACRES; * ,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY RE-
DUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL NODE (C.R. 510 TO.
HOBART ROAD) FROM +/-190 ACRES TO +/-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the ap-
proval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel-
opment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building lo-
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testi-
mony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 408 at least 48
hours in advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
—
1N ANJA
b
nus cum
Subject
Property °
L-2 x /I
wear s A e� "=3 ;SUbject
71h STb . 6 b .:. , A, Property
11th ST
Subject Subject ••
ro=' Property + Property •'°'.,
N � ,
L r
M6 R
AG -2 ;
E,R
BOOK 91 PAPE 1.47
t1.
900K 91 PAGE 148
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/18/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEP NT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Obert M. Xda:Eirq4k AICD
Community Development ((rector
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP S -V
Chief, Long -Rance Planning
FROM: John Wachte
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 18, 1993
RE: R & R GROVES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY
8.4 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 8.4 ACRES
FROM RM -6 TO CG; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO
REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO L-2, AND
TO REZONE THAT 8.4 ACRES FROM IL AND A-1 TO RM -6
(LURA 93-07-0176)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of December 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to redesignate approximately 8.4 acres from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
commercial/ industrial node, while simultaneously redesignating 8.4
acres from C/I, commercial/ industrial node, to L-2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Both tracts are owned by R &
R Groves, a Florida general partnership.
In contrast to node expansion, this request will not increase the
amount of C/I designated land. Rather, this request will slightly
reconfigure two adjacent nodes. The proposed amendment will shift
8.4 acres from the U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node, C.R. 510 to
Hobart Road (77th Street), to the adjacent U.S. #1 and C.R. 510
(North) Commercial/Industrial Node,
The property to be redesignated to C/I, commercial/ industrial node,
is located at the southeast corner of C.R. 510 and 46th Avenue.
This property will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The
request includes changing the land use designation of this tract
from M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CG,
General Commercial District.
The property to be redesignated from C/I, commercial/ industrial
node, to L-2 is located at the southwest corner of 79th Street and
the F.E.C. Railroad Tracks. This property will be referred to as
Subject Property 2. The request *includes changing the land use
designation of this tract from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, to
46
r
L-2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre), and rezoning
the property from IL, Light Industrial District and A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -6, Multiple -
Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
The purpose of this request is to allow the commercial development
of Subject Property 1.
On October 14, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 to recommend the transmittal of the proposed land use amendment
request to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for
their review.
Existing Land Use Pattern
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and adjacent properties to the north, across
C.R. 510, and south are zoned,RM-6 and contain groves. To the east
is vacant land, also zoned RM -6. The vacant land to the west is
zoned CL, Limited Commercial District.
- Subject Property 2
Except for a chain link fence near the property's south and west
boundaries, Subject Property 2 is a vacant, unused portion of an
approximately 15 acre parcel. A citrus packing house operates on
the remainder of the 15 acre parcel. Except for a small A-1 zoned
area in the southwest corner of the parcel, the entire parcel is
zoned IL.
South of the parcel is the Hobart Estates subdivision which
contains nine lots, three of which are developed with single-family
residences. Some portions of this subdivision are zoned A-1, while
others are zoned IL.
East of the parcel containing Subject Property 2, across the
railroad tracks and Old Dixie Highway, the land is zoned CL and
contains abandoned groves. Land to the north and west of Subject
Property 2 is zoned RM -6 and is undeveloped. The land to the north
is heavily wooded.
Future Land Use Pattern
-Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and adjacent lands to the south and east are
designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential 1, on the county's
future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 8 units/acre. Land to the north, across C.R.
510, is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential 2, on the county's
future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses
with densities up to 6 units/acre. Land to the west is designated
C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, which permits various commercial
and industrial zoning districts.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties
designated C/I. Properties to the
2 on the county's future land use
!IVA
C
__71993
to the east and south, are also
west and north are designated L -
map.
BOOK 91 F'AGE 149
DEC - 7 1991
BOOK
Environment
- Subject Property 1
91 un 150 ,
Subject Property 1 is currently used for agricultural purposes,
being a citrus grove. No wetlands or native upland plant
communities exist on site. The subject property is within an "AE"
100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation
requirement of 8 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of
1929).
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 is not within a flood hazard area. The northern
portion of the property is intermixed with disturbed wetlands and
scrub habitat. Environmental planning staff have concluded that,
due to its former use as a sand mining operation, no intact (ground
cover, understory, and canopy) native upland plant communities
exist on the southern 50% of the site.
Utilities.and Services
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 is within the Urban Service Area of the County;
however, water and wastewater lines do not extend to the site.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 is also within the Urban Service Area of the
County. In this case, water lines do not extend to the site, while
wastewater lines do extend to the site from the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant.
Transportation System
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 has access to C.R. 510 which is classified as an
urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare
plan map. This segment of C.R. 510 is a two-lane paved road with
approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This
segment of C.R. 510 is not currently programmed for expansion. The
site also has access to 46th Avenue which is a local road.
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 has no road frontage. The overall #15 acre
parcel containing Subject Property 2, however, has access to 77th
Street (Hobart Road) via an easement, This segment of 77th Street
is classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. Currently an unpaved two lane roadway with
approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way, this segment of
77th Street is programmed to be paved by 1995.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. Following a discussion of node
reconfiguration, 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; and
• alternatives.
48
- M
- M M
Discussion of Node Reconfiguration
- Standard of Review
Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request
involves a net decrease in land use intensity. As proposed, the
request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion,
of commercial/industrial nodes. Besides the commercial
reconfiguration, this request involves removing 8.4 acres of M-1
designated land, with a density of up to 8 units/acre, while adding
t.4 acres of L-2 designated land, which has a density of up to 6
units/acre. The net result is a decrease of 2 units/acre for 8.4
acres.
For this reason, the subject request can be characterized
differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments
involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development.
As such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public
facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both
the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high
standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This
standard of review requires justification for the proposed change
based upon adequate data and analysis.
The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a
typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing density or
intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a
locational shift in future land uses with a net density decrease.
If is staff's position that these different types of plan
amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the
typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the
projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the
original plan, a high standard of review is justified. For
amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/
density increase, less justification is necessary. This recognizes
that no single land use plan map is correct and, in fact, many
variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet
established plan policies. -
- Land Use Efficiency
The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/
industrial nodes. While the node containing Subject Property 2
focuses principally on the U.S. #1 Corridor, the node containing
Subject Property 1 is positioned to serve both the U.S. #1 and the
C.R. 510 Corridors.
Several factors suggest that there is a greater need for more
commercially designated land along the C.R. 510 Corridor than along
the U.S. #1 Corridor. These factors include: population growth on
the northern portion of the barrier island and along the C.R. 510
Corridor; recent development proposals in this portion of the
County (including a Disney Company resort); and the land owner's
proposed use of the subject properties. Together, these factors
indicate that the proposed node reconfiguration (moving the
commercial designation of 8.4 acres from the U.S. #1 Corridor to
the C.R. 510 Corridor) will supply a presently unmet demand for
commercially designated land along the C.R. 510 corridor.
For these reasons, the proposed amendment is logical and rational,
and will facilitate efficient land use.
49
A -11 a- W11 "
BOOK 91 F'AF 151
DEC ® 7 1993 BOOK 9.1 PAGE 152
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1).. The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that
new development be reviewed. For land use designation amendment
requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional
concurrency determination application process.
As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations
(LDR), conditional concurrency review examines the available
capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project.
Since land use 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
land use designation. For commercial/ industrial land use amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDR's) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1 is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Most Intense Use with Existing
Land Use Designation:
4. Proposed Land Use Designation:
t8.4 acres
M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
67 Dwelling Units
C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node
5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 84,000
square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th
Edition ITE Manual).
For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use
(according to the County's LDR's) is the maximum number of units
that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and
the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The
site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject
Property 2 is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: t8.4 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial/
Industrial Node
3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 84,000
square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th
Edition ITE Manual).
4. Proposed Land Use Designation: L- 2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6
units/acre)
5. Most Intense Use with Proposed
Land Use Designation: 50 Dwelling Units
50
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from
concurrency review because the requested land use designation
changes would not increase the square footage of retail commercial
use or the total number of potential units that the sites could
accommodate.
There will, in fact, be a net reduction in land use intensity with
approval of the request. While the amount of commercially
designated land will remain the same, with 8.4 acres changed from
residential to commercial and a corresponding 8.4 acres changed
from commercial to residential, the 8.4 acres that are currently
designated M-1 (up to 8 units/acre) and proposed for redesignation
to commercial will be replaced with 8.4 acres of commercial land
that will be redesignated to L-2 (up to 6 units/acre).
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service
levels for any public facility as a result of this land use
designation amendment.
In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in
conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will
address facility service levels and demand.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
- Subject Property.l
Commercial development on Subject Property 1 would be compatible
with surrounding areas. Since this property abuts commercially
designated land to the west, the proposed redesignation would
result in a•continuation of an existing land use designation
pattern.
While the properties to the north, south and east are currently
used for groves, they are zoned RM -6 and could be converted to
residential uses. Given the current zoning of this land and the CG
zoning requested for Subject Property 1, development on Subject
Property 1 would be required to install a Type "C" vegetative
buffer with a six foot opaque feature along its southern and
eastern borders.
If surrounding properties, including those to the north, across
C.R. 510, were converted to residential uses, the resultant
developments would be large enough to provide adequate buffers and
to orient residences away from Subject Property 1. The most severe
impacts of development of Subject Property 1 would be on adjacent
land, currently owned by the applicant, to the south and -east.
For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use
designation for Subject Property 1 would cause minimal impacts and
result in development compatible with the surrounding area.
-Subject Property 2
The proposed amendment will not increase potential
incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property
2. Residential and industrial zoning districts abut along the
site's northern and western borders. Since the parcel containing
Subject Property 2 was developed prior to the adoption of Land
Development Regulations requiring buffers, there are no buffers
along this border. The proposed amendment will simply move the
location of the border where the two zoning districts abut.
51
DEC — 7 1993
BooK 91 F 1cr 153 .
There are two scenarios under which Subject Property 2 could be
residentially developed. The first scenario would require Planned
Development approval which gives the Board of County Commissioners
more flexibility in setting approval standards. Under this
scenario, the Board could require additional buffering of the
property.
The other, and more likely, scan
Subject Property 2 with one of
parcels. At 43 and 180 acres,
large enough to buffer themselves
industrial use.
trio involves the combination of
.he adjacent residentially zoned
respectively, these parcels are
from the impacts of the existing
Presently, the applicant has no plans to develop Subject Property
2. Due to its configuration, the only commercial or industrial use
feasible on Subject Property 2 is the expansion of the existing
packing house contained on the overall 15 acre parcel. Since the
applicant has no intention to expand the packing house, Subject
Property 2's greatest value and most efficient use is as a
residentially designated tract that can be combined with adjacent
residentially designated land.
For these reasons,, the proposed amendment will not increase
potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject
Property 2.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with -all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the 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 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:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Future Land Use Element Policy i3.3 is especially important when
evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or
intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not
increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutiny.
52
In this case,
reconfiguration
intensity.
- M
the subject request is for a minor node
which actually decreases the overall land use
With respect to Policy 13.3, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets the policy's third criterion. For typical
amendment requests, substantial evidence justifying a change in
circumstances would need to be documented. Because the subject
amendment involves only a re -orientation of future land uses, a
physical change in circumstances need not be documented. In this
case, the change in circumstances relates to the property owner's
expectations for use of his properties. These expectations are
based in part on trends in the vicinity of his properties.
Recent development activities in proximity to the subject property
have changed market forces -affecting the properties. Population
growth has continued on the north barrier island and the Disney
Company's proposed 599 unit Resort Development at the intersection
of C.R. 510 and S.R. AlA has been approved. With approval of the
Disney project, the only commercial property on the north barrier
island will be used for residential and hotel uses. This can be
expected to increase demand for C/I designated land along C.R. 510.
To accommodate the increase in demand for C/I designated land along
C.R. 510 without increasing the amount of C/I designated land,
nearby C/I nodes can be adjusted.
It is staff's position that the change in market forces and the
need to address such changes constitute a change in circumstances
affecting the subject property. Therefore, the proposed amendment
meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the Low -Density
Residential land use designation is intended for areas within the
urban service area that are suitable for urban and suburban scale
development. These areas should be located in proximity to
existing urban centers.
Subject Property 2 is located within the urban service area, near
the city of Sebastian, and is suitable for low-density urban
residential development. The proposed amendment would allow such
development on Subject Property 2. Therefore, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the commercial land
use designation should be within the urban service area and is
intended for office, retail trade, service, and similar uses.
Fronting a major road, adjacent to commercially designated land,
and within the urban service area, Subject Property 1 is
appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would
allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the
proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.15.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a
designated size based on the intended use and service area
population, existing land use pattern and other demand
characteristics.
M
DEC - 71993
BOOK 91 FAu 155
BOOK 91 FAr,F �.,56
DEC ®71993
The amount of C/I designated land is based on service area
population, the existing land use pattern, and other demand
characteristics. The proposed amendment will not alter the amount
of C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries
should provide for efficient land uses and maximum use of
transportation facilities while eliminating strip development.
Based on demand characteristics, the most efficient uses of the
subject sites are as requested in the proposed amendment.
Additionally, C/I designated land along C.R. 510 would provide for
the maximum use of that transportation facility. Subject Property
1, located on a corner, with access to two roads, has ample depth
as well as width. Therefore, redesignation of the subject
properties will not result in strip development. For these
reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 states that 70% of the land
area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non-
agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion.
When considered separately, the node containing Subject Property 1
does not meet this standard.
The intent of this policy, however, is to regulate increases in the
amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed amendment
intends to remove an equal amount of land from one node as is to be
added to an adjacent node, there would be no increase in the amount
of C/I designated land associated with this amendment. For that
reason, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23's 70% developed
standard does not apply to this amendment.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated
commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its
former designation if construction on the site has not commenced
within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the
Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement.
This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that
demand for additional C/I designated land is present before
requests to expand nodes.are approved. This policy also allows for
the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of
demand for more C/I designated land.
- Economic Development Element Policy 1.1
Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county
shall encourage the attraction of new businesses. The proposed
amendment will move C/I designated land from an area where it is
unlikely to be used to an area where it will be developed. The
location of Subject Property 1 on a major road in a fast growing
area is attractive to commercial businesses. Therefore, the
proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element
Policy 1.1.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
54
_ M M
- M M
that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Since Subject Property 1 is presently used for a grove, and
therefore has been disturbed, development of that site under either
the existing residential or the requested commercial/industrial
land use _designation would have* no significant negative
environmental impacts.
While Subject Property 2 has also been disturbed, it does contain
some uplands communities and wetlands. County environmental
permitting requirements, including the 10$/15$ native upland plant
community set-aside requirement, are the same under either the
existing commercial/ industrial or the requested residential land
use designation. However, compared to a commercial/ industrial use,
residential development may be more likely to preserve the native
habitat and wetland areas for their aesthetic value.
For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment would have no
significant detrimental effects on the environment at either site.
Alternatives
This land use designation amendment request involves two sites. In
order to meet the criteria of several comprehensive plan policies,
including Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23, the redesignation of
both sites must be considered jointly. Redesignating only one of
the subject sites would not be consistent with the comprehensive
plan and, therefore, is not an option available to the County.
With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has
three alternatives. The alternatives are:
1. Deny transmittal of this amendment to the Department of
ommunity Affairs.
2. Approve transmittal of this amendment to the Department of
Community Affairs.
3. Approve transmittal of this amendment, with changes, to the
Department of Community Affairs.
Conclusion
As proposed, the land use designation changes at both sites are
consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all
surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the
environment or the provision of public services. For these
reasons, staff supports the request.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board
transmittal of this- land use
Department of Community Affairs.
55
of County Commissioners approve
designation amendment to the
aoo� 91 F�,cF157
C_ - � 199
DEC 71993
BOOK 91 FA,E 158 7
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that
this is an unusual request, but we have talked to the applicant at
great length and agree that this is the mechanism to take. Staff
recommends approval.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Chris Marine, representing the applicants, stated he
was here to answer any questions the Board might have. There were
none.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-207, approving the transmittal of a
proposed land use amendment requested by K & R
Groves to the DCA for a full review.
RESOLUTION NO. 93-207
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1993 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
56
� r �
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2.- The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -l- (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node for approximately 8.4
acres located at the southeast corner of C.R. 510
and 46th Avenue; and from C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node to L-2, Low -Density Residential -2
(up to 6 units/acre) for approximately 8.4 acres
located at the southwest corner of 79th Street and
the F.E.C. Railroad Tracks.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Marht and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 7th day of December 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman -
DEC -
ATTEST:
Je rey K . Ba �tjo, n,� ('Clerk
Jai : c a�xc � �• �`�" � �`.' -� �.
57
1
7 99BOOK 91 PK 59
J
I
BOOK 91 ��,��.�0
PUBLIC HEARING - COMP PLAN AMENDMENT REQUEST BREWER
INTERNATIONAL. INC.
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:
�i
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Tr C * 3our111i
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on onth says that he is Business Manager of the
Vero Bench Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Bench In
Indian River County, Florida; that
a display ad measuring 33 column inches
at 11.35 per column inch
billedto Indian River County Planning Department
was published In said newspaper in the iasue(s)
or November 30, 1993 on page 3A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
6 day of December A.D 1993
• °� CMSp
��Qe�p7Agy:�a,;.
4 Ilr PII�q i�
N17came.Expires. sir.rrro,b,,,u,amun .,,Pj-1A11u11q,: Mnnnger
Jme 29.1997 : con.N, ren w.r.. ccimsn
? Na ccaoos72 : i
"':� OFF\�P".• Wi�uCsim�mrr�
58
NOTICE -OF -CHANGE OF LAND' USE* AND `"'
`CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT :. T
Board of County Commissioners. of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a pro-
;? posai to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County.
0 and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public- hearing on the proposal will be
held on Tuesday, December 7; 1993, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of. 0
the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this I;
public hearing the 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 entitledi
AN -ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE'.. "
POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP-,
RAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FU-'�;:(; ';•
i'tt:'•:`` TURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND
s'.. 0 USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510
' AND 82ND AVENUE FROM R TO L-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR tri w
+/-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND 1- ''.:
"i 95, FROM L-1 TO AG -1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COM -,,t.: r
PREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 & C.R. 510 (NORTH) •;:;
COMMERCIAUINDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-284 ACRES TO +/-292.36 ACRES;'.' s;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY RE-
' DUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (C.R. 510 TO I
HOBART ROAD) • FROM +/-190 ACRES TO +/-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING'_')',.-.' ,
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the ap
proval of theseproposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. ,
:.The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel-
opment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building lo-
cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5s00
p.m. on weekdays.
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testi-
mony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's '
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 408 at least 48
hours in advance of meeting.
t' Indian River Count'
Board of County Commissioners.
+ Byt -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman •. ;
791 h FT
. • ,t t r c n ♦ 'e il.l� L1�l �-2 o AN NJA'
Subject j'iy' a N ; _ r cuts, ve D L Qum
Property ;41� `' °: + J :L� G �, Tbl1l I� ,;&
L-2 ; C/I 444 ! e}}lyse W'r
;. , �? • i_; �l� Subject
Pro e.rt
�*�AT
TSA i I _ i � p _ y ,
, '•t . t i i 11 .�
t
.,.` :�, ?•• Subject Subject
Property Property •...� ..�.:,t
m L-1 R
_ 2 N {;
Ic 13 IQ
s
59
BOOK 91 PAGE 1#01
BOOK 91 DIU.18
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/16/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Keatilig, A
Community Developmen'f Director
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP 5 -(Z-
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John WachteA/
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 16, 1993
RE: BREWER INTERNATIONAL,, INC. REQUEST TO AMEND THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 6.4 ACRES
FROM L-1 TO AG -1 (LURA 93-07-0153)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of December 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a -request to change the land use designation of
approximately 6.4 acres from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to
3 units/acre) to AG -11 Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Due
to the size and location of the subject property, this request does
not involve changes to the Urban Service Area (USA). A rezoning is
not part of this request. _
Located on the west side of 90th Avenue between 8th Street and I-
95, the subject property is owned by Brewer International, Inc.
The applicant manufactures agricultural products on the site. This
use is permitted as a special exception use in the existing A-1
zoning district.
The applicant plans to eventually expand the structure on the site,
but cannot do so unless all special exception criteria for
agricultural businesses in the A-1 zoning district are met. One of
the special exception criteria for an agricultural business in the
A-1 zoning district is the requirement that the business be located
in an area designated as either agricultural or rural on the
comprehensive plan's future land use map. At the time the site was
developed, it had an agricultural land use designation and,
therefore, met this criterion. With the current L-1 land use
designation, however; the use is non -conforming - and cannot be
expanded. By changing the land use designation of the site to an
agricultural designation, the existing business will again conform
to county land development regulations and may be expanded.
On October 14,
0 to recommend
request to the
their review.
1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
the transmittal of the proposed land use amendment
State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for
Existina Land Use Pattern
The subject property, encircled by a chain link fence, is zoned A-1
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and contains an
agricultural products plant and a small retention pond on the north
portion of the site and rows of trees on the south portion of the
site. Land to the north, also zoned A-1, is developed with a
residence and several storage buildings. To the east, across a
drainage canal and 90th Avenue, is pasture land zoned RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/ acre). I-95 borders
the subject property on the south and west.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and property to the north and east are
designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acro) on
the future land use map. The L-1 designation allows agricultural
uses and residential uses with densities of up to 3 units/acre.
Land to the west and south, across I-95, is designated AG -2,
Agricultural -2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) on the future land use map.
The AG -2 designation allows agricultural uses and residential uses
with densities of up to 1 unit/10 acres.
Environment
According to County Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the subject property
is located in a Zone A; this indicates that the property is within
the 100 -year floodplain. No base flood elevations have been
determined for this site. Although the interior of this parcel is
landscaped with native and non-native trees, the perimeter has-been
invaded by the Brazilian pepper, an exotic, nuisance species.
While some protected native
environmental planning staff have
cover, understory, and canopy)
exist on the site.
Utilities and Services
trees exist on the property,
concluded that no intact (ground
native upland plant communities
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the County; however,
wastewater lines do not extend to the site. The South County
Reverse Osmosis Plant provides potable water to the site.
Transportation System
The property has access to 90th Avenue which is classified as a
collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map.
This segment of 90th Avenue is a two-lane dirt road with
approximately 50 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This
segment of 90th Avenue is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of
public road right-of-way by 2010.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will include a
description of:
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
61
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 FAGF 163
DEC o 7 1993 BOOK 91 FA,F 164
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the County Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage,. and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services
and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan also requires
that new development be reviewed. For land use amendment requests,
this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency
determination application process.
As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations
(LDR), conditional concurrency review examines the available
capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project.
Since land use 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
land use designation. For agricultural land use amendment
requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDR's) is
the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given
the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed
land use designation. The site information used for the
concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: t6.4 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: L- 1, Low -Density
Residential -1 (up to 3
units/acre)
3. Maximum Number of Units with Existing Land Use Designation: 19
4. Proposed Land Use.Designation: AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up
to 1 unit/5 acres)
5. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Land Use Designation: 1
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency
requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from
concurrency review, because the requested land use designation
would not increase the total number of potential units that the
site could accommodate.
It is important to note that there will be no effect on service
levels for any public facility as a result of the land use
amendment.
In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in
conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will
address facility service levels and demand.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
As with any proposed land use change, it is important to assess
whether or not this requested land use designation will be
compatible with surrounding areas. Since the subject property is
located at the edge of the urban service area, this request is
essentially for an extension of the existing agricultural land use
designation west and south of the site. Therefore, staff
62
determined that any possible impacts associated with this request
would be on future residential development to the north and east.
If the subject property were redesignated to AG -1, the parcels to
the north and east would be among parcels in several areas of the
county where agricultural and residential land use designations
abut. The parcel to the north of the subject property is
approximately eight acres in size, while the parcel to the east of
the subject property, across the drainage canal and 90th Avenue, is
approximately 65 acres in size. Both of these parcels are large
enough to buffer themselves from active agricultural uses as
required in the County's comprehensive plan (Future Land Use
Element Policies 1.36 and 6.3) and Land Development Regulations
(Section 911.04(3)(c)5). According to these requirements, the
minimum buffer provided must include a 25 foot buffer yard with a
type "B" buffer and a six foot opaque feature.
Additionally, given the present agricultural uses of the parcels
north and east of the subject property, incompatibilities would
occur only if the current agricultural uses of these parcels were
converted to residential uses. Since agricultural and residential
land use designations must abut, the most logical place for it to
occur, in terms of compatibility, is in an area presently dominated
by agricultural uses. In this way, if agricultural land were
developed with residential uses, the developer and the residents
would know in advance that adjacent land is designated for
agricultural uses.
For these reasons, staff has determined that this request will not
create incompatibilities with the surrounding area.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the 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:
a mistake in
an oversight
a substantial
property.
the approved plan;
in the approved plan: or
change in circumstances affecting the subject
63
BOOK 91 FACE 165
Fr__ -1
DEC - 7 1993 BOOK 91 NAGE 166
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's second criterion.
Prior to February 13, 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was
adopted, land use was governed by the previous comprehensive plan's
future land use map which was adopted in 1982 and last amended in
1988 (see attachment 4).
Inspection of previous future land use maps shows that the subject
property historically had an agricultural designation. Although
the Board of County Commissioners never intended to change the
subject property's land use designation, an oversight caused the
subject property to be included in the expanded L-1 designated area
east of I-95 and south of 8th Street. The Board did not consider
that agricultural uses existed on the subject property. This
oversight occurred when the current comprehensive plan was adopted.
For this reason, the proposed amendment meets the second criterion
of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 and is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7 states that the agricultural
land use is applied to those areas of the county that have been
traditionally used for agricultural purposes and are sufficiently
removed from urban areas. This -policy also states that the
agricultural land use category will ensure continuation of the
industry.
Located in an area dominated by agricultural and vacant land, the
subject property's only use is and has been agricultural. Since
the site, at the edge of the urban service area, is removed from
urban development and has traditionally been used for agricultural
purposes, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.7.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3
Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3 states that the county shall
permit the continuation of agricultural uses east of I-95. The
purpose of this request is to provide for the continuation and
expansion of an existing agricultural use. Additionally, the site
is not only east of I-95, but also contiguous to agriculturally
designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 10
Future Land Use Element Objective 1.0 states that the county will
reduce the number of uses which are inconsistent with the future
land use map. Since the existing use on the site is inconsistent
with the current future land use plan designation, but would be
consistent with the proposed land use designation, the request is
consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 10.
- Economic Development Element Policy 1.1
Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county
shall encourage the expansion of existing businesses. Since the
existing use is non -conforming under the present land use
designation, but not under the requested land use designation, this
request facilitates expansion of the existing business. Therefore,
the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development
Element Policy.l.l.
64
M
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Agricultural operations are largely exempt from county
environmental permitting requirements. For this reason, land use
designation -changes from residential to agricultural usually have
'negative impacts on the environment. However, since the subject
property has already been disturbed and contains no environmentally
important areas, such as wetlands or native upland plant
communities, no negative environmental impacts associated with this
request are anticipated.
Conclusion
The proposed AG -1 land use designation is consistent with the
comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, and
will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision
of public services. For these reasons, staff supports the request
to change the subject property's land use designation from L-1 to
AG -1.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
transmittal of this land use amendment to the Department of
Community Affairs.
Community Development Director Robert Keating advised that
staff recommends approval of this Comp Plan amendment request.
Chairman Bird 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 Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-208, approving the transmittal of a
proposed land use amendment requested by Brewer
International, Inc. to the DCA for a full review.
65
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 PnE 167
BOOK 91 PAGE 168
RESOLUTION NO. 93- pna
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1993 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS; the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 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; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the
Comprehensive Plan from L-1, Low -Density
Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to AG -1,
Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) for
approximately 6.4 acres located on the west side of
90th Avenue, between 8th Street and I-95.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Adams and seconded by Commissioner Macht and upon
being put to a vote the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Ayp
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin fig_
Commissioner Fran B. Adams AMP
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ada
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht ATP
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 7th day of December 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
66
I
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE POTABLE
WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENTS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The hour of 9:05 o'clock a.m. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-23115
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Trr�, Ji 0urnal
STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J.
Schumann, Jr. who on onth says that e s Business Manager or the
Vero Bench Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in
Indian River County, Florida: that
a display ad measuring 33 column inches
at 11,35 per column inch
billed to -Indian River County Planning Department
waspublished in said newspaper In the Issue(s)
of November 30, 1993 on page 3A
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
6 day of
December AM 1993
"gyp C SP`'•
P
0 �CG
J
v�pT/Iq
si
imp %S
, M, arr r�lrryn�
Nly Cdmm.F7pires:
1114'r brtl ��ii��
.. utCmmtlsa.m l.p r...e'1U�14pT Manager
jam 29.1897
ComrdsaM M+.ln. U: 15,2
s No. CC300672 �{
r uc srmus,n
67
DEC ® 71993 9®®K 91 FacF169
ac - � 1993
BOOK 91 FAcF 170
NOTICE -OF 'CHANGE OF LAND' USE AND
'CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT
`' '''The Board of Count' Commissioners of Indian River Count', Florida, will consider a pro-
:;
pool to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County .
and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposal will be
held on Tuesday, December 7; 1993, at 9105 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of d
r the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this 4;
public hearing the 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 entitledi
AN -ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE 3�
. POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP,.,,, �:`
` ITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FU
:'•,.:'- TURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND
>" •t USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510 *•:::i,
�'• '
AND 82ND AVENUE FROM R TO L-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT'
OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR to r •
+/-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE, BETWEEN 8TH STREET AND I-• ". `..: a
• '''i 95, FROM L-1 TO AG -1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COM-. h;
PREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 & C.R. 510 (NORTH)
COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-284 ACRES TO +/-292.36 ACRES;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY RE-
'DUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE (C.R. 510 TO•_s..f
HOBART ROAD) FROM +/-190 ACRES TO +/-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING
CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the ap
proval of theseproposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel-
opment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building lo -
cared at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8130 a.m. and 5:00
p.m. on weekdays. ,•
NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THESE REQUESTS.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testi-
mony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. -
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 408 at least 48..
hours in advance of meeting.
I• Indian River Count' t'
( Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Richard N. Bird, Chairman
- . Iltti tl1 r. • I .e IIII��.II I���I�� L_ A NJA
r t
t
11 `. eeua a 1.Lj�p�( a L ou
Subjec.t 117'i,� O N + : G �lb� l }n
Fi ! s
PropertyCA
4.s
L-2
13 Subject
RrS A E \ f•:, A L r1 t Property
7th ST 9 3I Ath
Subject Subject
}
Property ± Property >'
R r t
I \' Ali �. , 4r'� i �s • • . , ± • • .. � R
• 1 , t i ` � ', •' LT� '
1 a ` ••
67a
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DIV ION HEAD CONCURRENCE
Robert M. Kea iffq, AIpr
Community Devel2pmenv D��i//rector
THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP 5. (L.
Chief, Long -Range -Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: November 29, 1993
RE: COUNTY 'INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE POTABLE WATER AND
SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENTS AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (CPTA 93-07-0154)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of December 7, 1993.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
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.
Also, the plan, itself, requires annual amendment of certain
elements. For example, the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of
the plan needs annual amendment as required both by Plan policy and
state regulations. For those reasons the county has initiated this
amendment.
At this time, the county is initiating a comprehensive plan
amendment which involves several elements of the plan. The
affected elements are: the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -
Elements and the Capital Improvements 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 October 14, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to
0 to recommend the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan
amendment request to the State Department of Community Affairs
(DCA) for their review.
68
BOOK 91 PAGE 1.71
DEC - 71993
BOOK
Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Elements
One component of the comprehensive plan is the Urban Service Area
(USA). Not only does the plan's urban service area limit urban
development to appropriate areas where urban services can be
efficiently provided, but the USA also delineates an area where the
county will provide urban services.
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.1 established the USA as depicted
on the Future Land Use Map. Because roadways are easily
Identifiable on maps, the boundaries of the USA were established
along major roads. Following plan adoption, a question arose
regarding the economic feasibility of providing utility service to
only one side of roads whose rights-of-way contain utility lines.
Prior to plan adoption, the county had not considered this factor.
Subsequently, the county developed and adopted, and DCA approved,
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 states that:
By 1993, Indian River County shall conduct a corridor study
for each roadway which serves as an urban service area
boundary. A corridor includes road right-of-way and property
within one-quarter mile of land area on both sides of the
right-of-way. The Rings Highway Corridor is hereby designated
as a high priority corridor study area. For each corridor
studied, the analysis shall identify programmed infrastructure
improvements, particularly water and sewer lines. Where water
and sewer lines are planned for installation within the right-
of-way of a roadway serving as the urban service area
boundary, the study will examine the financial, environmental
and physical impacts of providing urban services to land on
both sides of the right-of-way. Based upon the study results,
the existing urban service area designation and land use plan
designation for lands within the corridor will be assessed,
and necessary changes will be identified. Any identified
changes shall address the need to reduce the size of the Urban
Service Area boundary depicted on the Future Land Use Map in
order to compensate for any recommended expansion of the Urban
Service Area boundary to discourage the proliferation of .urban
sprawl, to ensure the separation of urban and rural land uses
and to maintain the relationship between the needs of the
projected population and the land uses depicted on the Future
Land Use Map. Such changes shall then be considered by the
Board of County Commissioners as proposed comprehensive plan
amendments.
In April, staff completed the corridor study mandated by Future
Land Use Element Policy 1.37 (see attachment 2). Based on that
study, a land use designation amendment request was initiated by
the County. That amendment request involved expansion of the USA
to include all land within a quarter of a mile from roadways for
which utility line installation is programmed to be completed by
1995, as well as the fast growing 58th Avenue corridor which was
designated a high priority in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37.
As proposed, that amendment would also have changed the land use
designation of the land added to the USA from AG -1, Agricultural -1
(up to 1 unit/5 acres) to R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre).
On April 22, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public
hearing to consider that amendment. At that public hearing,
concerns were raised regarding the proposed increase in density.
Citing these concerns, 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
69
M
that would expand the USA, but which would not change the land use
designation of the subject property.
On June 22, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners considered the
comprehensive plan amendment request to expand the USA and
redesignate land from AG -1 to R. At that time, the Board voted not
to transmit the proposed amendment to DCA for its review; instead,
the Board directed staff to research the issue further and to
schedule a Board workshop to discuss the issue in more detail. In
taking this action, the Board indicated that it wanted to revisit
'the comprehensive plan's utility provisions in general, rather than
focusing only on urban service area expansion.
At the Board workshop held on July 27, 1993, the Board directed
staff to initiate this comprehensive plan text amendment, revising
Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Policy 5.9 to allow utilities service to lots located within a
quarter of a mile of the USA. Of the 700+ policies of the
comprehensive plan, these are the only two that prohibit extension
of water and sewer services outside of the USA.
Capital Improvements Element
As part of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the
comprehensive plan, the county adopted a Capital Improvements
Program (CIP). As amended, the CIP now addresses the 1992-1997
period. Since it is already 1993, the county must revise its CIP
to reflect the appropriate time period.
While some of the improvements identified and budgeted in the
current CIP have already been accomplished, other improvements need
to be re-evaluated in terms of costs, revenues, and prioritization.
At the time of plan adoption, it was known that the CIP would
become outdated each year; therefore, one of the policies of the
CIE (policy 1.1), as adopted, requires annual evaluation and update
of the CIP. Also, state regulations mandate that the CIE be
amended if conditions change to warrant it.
The CIP is an important part of the Capital Improvements Element.
Since the CIP incorporates improvements reflected in other plan
elements, and estimates and projections reflected in other portions
of the Capital Improvements Element, revisions to the CIP require
amendment to the CIE as a whole. The Capital Improvements Element,
as proposed for revision, is attached.
ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES
In this section, an analysis of the proposed changes by element
will be provided. Consistency of the amendments with the
comprehensive plan and alternatives to the proposed changes will
also be addressed.
Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
The corridor analysis prepared by staff pursuant to the
requirements of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 contained
several important findings and conclusions. First, the analysis
found that it was necessary to use the roadways programmed for
utility line installation to accommodate the lines because other
rights-of-way were already too crowded.
Second, the analysis found that it would be cost effective if
utility service were made available to those lands adjacent to
roadways serving as utility corridors. However, two policies of
the Infrastructure Element of the comprehensive plan currently
70
DEC C - 1993 BOOK 91
J
- V7 19939
BOOK 91 pArE
. X74
prohibit provision of utilities service outside the USA. Staff
sought to address this issue through a comprehensive plan amendment
expanding the USA to include those lands adjacent to roadways
serving as utility corridors.
Since land within the USA qualifies for urban development, USA
expansion is usually accompanied by a land use map change
- redesignating land added to the USA. Such a land use map change
was part of the comprehensive plan amendment expanding the USA.
In preparing the corridor study and developing the associated
comprehensive plan amendment recommendations, staff focused
primarily on urban service area expansion and land use
redesignation. There are, however, other mechanisms by which
service can be provided to land adjacent to roadways serving as
utility corridors.
By modifying two policies of the comprehensive plan, the issue of
providing utility service to land adjacent to roadways serving as
urban service area boundaries where those roads also accommodate
major utility lines can be resolved. The proposed amendment
revises the referenced policies to allow expansion of utility
services outside of the USA only for those parcels located wholly
or partly within one quarter of a mile of the urban service area
boundary (see attachment 3). With this approach, the issue of
utility service extension to lands adjacent to roads serving as
urban service area boundaries and having utility lines within their
rights-of-way can be resolved. At the same time, the geographic
scope of the utility service extension can be limited, and any
expansion would necessarily occur in a logical and rational manner.
In accordance with several comprehensive plan policies, only
agricultural land use designations may exist outside the USA.
Therefore, the effect of the proposed amendment would be to allow
owners of agriculturally designated land located within one quarter
of a mile of the USA boundary to obtain utility services.
Agricultural land uses in affected areas include groves, pastures,
and agricultural businesses such as packinghouses. -Much of the
affected land, however, is not in agricultural production. It is,
instead, characterized by large lots with single houses.
Since the proposed amendment does not change USA boundaries, no
land would be redesignated, and the existing agricultural
designation would be retained for the subject properties. There
are several benefits to maintaining the current agricultural
designation of affected land. The first benefit is the
discouragement of urban sprawl. In contrast to expanding the USA
and redesignating land, the proposed amendment will not alter the
County's approved residential allocation ratio. Second, the amount
and density of residentially designated land will more closely
match the amount needed, based on population projections. Finally,
maintaining the agricultural designation of affected land will
preserve agricultural uses and open space in the county.
Capital Improvements Element
In revising the Capital Improvements Element, staff used much the
same methodology as it employed in preparing the original element.
This involved coordinating with the budget and finance departments
to obtain data on past revenues and expenditures as well as
projected future revenue and expenditure amounts. Then, each
county department was contacted to determine the status of its CIP.
For each department, information on completed projects, proposed
projects, costs, revenues, prioritization, and other factors was
71
M M M
collected. Based upon these data, planning staff revised the
various tables and the text of the CIE. The result is an accurate
and up-to-date CIP with revisions having been made in the CIE
generally to demonstrate internal consistency and financial
feasibility.
CIE Table 13.23 lists all programmed capital improvements for
- fiscal years 1993-94 through 1999-2000 for each comprehensive plan
element. The updated version of this table reflects minor changes
needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS).
New Drainage Element capital improvements programmed in Table 13.23
include improvements in Gifford, the St. Sebastian River flood
plain, and the 12th Street sublateral culvert.
Revisions to Table 13.23 indicate an emphasis in wastewater service
expansion in three areas within the urban service area. Programmed
expansion of the West County Wastewater Treatment Plant collection
system will better serve the area south -of S.R. 60 and west of 43rd
Avenue. Expansions are also programmed for the South County and
Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plants. These expansions will
increase service to the areas south of S.R. 60 and east of 43rd
Avenue, and on the barrier island, respectively.
The updated Table 13.23 shows new expansion of utility lines
providing potable water to the north county and to the western
portion of the S.R. 60 Corridor.
Regarding the Solid Waste Element, there are no new capital
improvements programmed. As before, landfill construction remains,
by a large margin, the greatest expenditure.
Regarding the Recreation and Open Space Element, changes to Table
13.23 are more significant. Due to a weaker than expected overall
economy, previous revenue projections have been lowered.
Therefore, four recreation and open space projects that had been
programmed for fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95, have been
rescheduled for no earlier than 1995-96. The delayed projects are
West Wabasso Park Phase I, Dale Wimbrow/Donald McDonald Park Phase
I, Oslo Landfill Site, and Round Island Park Oceanside. These
delays will not cause the county's LOS for parks and recreation to
be lowered.
In the Conservation Element, Table 13.23 reflects the passage, in
November 1992, of a referendum authorizing the sale of $26 million
in bonds. The revenue from the sale of these bonds is to be used
for the acquisition of environmentally important land, and may be
leveraged with up to $20 million in cost -share matching funds.
Capital improvements to county maintained roads are generally
funded by traffic impact fee revenue. Some expenditures are also
funded by the State of Florida, developers, and other local
governments. Table 13.23 lists new projects, including
intersection improvements and road widenings, programmed throughout
the county.
The only other capital improvement is the new county courthouse,
which is presently under construction. Table 13.23 shows that the
county now plans to spend $7.5 million in fiscal year 1993-94 to
complete this facility.
Generally, this CIP indicates expansion of existing facilities in
order to maintain LOS standards as the County's population
increases, rather than major new initiatives.
72
DEC - 7 19913
BOOK 91 , PAGE 175
DEC - 7 1993 BOOK 91 PACE176
In updating the CIP, revisions must be made to other portions of
the CIE. The county does not have an alternative. However,
changes may be made to the revisions as proposed.
Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan
Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency
with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section
800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may be
amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency
of the plan pursuant to section 163.3177(2).F.S."
The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the actions which the County will take in order to direct
the community's development. Specifically, policies are the
courses of action or ways in which programs and activities are
conducted to achieve an identified goal or objective. While all
comprehensive plan policies are important, some have, more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests.
Most important with respect to comprehensive plan amendments is
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 13.3
Policy 13.3 requires that at least one of three criteria be met in
order to approve an amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan, or
• an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
The following table shows how the subject comprehensive plan
amendments are related to Future Land Use Policy 13.3.
Correct a
Mistake
S.S. & P.W:
Policy 5.9
CIE:
Correct an
Oversight
Change in
Circumstance
X
CIP & other X
portions or the CIE
******************************************************************
CIE: Capital Improvements S.S.: Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Element P.W.: Potable Water Sub -Element
° Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed amendment
meets two of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's criteria.
When the comprehensive plan was adopted on February 13, 1990, 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.
73
There has also been a change in circumstances. Since adoption of
the comprehensive plan, 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. Since the
revision of the utilities master plan constitutes a change in
'circumstances, this meets the third criterion of Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
° Capital Improvements Element
Revisions to the CIP and the CIE are necessary to reflect changes
in circumstances. In that period since the CIE was last revised,
capital improvements have been completed; others have been added;
revenue projections have changed, and priorities have been
modified. These circumstances warrant the amendment.
- Consistency with Other Policies of the Plan
The table below lists those other policies of the plan which are
consistent with each of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments.
Other Plan Policies Consistent with Proposed Amendments
S.S. & P.W. Policy 5.9: L.U. 1.37, Obj. 1, E.D. Obj. 1, & Obj. 7
CIE: CIE 1.11 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.10, 1.11, 1.12 & L.U. 11.3
CIE: Capital Improvements S.S.: Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element
Element P.W.: Potable Water Sub -Element
L.U.: Land Use Element
E.D.: Economic Development Element
° Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Elements
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 requires the County to complete
a study identifying programmed water and sewer infrastructure
improvements. Where utility lines exist, or are programmed to be
installed within the right-of-way of roads serving as USA
boundaries, the study must examine the financial, environmental and
physical impacts of providing urban services to both sides of the
right-of-way. The completed study is included as part of this
staff report.
Based on the study, the county must identify and assess necessary
changes to the comprehensive plan. The study concluded that, based
on the Utilities Master Plan, USA expansion is warranted. Based on
that conclusion, staff prepared a comprehensive plan amendment to
expand the USA. However, as previously indicated, the Board of
County Commissioners voted not to transmit the proposed amendment
to the state for its review. After receiving public comment, the
Board determined that the issues raised in the corridor study could
be better addressed through a comprehensive plan text amendment.
The proposed amendment implements Future Land Use Element Policy
1.37 by addressing the issue of utilities service to both sides of
roads serving as USA boundaries,
74
BOOK 91 PAGE 177
DEC ® 71993
��r m r) 1093 BOOK 91 FACE 178
- 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 lines, thereby increasing the efficiency
of urban service provision. For that reason, the proposed
amendment implements Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
- 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 County's 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 County's commercial/ industrial nodes, the
county is providing adequate capacity to accommodate future
economic 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.
° Capital Improvements Element
- Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4,
1.11 and 1.12
Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.11, and
1.12 require the County to maintain and implement a capital
improvements program which is evaluated and updated annually.
These policies also describe how the county will evaluate and
prioritize capital improvements. By updating the CIP in accordance
with these requirements, the proposed amendment is consistent with
these policies.
- Capital Improvements Element -Policy 1.10
Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.10 states that the county
shall include all capital expenditures in excess of $25,000 in its
schedule of improvements. The proposed amendment identifies all
capital expenditures in excess of $25,000. Therefore, the proposed
amendment is consistent with Capital Improvements -Element Policy
1.10.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3 (Hurricane Evacuation
Time Analysis)
Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3 requires the county, as part of
its annual CIE review, assess the impact of new development on
hurricane evacuation times. This assessment meets that
requirement.
75
Hurricane evacuation is addressed within the Coastal Management
Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in that
plan element, the county displayed clearance times of less than 12
hours for category 3-5 storms. This was based upon the 1988 update
to the Treasure Coast Hurricane Evacuation Study.
The Coastal Management Element also noted that the replacement of
the Merrill Barber Bridge could reduce estimated evacuation times
below 12 hours. Since construction of the new bridge has begun
(with the corresponding increase from 2 to 4 lanes), the capacity
enhancement- of the evacuation system is now closer to being
completed.
On the demand side, estimates and projections are more difficult to
determine. Not only does growth on the unincorporated county
portion of the barrier island affect hurricane evacuation; growth
in Vero Beach, Indian River Shores, and Orchid affect evacuation
times. Even growth and development in Brevard and St. Lucie
Counties affect evacuation times in Indian River County.
It is anticipated that, between the 1991 update of the CIP and the
present, the population of the barrier island portion of the county
(both incorporated and unincorporated areas) increased by only 1044
residents. This is based upon 1990 census data and county
projections.
Based upon the estimated increase of barrier island residents, the
impact on evacuation times will be minimal. Therefore, it is
staff's position that no additional capital improvements are
necessary to accommodate hurricane evacuation needs.
The above Hurricane Evacuation Time Analysis satisfies the
requirements of Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3. Therefore,
the proposed -amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 11.3.
Based on the analysis performed, staff's position is that the
proposed amendment is consistent with all comprehensive plan goals,
objectives and policies. _
Alternatives
With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has
three alternatives. The alternatives are:
1. Deny transmittal of this amendment to DCA.
2. Approve transmittal of this amendment to DCA.
3. Approve transmittal of this amendment, with changes, to DCA.
Conclusion
Staff's position is that these proposed amendments to the county's
comprehensive plan will enhance the plan by providing for the
efficient provision of utilities service to lands within and
adjacent to the USA, and by updating the CIP as required. Also, it
has been demonstrated that these amendments maintain the plan's
internal consistency. For those reasons, staff feels that the
Proposed amendments should be adopted.
Recommendation
The staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve
these amendments for transmittal to DCA for their review.
76
DEC
BOOK 91 F., JF 179
DEC -7 M
BOOK 91 pgE ISO
Community Development Director Keating advised that staff
recommends approval of this request.
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the
Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-209, approving the transmittal of a
county -initiated request to amend the potable water
and sanitary sewer sub -elements and the capital
improvements element of the Comprehensive Plan to
the DCA for a full review.
77
RESOLUTION NO. 93-209
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED
AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR
REVIEW.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July, 1993 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 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 Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after
advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and
WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the
transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a
final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety.
2. The following proposed amendment is approved for
transmittal to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs for written comment:
Request to amend the Potable Water Sub -Element, the
Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, and the Capital
Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner
Eggert 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 W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted at a public hearing held this 7th day of December 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Ric psd N. Bird, Chairman
78
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 PA'U.181
rBOOK 91 PA,E
DED 199
PUBLIC HEARING - PETITION WATER SERVICE IN CLUB GROVE ESTATES
The hour of 9:05 o'clock a.m. having passed, the County
Attorney announced that this Public Hearing has been properly
advertised, as follows:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath
says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
in the matter
in the Court, was pub.
lished in said newspaper in the issues of�''�ii'
Affiant further says that the said -Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been
entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-
ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in the said newspaper.
,
•,•punuw'es
I
�.••'�Pvurvv
rn�subscribed before me this day of 19
.. • • •..
My COMMM ; m z siness Manager)
• June res • CBMARBARA C. SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC,
� � ��% • Florida. MY Commissnn F
• !Vo Cp Rm72 29,1A�7
�• do,CC 7'2 ' : Comm an Number: CC3072D5
Notary. BARBARA a SPRAGUE
79
The Boad of W110E
River Coo County Commissiormrs of hdm
PUBLtC of
NG scheduled for 9:05 A.M. on
Thy — December 7. 1993, to discuss a pro-
ppoosseedd rescluean rel -WV to a SCPoECCIIAL ASSESS
MENT PRfor the In -
of Indian WATERSERVICE TO CLUB GROVE
ESTATES (35TH COURT NORTH OF 5TH
STREET. SW), and Providing for special assess.
meet Fx ,, to be made of record on the, propenes
to be served.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decd«, which
may be made at this mmwV will need to erne
verbatim
es y pis made.fludtrand evidence
the appeal is based. which
Anyone who re=eds a special accommodation for
nee may contact
County's Americans
Aa (ADA) Coordinator at 567-
m
with 8000. Ext 408. at least 48 tours in advance of the
Nov. 10.17,1993 1046637
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/3/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY VICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS§E99MENT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: PETITION WATER SERVICE IN CLUB GROVE ESTATES
(35TH COURT, NORTH - OFF 5TH STREET, SW)
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -18 -DS
RESOLUTION III - PUBLIC HEARING
BACKGROUND
On October 26, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution I (93-185) and Resolution II
(93-186). Resolution I contained the preliminary assessment roll
describing the project and cost. Resolution II set the date of the
public hearing for the subject project. Property owners have been
notified of the public hearing by certified mail. Resolution I
(93-185) was published in the Vero Beach PRESS JOURNAL on November
1, 1993 (see attached agenda item and minutes of the above meeting).
ANALYSIS
Design of the water distribution system is complete. An
informational meeting was held for the property owners on November
2, 1993. The total estimated cost to be assessed is $62,199.35.
The cost per square foot is .$0.09992280802. Approval of the
attached Resolution III will confirm and approve the preliminary
assessment. The attached map displays the area to benefit from the
assessment project. This project is to be paid through the
assessment of property owners along the proposed water line route.
In the interim, financing will be through the use of impact fee
funds.
RECOM3UMATION
The staff of the
Board of County
the preliminary
Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Commissioners approve Resolution III, which affirms
assessment on the subject project.
80
BOOK 91 F,,rF 183
DEC - � 1943
BOOK 91 FA,UF 184
Chairman Bird opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard on this matter.
Joy Aikens, resident of Club Grove Estates, stated that it has
been a real pleasure to work with James Chastain on this matter and
the residents are very grateful for getting water service.
There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman
closed the Public Hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-210, confirming the special
assessments in connection with a water main
extension to Club Grove Estates (35th Court north of
5th Street, SW, and providing for special assessment
liens to be made of record.
Public Hearing (Third Reso.)
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 21 n
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING
THE SPECIAL ASSESSMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH A WATER MAIN
EXTENSION TO CLUB GROVE ESTATES (35TH COURT NORTH OF STH
STREET, SW, AND PROVIDING FOR SPECIAL ASSESSMENT LIENS
TO BE MADE OF RECORD.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
has, by Resolution No. 93-185, adopted October 26, 1993, determined to
make special assessments against certain properties to be serviced by a
water main extension of the County to Club Grove Estates (35th Court
north of 5th Street, SW); and
WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which said special
assessments shall be made and how said special assessments are to be
paid; and
WHEREAS, the resolution was published in the Press Journal, as
required by Section 206.04, Indian River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
passed Resolution No. 93-186, on October 26, 1993, which set a time and
place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be
assessed and other interested persons would have the chance.to be heard
as to any and all complaints as-to.said project and said special
assessments, 'and for the Board to act as required by Section 206.07,
Indian River County Code; and
81
WHEREAS notice of the time and place of the public hearing was
published i the Press Journal Newspaper on Wednesday, November 10,
1993, and W dnesday, November 17, 1993 (twice one week apart; the last
being at least one week prior to the hearing), as required by Section
206.06, Indi�n River County Code; and
WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten
days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 206.06, Indian River
County Code; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County
on Tuesday, December 7, 1993, at 9:05 a.m. conducted the public hearing
with regard to the special assessments,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are
hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and
binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in
full.
2. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution,
which describes the properties assessed and the amounts of the
special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute
prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Mac ht ,
and the motion was seconded by Commissioner _Eggert , and, upon being
put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird Aye
Vice Chairman 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 7th day of December, 1993.
Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER UNTY, FLORIDA
By Cl
ichard N. Bird
82 Chairman
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 Pg'E J85
' o BOOK 9� �acF
DEC 7 199 �.6
EMPLOYEE TERMINATION APPEAL HEARING
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: November 29, 1993 FILE:
SUBJECT: Appeal Hearing
FRO • James E. Chandler REFERENCES:
County Administrator
As a result of an appeal hearing on November 16, 1993, 1 affirmed the
termination of Deborah House from the Animal Control Division by Emergency
Services Director Doug Wright. Ms. House has filed a request for a Board
appeal hearing of my determination. Therefore, it is requested that the Board
schedule an appropriate date and time for the hearing.
The Board scheduled a special meeting for Wednesday,
December 22, 1993, to hear an employee termination
appeal.
Note: On December 14, the BCC rescheduled the appeal hearing for
January 20, 1994 at 9:05 a.m.
FLORIDA DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT REQUEST TO SCHEDULE DATE
FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS CONFERENCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH: Jim Chandler,,CC unty Administrator
FROM: DougWri ht� Di
g , rector
Department of Emergency Services
DATE: November 29, 1993
SUBJECT: Florida Division of Emergency Management Request to
Schedule Date for Public Officials Conference
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein
be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners
at the next scheduled meeting.
83
� � r
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Florida Division of Emergency Management has proposed to
present a Public Officials Conference in Indian River County
to inform elected government officials at the county and municipal
levels of their respective responsibilities when a disaster occurs
or threatens to impact their respective jurisdiction. The
presentation would also include information regarding the status of
legislation such as House Bill 911, which affects county emergency
management funding.
The target audience for the conference would be all elected local
officials as well as City/County Attorneys, County Administrator,
and City Managers. The format and length of the Public Officials
Conference is flexible, but the state prefers a time -allotment of
two hours. The state also asks that the conference not be a part
of a regular board meeting so the focus can be singularly related
to Emergency Management and how the new state concept of operations
will interface with the local emergency operations plan.
If the Board feels the Public Officials Conference would be of
benefit to elected and appointed officials, the Florida Division of
Emergency Management has advised they have open dates during the
majority of the weekdays during the months of January and February.
The agency noted they are amenable to other dates that would be
more suitable to the Board of County Commissioners.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
Staff asserts the Public Officials Conference would be of benefit
to local elected and appointed officials who would have
responsibility in responding to and recovering from a hurricane or
other types of disasters. If the Board approves the Public
Officials Conference, staff will finalize the arrangements and
notify all local officials regarding the conference on behalf of
the Board.
RECOMSENDATION:
Staff recommends the Board determine a date or provide three
alternative dates in terms of preference for the Florida Division
of Emergency Management to present the program at the Public
Officials Conference in our area.
The Board agreed on Friday, February 111 1994 at 9:00 a.m. as
the date for the Florida Division of Emergency Management to
present the Public Officials Conference.
84
DEC ® 7 1993 BOOK 91 DCE 187
r
_ F��Gf. 188 ,
DEC 7 1993 BOOK 91 �
ADDITIONAL RIGHT-OF-WAY - CR -512 AND CR -510 - ANSIN 3 PARCELS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/17/93:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E
Public Works Director
and
Roger D. Cain, P.E. �.�►
County Engineer
FROM:7>0onald G. Finney, SRA
County Right of Way Agent
SUBJECT: Additional Right -of -Way; CR 512 and CR 510, Edmund N.
Ansin, 3 parcels
DATE: November 17, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Additional right-of-way is needed on the south side of CR 512 and
the west side of CR 510 for the proposed widening and intersection
improvements for the new Sebastian High School.
Additional 15' right-of-way width CR 512 .25 acres
Additional 60' right-of-way width CR 510 1.75 acres
Additional 60' right-of-way width CR 510 3.64 acres
ADDITIONAL R -O -W TOTAL_: 5.64 acres
RECOMMENDATION
Mr. Edmund N. Ansin executed the contract for the three parcels for
$50,000.00 ($8,865.00 per acre). The purchase price is at a lower
price range than other properties the county recently purchased.
Staff requests the Board accept and approve the $50,000 contract
and direct the Chairman to execute the contract on the Board's
behalf.
FUNDING
Funding is available in Traffic Impact"Fee District 3,, -Account No.
101-153-541-066.12.
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously accepted
and approve the $50,000 contract with Edmund N.
Ansin for three parcels, as set out in the above
staff -recommendation.
Attorney Vitunac asked if there were any plans to straighten
out the very dangerous curve on CR -510 south of the new high
85
I J
school,- but Director Davis explained that we would have to move the
bridge because there really isn't any way of flattening out the
curve due to the canal on the west. We have looked at perhaps
extending a road in Vero Lake Estates to "T" that intersection so
that CR -510 north/south traffic would have to stop.
Chairman Bird felt it should be in our short-term thinking to
try to do something to straighten out that curve, and Director
Davis advised that it would cost over $1 -million to do it because
we would have to build a bridge over the canal. However, that
may be a good candidate for a sales tax project.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD - TREE REMOVAL OR RELOCATION GRACE LOCRE
WALKER PARCEL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/23/93:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
Ii FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.C>of
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Indian River Boulevard Phase IV
Grace Locke Walker Parcel
RE: Letter from Ed Walker to Richard Bird
Dated October 25, 1993
DATE: November 23, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Prior to construction of Indian River Boulevard, the County met with each
grove owner to determine what modifications were needed to keep the groves
operational. These modifications included removing trees, construction
of grove ditches, installation of drainage structures, irrigation
modifications and access modifications.
County staff met with Ed Walker prior to construction to determine what
modifications were needed on his mother's grove. The modifications that
were agreed on for the Grace Locke Walker Parcel included irrigation and
drainage modifications. On some of the groves adjacent to Indian River
Boulevard, tree removal adjacent to grove ditches was included in the
construction contract for the Boulevard. Tree removal adjacent to the
ditches on the Walker Parcel was not included in the construction contract
_because Ed Walker requested that tree removal be kept to a minimum.
86
_i E C - w + `y, BOOK 91 F,nE 1,89
' DEC - �oox 9 �AcF �
1993 19a
When the Contractor completed construction of the grove ditch bordering
the Grace Locke Walker Parcel, Ed Walker realized he wouldn't be able to
maneuver tractors around the end of the tree rows because of the proximity
of the ditch. In the attached letter dated October 25, 1993, Mr. Walker
requests payment to remove or relocate 48 trees at a cost -of $50 per tree
for a total of $2,400.
Staff met with Mr. Walker in the field and verified that 48 trees need to
be removed or relocated from the ends of the tree rows for tractor
maneuverability. The Boulevard Contractor has completed all the clearing
and grubbing and removed his air curtain incinerator from the site. At
this stage of construction, the most cost effective way to resolve the
situation is to pay the grove owner to remove or relocate the 48 trees in
question.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The alternatives are as follows:
1. Approve Ed Walker's request to reimburse his mother, Grace Locke -
Walker, $2,400 to remove or relocate trees so that the grove can be
cultivated and maintained.
2. Deny Ed Walker's request.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING:
Staff recommends approval of Alternate No. 1. Funding is available in
Account No. 309-215-541-066.51, Indian River Boulevard North.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Ed Walker's request for the County to reimburse his
mother, Grace Locke Walker, $2,400 to remove or
relocate trees so that the grove can be cultivated
and maintained, as recommended by staff.
MODIFICATIONS TO CONSTRUCTION PLANS FOR 41ST AND 45TH STREETS FROM
INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD TO U.S. #1 - WORK ORDER #3 - GLACE &
RADCLIFF, INC.
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/29/93:
87
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. JK
_Capital Projects Manager
_ SUBJECT: 41st Street and 45th Street from Indian
River Boulevard to US1
DATE: November 29, 1993 FILE: GRWRK01M.A(M
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been negotiating with property owners on 41st Street
and 45th Street between Indian River Boulevard and US1 to purchase
needed right-of-way. As a result of the negotiations,
modifications need to be made to the construction plans for 41st
Street and 45th Street. These modifications include removal of
trees, construction of grove roads and ditches, installation of
flashboard risers and redesign of drainage structures on 41st
Street to accomodate flow through drainage from west of US1.
The attached Work Order No. 3 from Glace & Radcliff, Inc. provides
for making the needed revisions to the construction drawings at a
cost not to exceed $8,406.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends that the County execute the attached agreement
with Glace & Radcliff, Inc. Funding is from account 309-215-541-
033.13, Indian River Boulevard Phase IV.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
Work Order No. 3 with Glace & Radcliff, Inc., as set
out in the above staff recommendation.
WORK ORDER NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
88
DEC ® 7 1993
L_
r9� ,�F�.�2 �
DEC 7 1993 BOOK F
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - OSLO ROAD/OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY - PARCEL
#114. CALMES AND PIERCE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 12/1/93:
TO: James Chandler
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.
Public Works Director
FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E.
Capital Projects Manager
SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization
Oslo Road/Old Dixie Right -of -Way
Parcel #114, Calmes and Pierce
DATE: December 1, 1993
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County plans to widen and signalize the intersection of Oslo Road and
Old Dixie Highway. Additional right-of-way is needed from the southwest
corner parcel.
Calmes and Pierce has agreed to sell the needed right-of-way on the
southwest corner to the County for $2.30 per square foot. The County
recently purchased right-of-way on the northwest corner from the Helseths
for $2.30 per square foot.
Attached is a contract for purchase of right-of-way parcel #114 that has
been executed by Calmes and Pierce. The purchase price of $20,204, based
on $2.30 per square foot, has been increased to to $20,954 to include
attorney's fees.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff recommends the Board accept the $20,954 purchase price for parcel
#114.
Funding is available in Traffic Impact Fee District 6 - Account No. 101-
156-541-067.43.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the contract for the purchase of right-of-way from
Calmes and Pierce, as set out in the above - staff
recommendation.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
89
RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION - I.R. BLVD, PHASE IV - VIRGINIA WALKER
RUSSELL PARCEL
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/1/93:
TO: James E. Chandler,
County Administrator
THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E.,
Public Works Director
and
Terry B. Thompson, P.E.,
Capital Projects Manager
FROM: Donald G. Finney, SRA �
County Right -of -Way Agent
SUBJECT: Purchase Authorization; 41st Street Right -of -
Way Acquisition, Virginia Walker Russell
Parcel, Indian River Boulevard, Phase IV
DATE: November 1, 1993 FILE: russell.agn
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
Indian River County is planning to widen and pave 41st Street east
of US Highway #1 to Indian River Boulevard, Phase IV. Additional
right-of-way is needed to accomplish the project. The right-of-way
parcels are located on the north side of 41st Street. The owner
has agreed to sell and has executed the Contract For Sale And
Purchase at $41,750 with an Addendum for additional trees outside
the right of way for $3,100; and, Attorney Fee $1,150 which
includes a $250 title search fee.
The right-of-way was appraised at $37,800 as of March 8, 1993.
RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING
Staff requests the Board accept the contract (total price of
$46,000) and direct the Chairman to execute the contract on the
Board's behalf.
Funding is available in Account No. 309-215-541-066.12.
Commissioner Adams had some real problems with the terms of
this acquisition proposal.
Public Works Director Jim Davis referred to Item #5 in
Addendum I to the purchase contract which deals with the naming of
the road. He explained that Chapter 951 of the County's Land
Development Regulations deals with the road addressing system and
the property owner is requesting that language be adhered to in the
future for the naming of the road. There is a concern that if the
road is named some other name than 41st Street, it may not be
agreeable to some of the people who own property along the road.
The County Attorney's office feel the owner has the right to put
this language in the contract, but it is not standard language that
we would like to see in our right-of-way purchase contracts because
90
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 PAr,E 193
DEC - 7 1993
BOOK 91 PAGE 194
we really don't know what our road naming system may be in the
future. There might be some good reason to change it, such as when
the 911 system was established. Director Davis wished to see Item
#5 and Item #6, which is a reversion clause, stricken from the
Addendum. However, the trustee for the property indicated he might
not approve the contract if those items were taken out. Director
Davis explained that draining the natural slough on 41st Street
will raise the cost from $37,800 to $41,750.
Commissioner Adams didn't like Item #9 either. She disliked
the attitude expressed in the letter and felt we should ask
ourselves just how bad we need this right-of-way. She understood
we already have the 45th Street right-of-way.
Director Davis advised that two more right-of-way acquisitions
are being brought before the Board next week. This is the 41st
Street link between Indian River Boulevard and U.S. #1. We have
purchased 45th Street right-of-way already, so we definitely will
have the 45th Street connection plus 37th Street and 53rd Street.
Those are 1 -mile spacings. There is a drainage problem west of
U.S. #1 due to a natural slough between the ridge and the railroad
tracks. To drain that slough requires the securing of easements
and rights-of-way east on South Gifford Road to the river.
Commissioner Adams had a problem with it because she did not
like to be bullied and was offended by the attitude expressed in
the letter. She didn't think it would be right to pay this amount.
Chairman Bird asked if she would feel right about it if we
offered them just our appraised value, but Director Davis
interjected that he felt the value of the cost per acre is a good
price in the current market. There is a need for the right-of-way,
but he couldn't say whether it is a critical need. It would
provide a link at 41st St. between the Boulevard and U.S. #1 and it
would solve the drainage problem in that area.
Commissioner Macht pointed out that this property is being
greatly enhanced by the position of these rights -of -ways and by the
position of the Boulevard.
Commissioner Adams'understood that the appraisal we had done
came out at $37,800.
Director Davis further advised that in the records of St.
Lucie County we found a 1918 title to a 45 -ft. width of right-of-
way on 41st Street, but the property owners have been claiming that
they have been paying taxes on that land because the Property
Appraiser's Office did not pick up on that 1918 title. They are
asking us to pay back taxes plus a 6% economical adjustment, which
is the value of their money back into history at 6% plus the costs.
they have incurred in maintaining the road.
91
Director Davis felt the owner would accept $37,800. '
Chairman Bird understood that our options are to accept the
contract at face value, amend the contract purchase price, or make
no offer on the right-of-way.
Commissioner Adams asked who did the appraisal, and Director
Davis believed it was either Kmetz or Napier.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, that the Board table this matter
for further negotiation and direct staff to review
the feasibility of deleting items in the addendum
and the paying of back taxes and road maintenance
costs.
Under discussion, Commissioner Macht noted that the contract
was negotiated strictly from the standpoint of the strength of the
owner who based his desires on some circumstances that really are
not compelling to the County.
Commissioner Eggert understood then that we are not
authorizing another appraisal, and Director Davis understood that
he is to renegotiate based on our appraised value and delete
certain items in the Addendum and research the feasibility of
paying back taxes and road maintenances before bringing it back to
the Board.
Commissioner Macht wanted to see our appraisal when this
matter comes back to the Board.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
92
L DEC -71993
BOOK 91 PAU 1;05
DEC - 7 W1, BOOK
EMERGENCY SHORE PROTECTION — WABASSO BEACH AREA
The Board reviewed the following letter dated 12/7/93:
E
ey.Horn
Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.
ENGINEERS • PLANNERS - SURVEYORS
91 PnF 1196 -7
Barnett Bank Building, 601 - 21 st Street, Suite 400 Vero Beach, Florida 32960 407 562-7981 Fax 407 562-9689
December 7, 1993
Commissioner Fran Adams 86028.00 (01)
Indian River County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
RE: Emergency Shore Protection
Dear Commissioner Adams:
I am writing you on behalf of Dr. Michael D. Flax, who owns property at 1801 Shell Lane,
Summerplace (the first house immediately north of the Wabasso Beach Park). Dr. Flax has
witnessed the dune line recede on his property, approximately ten feet in the last year. The most
recent erosion event (last week) has left the home susceptible to severe damage. The dune
escarpment appears to be within eight feet of the structural support members of Dr. Flax's home.
His home is subject to damage from a high frequency storm event. There have been previous
attempts to protect the home, i.e. a sand bag sill and the placement of fill to supplement the dune.
Given the scope of these previous efforts, the level of protection afforded by their implementation,
is limited.
Although Dr. Flax certainly has suffered from the recent storm event, he is not alone. I encourage
you or your staff to witness the extent of the erosion. To that extent, the County may want to
investigate the condition of the existing dune cross -overs at Wabasso Beach Park to determine,if
any corrective measures are necessary.
I understand that Dr. Flax and the County have both received emergency permits to place fill on
the beach and dune to mitigate this most recent erosion event and to buffer from the next event.
In light of Dr. Flax's emergency permit to place 100 yards of fill on the beach, and the condition
of Wabasso Beach'Park, something more is necessary to protect the residences and property along
the beach. On behalf of Dr. Flax, we respectfully request the County declare the area an
emergency area for the protection of property and specifically request the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, Division of Beaches and Shores declare the condition an emergeneX and
authorize that the emergency permitting_process be available to the citizens within this area to
protect their property. Dr. Flax's property and home is in jeopardy and he has few choices. A
proactive effort on behalf of the County toward this matter would certainly be favorable to each
individual property owner having to tackle the problem on their own as the winter storm season
continues.
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me.
Sincerely,
KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES, INC.
Mike Kiefer
Project Manager
93
At the request of Commissioner Adams, Mike Kiefer of Kimley-
Horn and Associates, Inc. reported on the extent of the beach
erosion in the Wabasso Beach area, especially to the property of
Dr. Michael Flax. He urged the Board to declare the area an
emergency area and request the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (DEP) to declare the condition an emergency and
authorize that the emergency permitting process be available to the
citizens within this area to protect their property.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously declared
the area an emergency area for the protection of
property and specifically requested the FDEP to
declare the condition an emergency and authorize
that the emergency permitting process be made
available to the citizens within this area to
protect their property.
December 7, 1993
Mr.Kirby Green
Department of Environmental
Protection
Division of Beaches and Shores
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399
RE: Emergency Shore
Protection
Dear Mr. Green:
I am writing on behalf of'Dr. Michael D. Flax, who owns
property at 1801 Shell Lane, Summerplace, Vero Beach, Florida.
Dr. Flax - has witnessed the dune line recede on his property
leaving bis home susceptible to severe damage. He has previously
attempted' to protect his home by a sand bag sill and the
placement -of fill to supplement the dune. The recent storm events
have left the dune escarpment within eight feet of the structural
support of Dr. Flax's home. Many other homes in the immediate
area are also threatened.
94
M�M
BOOK 91 FADE 1,97
DEC 0 71993
BOOK 91 `IAGF
The Board of County Commissioners appeal to you to declare
an emergency condition for the area in question, and ask that you
authorize temergency
g ailable ttong h rocess to citizens ple fill on
in order tc
the beach_and dune beav
protect their property.
Thank you in advance for*your consideration of this request.
Sincerely,
Richard N. Bird
Chairman
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - SHADY OARS SUBDIVISION WATER SERVICE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILIT SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS NT PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SHADY OAKS SUBDIVISION WATER SERVICE
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -19 -DS
RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
BACKGROUND
On January 26, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved Resolution III, No. 93-21 for the preliminary
assessment roll on the above -referenced project. Construction of
the project has been completed. Customer connections have begun,
and we 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
$111,700.00, which equated to $0.084649 per square foot of property
owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $104,355.10, which
equates to a cost of $0.07908277557 per square foot of property.
RECOMMENDATION
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 Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-211, certifying "as built" costs for
installation of water service to Shady Oaks
Subdivision, etc.
As Built (Final Reso.)
Shady Oaks water RESOLUTION NO. 93- 211
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICE TO SHADY
OAKS SUBDIVISION, AND SUCH OTHER
CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY - _ SUCH
PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION
DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT
PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that water improvements for properties located in
Shady Oaks Subdivision, east of 43rd Avenue and south of Oslo Road,
were necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, January 26, 1993, 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. 93-21, 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. 93-21,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
I. Resolution No. 93-21 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.
96
66._pC ?
m 1993 BOOK 91 F-Ar,E 10 9
® BOOK A %�
SEC '71993 91 F cFgOO
2. Payments. bearing interest at the rate of 8% per annum may be
made iri -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.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
93-21 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.
93-21, were recorded
by
the County
on the '
public records of
Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie
evidence of its validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner a a m
and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Richard N. Bird A y e
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin A y e
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 7 day of December , 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Attest
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4---�Itichard N. Bird
Jeffrey K. Barton Clek Chairman
�.-�,
ASSESSMENT ROLL IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
97
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - FLORA LANE/62ND PLACE WATER SERVICE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1993 -
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PI
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED JAMES D. CHAS
T
AND STAFFED MANAGER OF AS PROJECTS
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: FLORA LANE/62ND PLACE WATER SERVICE
RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -30 -DS
On February 2, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved
Resolution III, No. 93-24, for the preliminary assessment roll on the
above -referenced project. Construction of the project has been
completed. Customer connections have begun, and we 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 cost of
$41,959.89, which equated to ± $0.111842 per square foot of property
owned. The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the
accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $33,276.15, which
equates to a cost of $0.08869571823 per square foot of property.
RECOMMENDATION
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 Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-212, certifying "as -built" costs for
installation of water service to Flora Lane, etc.
98
DEC - 71993 -BGQK 91 pAu, 201
®EC 1993 BOOK 91 F+GE 202
As Built (Final ReSO.)
Flora Lane Water "rvioe
RESOLUTION NO. 93_ 212
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR
INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICE TO FLORA
LANE, AND SUCH OTHER CONSTRUCTION
NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING
FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR
PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County determined that water improvements for properties located in
Flora Lane ( 62nd Place) , were necessary to promote the public welfare
of the county; and
WHEREAS, on Tuesday, February 2, 1993, 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. 93-24, 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. 93-24,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows:
1. Resolution No. 93-24 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.
3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No.
93-24 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A."
99
� r �
RESOLUTION NO. 93-212
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.
93-24, were recorded by the County on the public records of
Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie
evidence of its . validity.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
M a c h t 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 A y e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 7 day of D e c e m b e V 1993.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
Richard N. Bird
Jeffrey K Barto , Clgrk Chairman
31 -1 T-, C. �a > 4Li , I- -r
ASSESSMENT ROLL IN ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
100
Bao 91 Pas. 2003
C
-7 1993
DEC - 71993 BOOK 91 FA.UF204
INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN IRC AND CITY OF SEBASTIAN -
COUNTY TO PROVIDE WATER SERVICE TO AREA WHICH INCLUDES NEW WAL-MART
STORE
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 24, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO–M1749—
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
.STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: HARRY E. ASHER
ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: INTERLOCAL UTILITIES AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN
BACKGROUND:
Indian River County has been requested by the City of Sebastian
(City) to provide water and sewer service to an area located on
north U.S. Highway 1, within the city limits. The area to be served
is shown in Exhibit "A" of the attached Agreement.
ANALYSIS:
The County staff met with the City staff to review the request and
determine the most efficient method to service the area. As a
result of the meeting, an Interlocal Utilities Agreement was
developed, which assigns the "property" as set forth in the Exhibit
"A" legal description to the County to provide water and sewer
service. The "property" is transferred to the County's service area
permanently.- The Agreement was approved by the City of Sebastian on
November 19, 1993.
RECOMMENDATION:
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends the Board
of County Commissionerst approval of the Interlocal Utilities
Agreement between Indian River County and the City of Sebastian, and _
authorization for the Chairman to execute the Agreement.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved
the Interlocal Utilities Agreement with the City of
Sebastian, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
101
SUNSHINE TRAVEL TRAILER PARR SEWER CONNECTION
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/8/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 8, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES
PREPARED WILLI . MCCAIN
AND STAFFEDCAP CTS ENGINEER
BY: D OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: SUNSHINE TRAVEL TRAILER PARR SEWER CONNECTION
BACKGROUND
On August 25, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a project to provide the CR 512 and I-95
commercial node with water and wastewater service (see attached
agenda item and minutes). We have now completed construction of the
commercial node project, and' the Utilities Department wishes to
proceed with the connection of Sunshine Travel Trailer Park to
regional water and wastewater facilities. Per the franchise
agreement with Sunshine Travel (see attached), the County is
required to make the connection between the County's system and
Sunshine Travel.
ANALYSIS
To interconnect our regional facilities with Sunshine Travel, we
will be required to upgrade their existing master lift station. We
have already completed construction of a 4 -inch force main and an
8 -inch water line. The additional project costs are as follows:
Pumps and control (ABS) $10,920.00
Additional valve upgrade, etc. $ 3,000.00
15% contingency 2,088.00
Total additional $16,008.00
Sunshine Travel Trailer Park has escrowed $363,280.00 in impact
fees, which will cover the cost of this project and also a portion
of the cost of the CR 512 utility project previously mentioned. The
project is now nearing readiness for connection, and we wish to
proceed. All funding for this project will be from the impact fee
fund.
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the above outlined project
costs for the expenditure of $16,008.00 as outlined.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
project costs of $16,008, as outlined in the above
staff recommendation.
413Iq
SEC - `7._1993
BOOK 91 FACE 205
DEC - 71993
BOOK 91 PAGE 206
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams asked if this has given
the park owners the time to realize their -depreciated value.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto felt that would depend on how
they are depreciating it. He didn't believe they were happy
campers, but when their franchise was approved, it was based on
their connecting to County facilities when they became available
and the impact fees were escrowed for that connection.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
NORTH BEACH WASTEWATER EVALUATION - SEA OAKS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/17/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 17, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTIL T SERVICES
PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN
AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: NORTH BEACH WASTEWATER EVALUATION - SEA OAKS
BACKGROUND
On March 23, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners approved a continuing services agreement with Brown
and Caldwell for Master Plan continuing consulting services (see
attached agenda item and minutes). As a result of the Disney
project's plans to move ahead, we have had Brown and Caldwell
re-evaluate the North Beach water system -(see attached
Board -approved agenda item and minutes), and we now want them to do
a similar evaluation on the North Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant;
i.e., Sea Oaks. This investigation has been prompted by a $2.5±
estimated construction cost to expand Sea Oaks by.only .5 MGD. We
feel it may be more cost effective to divert flow to another
wastewater treatment facility.
- ANALYSIS
The negotiated cost for Brown and Caldwell's services is $15,400.00
(see attached work authorization) The main focus of this
evaluation is to determine the feasibility of expanding the Sea Oaks
Wastewater Treatment Plant versus the diversion of wastewater flow
to the County's North County Wastewater Treatment Plant and/or other
options. They will also explore the ramifications of flow diversion
on the North Beach effluent disposal and wastewater collection
system. For a detailed scope of services, please refer to the
attached work authorization with Brown and Caldwell. Funding for
this work will be from the impact fee account.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommend that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the work authorization with
Brown and Caldwell as presented.
103
Utilities Director Terry Pinto pointed out that if the land
use amendment considered earlier in this meeting is adopted, it
will bring in commercial on the west side of the Wabasso Bridge.
With that development, it may become possible for us to eliminate
the Sea Oaks wastewater treatment plant or just the expansion of
the plant.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, that the Board approve Work
Authorization No. 4 with Brown and Caldwell in the
amount of $15,400, as presented in the above staff
recommendation.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams inquired about the
ramifications of the flow diversion.
Director Pinto explained that the whole situation for the
North Beach area has changed somewhat because of Disney's
development and because of negotiations with Gordon Nutt on a piece
of property included in the Disney development. We were able to
reduce some of the flow and capacity requirements on the beach.
The hope is that we won't have to expand and we can utilize the
capacities that we have. If we divert flow to the City of Vero
Beach, there may be a problem going through the system through
Indian River Shores and at the intersection of AIA where the Beach
Bank is located. In the long run, we might find that it would be
too expensive to divert the flow to the City, but we hope the
analysis will be positive.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 4 IS ON FILE IN THE
OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
104
b0®K 91 FACE 207
BOOK D
G..4
TEMPORARY ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING FOR THE
INSTALLATION OF GROUND WATER MONITORING WELLS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/22/93:
DATE: NOVEMBER 22, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ERVI S
PREPARED WILLIAM F. M
AND STAFFED CAPITAL P E TS NGINEER
BY: DEPAR ILI SERVICES
SUBJECT: TEMPO Y ACCESS AGREEMENT WITH UNIVERSAL ENGINEERING
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
Due to petroleum contamination on a site on U.S. Highway No. 1 near a
County (i.e., Utilities Department) site previously owned by General
Development Utilities, Universal Engineering has requested a temporary
access agreement for the installation of ground water monitoring wells.
It is not suspected at this time that the County property is
contaminated.
The well installation will accomplish two things; it will confirm the
direction of'ground water flow in this area, and it will confirm the
lack of contamination on County property.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the
Board of County Commissioners approve the attached temporary access
agreement as presented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved
the Temporary Access Agreement with Universal
Engineering for the installation of ground water
wells to determine if site previously owned by
General Development Utilities is contaminated from
petroleum.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
105
INTERCONNECTION OF GROVE ISLE TO SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER
TREATMENT FACILITY
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/18/93:
DATE:
NOVEMBER 18, 1993
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT�� "
DIRECTOR OF UTI -"VICES
STAFFED AND
PREPARED BY: ROBERT 0. WISEMEN, P.E
ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER
DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: INTERCONNECTION OF GROVE ISLE TO SOUTH COUNTY
WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY
IRC PROJECT NO. US -93 -31 -CS
Recently, the Department of Utility Services acquired the Vero
Highlands/General Development Utilities Wastewater Treatment
Facility. The facility is at fifty percent capacity and is called
the South County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.
Due to recent rate increases and the County reaching its contract
capacity with the City, the Department needs to divert the sewer
flow from subdivisions on U.S. Highway 1, which presently flow to
the Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Facility, to the South County
Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility.
ANALYSIS:
The construction cost of interconnection is estimated at
$278,250.00. It includes the cost for modifying the present lift
station to handle additional flow, and approximately 4,500 linear
feet of sewer force main. The department received -three proposals
to do surveying services for design of this project; Carter
Associates, Inc., submitted the lowest of the three proposals. The
project will be designed, permitted, and administered by in-house
staff, and the cost for this project will be paid from impact fee
funds.
The staff of the
approval of* this
proposal to survey.
DEC - 7 1993
Department of Utility Services recommends the
project and approval for Carter Associates'
106
600K 91 F,1GF. 9
BOOK 91 F,F. 210
DEC ®7 1993
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, that the Board approve the
project and approve Carter Associates' proposal to
survey, as recommended by staff.
Under discussion, Commissioner Adams congratulated Utilities
Director Terry Pinto for having staff do the design and permitting
in-house.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE CONCERNING VOTING CONFLICTS
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 11/24/93:
November 24, 1993
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION
FROM: FRAN B. ADAMS, COUNTY COMMISSIONER
RE: Ordinance concerning voting conflicts
I have requested the county attorney to draft an ordinance which
would disallow a person serving on a board or committee to excuse
himself/herself and step down to represent a client or
organization to that board or committee.
The ordinance also sets up a policy that would inform the Board
of County Commissioners, at the time of reappointment for the
serving member of a board or committee, of the number and nature
of conflict of interests they have filed and of the number of
excused or unexcused absences during their term. -
If my fellow commissioners are in agreement, I request that a
public hearing be set for adoption of this ordinance, and that it
be duly advertised.
Commissioner Adams requested a report on each committee on how
many times they have met, attendance, etc., and the number of
conflicts of interest declared.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to advertise a public hearing on the proposed
ordinance.
107
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREMCIINT
ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL OF LOCAL PUBLIC OFFICIALS ON BEHALF OF THE
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Commissioner Macht reviewed 7. Duties on page 3 of the
Interlocal.Agreement among Indian River County, the City of Vero
Beach, the City of Sebastian, the City of Fellsmere, the Town of
Indian River -Shores, the Town of Orchid and the School Board of
Indian River County.
Commissioner Macht noted that the only thing a vote would do
is form a consensus.
Commissioner Eggert felt the Interlocal Agreement is a
wonderful approach to having a council of local public officials,
and she thanked Commissioner Macht for all his efforts in bringing
this about.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 93-213, authorizing the Chairman to
execute an Interlocal Agreement establishing a
Council of Local Public Officials on behalf of the
Board of County Commissioners.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
108
DEC - 71993 soon 91 F.,cF
RESOLUTION NO. 93- 213
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CHAIRMAN TO
EXECUTE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT -
ESTABLISHING A COUNCIL OF LOCAL PUBLIC
OFFICIALS ON BEHALF OF THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS.
BOOK 91 FAGS .212
WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section
163.02, Florida Statutes, permits the establishment of a council of
local public officials; and
WHEREAS, it appears that a council of local public officials in
Indian River County, modeled after Section 163.02, F.S. , would serve
the public interest by promoting efficiency,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
that:
The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners is hereby
authorized to execute the attached Interlocal Agreement and the
attached letter to the muncipalities on behalf of the Board of County
Commissioners and Scool Board.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Adams
and
the motion
was
seconded
by
Commissioner
Commissioner
Eggert
and,
upon being
put
to a vote,
the
vote was as
follows:
Chairman Richard N.
Bird
Aye
Commissioner
John W.
Tippin
Aye
Commissioner
Fran B.
Adams
Aye
Commissioner
Carolyn
K. Eggert
Aye
Commissioner
Kenneth
R. Macht
Aye
The Chaif-man thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and
adopted this 7 day of December , 1993.
Attest:
Jeff K. Barton, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Ri and N. Bird
Chairman
109
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
among
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
and the
CITY OF VERO BEACH, THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN,
THE CITY OF FELLSMERE, THE TOWN OF INDIAN
RIVER SHORES, TOWN OF ORCHID, AND THE
SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this _�7 day of
.�Do•�� �i>J , 1993 by and among INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, Florida, a
political subdivision of the. State of Florida, the address of which is
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, the CITY OF VERO
BEACH, Florida, a municipality incorporated under the laws of Florida,
the address of which is 1053 20th Place, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, the
CITY OF SEBASTIAN, Florida, a municipality incorporated under the
laws of Florida, the address of which is 1225 Main Street, Sebastian,
Florida 32958, the CITY OF FELLSMERE, a municipality incorporated
under the laws of Florida, the address of which is P. O. Box 38,
Fellsmere, Florida 32948, the TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES, a
municipality incorporated under the laws of Florida, the address of
which is 6001 N. A -1-A, Vero Beach, Florida 32963, the TOWN OF
ORCHID, a a municipality incorporated under the laws of Florida, the
address of which is 10 Orchid Island Drive, Vero Beach, Florida 32963,
and the SCHOOL BOARD OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, a school district
of Florida, the address of which is 1990 25th Street, Vero Beach,
Florida 32960, (hereafter the "PARTIES") ,
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section
163.02, Florida
Statutes, permits local government
units
to enter into an
agreement with
each other for the establishment
of a
council of local
public officials; and
WHEREAS, it appears that a council of local public officials in
Indian River County, modeled after Section 163.02, F.S. , would serve
the public interest; and
110
DEC ® 71993 Bo��b+�
QFr -719 93
BOOK 91 PAGE 214
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement are governmental entities
in Indian River County and share many of the same or similar
governmental problems; and
WHEREAS, the parties to this agreement have determined that it is
In the public interest of the citizens of Indian River County to engage
in a cooperative effort in the formation of an interlocal agreement for
the purpose of improving governmental efficiency including a reduction
in taxes in Indian River County;
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and among the parties hereto
that each of the parties agrees to participate in a council of local public
officials under the following stipulations, provisions, and conditions:
1. Creation and Name..
There is hereby created 'a council to be known as "Council of
Public Officials".
2. Representation.
Each party will be represented by an elected public official
designated by that party's local governing body.
3. Chairmanship.
The chairman and vice chairman shall be elected at the initial
meeting of the council and thereafter annually in the month of- January
or at the next meeting if no meeting is held in January.
4. Meetings.
Meetings shall be held as needed but no less than once every
year. The : meeting shall be held in accordance with the Florida
Sunshine Amendment and shall be in the County Administration
Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida unless on proper notice
meetings may be held from time to time at other locations.
5. Advisory in Nature.
The council is advisory in nature and it is the duty of each
representative to inform that representatives governing body of
decisions or recommendations reached by the council.
111
6. Rules of Procedure.
In order to avoid setting forth detailed rules of procedure, the
rules of procedure set forth in the Indian River County Code shall
govern the meetings.
7. Duties.
The -council shall:
(a) Seek methods to improve the efficiency of government,
in particular the reduction of taxes, at all levels;
(b) Promote cooperative arrangements and coordinate action
among its members;
(c) Make recommendations for review and action to the
members and other public agencies that perform local
functions and services within the area; and
(d) Welcome input from elected officials of local government
units. located in whole or in part in Indian River County
including county officers, elected officials of districts, and
interested citizens and citizen groups.
8. Termination.
The parties reserve the right to terminate this agreement at any
time by providing written notice to the other parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have entered into this
agreement on the date first written above.
Attest:
Cler of Court,,? r*flaro h/
131. ,
Attest:
T wn Cler Leet . Cioffi
112
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
Richard N. Bird, Chairma
,a%/Q3
TOWN OF ORCHID
By
Mayor T odore J. Leons.i s
BOOK , � 1
b00K 9g Fps;. 6 -7
DEC s 7 1993
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 11:17 o'clock a.m.
ATTEST:
C;;�) 'Q��
J. K. Barton, Clerk
u
Richard N. Bird, Chairman
113