The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3/1/1994MINUTES ATTACI-ISD BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING TUESDAY, MARCH 1, 1994 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FLORIDA COUNTY COMMISSIONERS John W. Tippin, Chairman ( Dist. 4) Kenneth R. Marct, Vice Chairman ( Dist. 3 ) Fran B. Adams ( Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Carolyn K. Eggert ( Dist. 2 ) 9: 00 A. M. 1. CALL TO ORDER 11! James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 2. INVOCATION - Elinor O'Malley Science of Mind Center 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Fran B. Adams 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/ EMERGENCY ITEMS Item 7.F. Community Care Network Committee Item 13.A.2. Request from Judge L. B. Vocelle for Courthouse Workshop Item 13.B. Meeting in Tallahassee on March 17, 1994 S. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS None 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. Regular Meeting of February 1, 1994 B. Special Meeting of February 11, 1994, IRC Public Officials Conference 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Received 6 Placed on File in Office of Clerk: Delta Farms Water Control District Annual Financial Report for F/Y ended 9-30-93 B. Proclamation Designating March 9, 1994 as RSVP Day in Indian River County C. Release of Utility Liens ( memorandum dated February 21, 1994 ) D. Acceptance of Deed for Right -Of -Way ( memorandum dated February 18, 1994 ) E. Budget Amendment #010 /Unemployment Compensation (memorandum dated February 22, 1994) 845 BOOK ��.; f'A.GE O BOOK S. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES None 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Ty Tarby, Trustee, Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approx. 130.3 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone from RM -6 & A-1 to CG ( memorandum dated February 16, 1994 ) 2. St. Mark's Anglican Church Request for Special Exception Use Approval to Con- struct a Place of Worship ( memorandum dated February 23, 1994 ) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS Scheduling of Sales Tax Workshop 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Affordable Housing Workshop (memorandum dated February 23, 1994) 91 PACE 846 B. EMERGENCY SERVICES None C. GENERAL SERVICES None D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. 4th Annual Sunrise Bicycle Classic Rotary Club of Vero Beach ( memorandum dated February 17, 1994 ) 2. Professional Engineering Services Agree- ment/49th St. / Stormwater Permit ( memorandum dated February 22, 1994 ) 3. Request By Moorings of Vero Prop. Owners Assoc. for Establishment of a Street Lighting District (MSTU ) _ ( memorandum dated February 23, 1994 ) H. UTILITIES 1. 34th Ave. Water Line Assessment Project Final Pay Request ( memorandum dated February 21, 1994 ) 2. In -House Design, Construction 6 Inspection of South US Highway No 1 Water Main - ( memorandum dated February 22, 1994 ) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN Selection of Occupational License Equity Study Commission Members B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH -R. MACHT C. COMMISSIONER FRAN B. ADAMS D. COMMISSIONER RICHARD N. BIRD E. COMMISSIONER CAROLYN K. EGGERT 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT None B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT 1. Award Bid #4053 / Caterpillar D-6 Dozer or Equivalent ( memorandum dated February 11, 1994 ) (postponed from BCC Meeting of 2/22/94) 2. Ferrous Take Away Slider Bed Conveyor (memorandum dated February 9, 1994) 3. Award Bid #4059 / Pre -Engineered Steel Building (memorandum dated February 17, 1994) 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. m r .�p MAS j `�99 aou 91 PnE 847 Tuesday, March 1, 1994 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, March 1, 1994, at 9:00 a.m. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Richard N. Bird; and Carolyn K. Eggert. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Held, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order. Elinor O'Malley, Science of Mind Center, gave the invocation, and Commissioner Adams led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS - Chairman Tippin suggested that Item 11.A., Affordable Housing Workshop, be moved to the end of the regular meeting. Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of 7.F., Community Care Network Committee. Chairman Tippin requested the addition of 13.A.2., a letter from Judge Vocelle requesting a Courthouse workshop. Commissioner Macht requested the addition of 13.B., Meeting in Tallahassee on March 17, 1994. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the above items to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 1, 1994. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 1, 1994, as written. Boor 91 F,ku[ $48 BOOK 91 FADE 849 The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 11, 1994. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 11, 1994, as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. Reports The following was received and placed on file in the office of Clerk to the Board: Delta Farms Water Control District Annual Financial Report for Fiscal Year ended September 30, 1993 B. 'Proclamation Designating March 9 1994 as RSVP Day in Indian River County P R O C L A M A T I O'N DESIGNATING MARCH 9, 1994 AS RSVP DAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY WHEREAS, for the past nine years the Retired Senior Volunteer Program of Indian River County has worked with over 55 non-profit agencies and organizations in Indian River County to help in filling their volunteer needs; and WHEREAS, RSVP volunteers are senior citizens, age 55 or more, who volunteer their time, talents, and experiences of a lifetime to the community; and WHEREAS, in 1993 these wonderful, caring, sharing seniors contributed 115,000 hours of volunteer service to Indian River County; and WHEREAS, on March 9, 1994. the Retired Senior Volunteer Program will hold a recognition luncheon for the 600 plus members of this -outstanding organization: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMUSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that March 9, 1994 be designated as RSVP DAY in Indian River County, Florida. The Board urges all citizens of Indian River County to support the Retired Senior Volunteer Program, and the Board further wishes to express appreciation for the unselfish dedication of time and talents of these deserving citizens of our county. Adopted this 3 day of March, 1994. 2 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Cohn W. Tippi Chairman a � � C. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated February 21, 1994: TO: BOAApRD� OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS j FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: February 21, 1994 RE: RELEASE OF UTILITY LIENS The attached lien releases are in proper form for the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman to sign so that they can be recorded. The names and projects are: - - 1. Satisfaction of Impact Fee Extensions: GRAVES JANNAZZO MILLER SIMONS WILLIAMS 2. Citrus Gardens Water.Project: LABADIE(2) 3. Kings Highway Water Project: MEDLIN 4. Phase I Water Project: CADENHEAD JM2 CORP. OWLE RIVA 5. Phase II Water Project: BARBER DURFEE JANNAZZO KINGSLEY KUNDROT WHITE 6. Rockridge Sewer Project: COLQUHOUN 7. Shady Oaks Water Project: JENNINGS ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the lien releases as listed in staff's memorandum. LIEN -RELATED DOCUMENTS ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 3 MAR ®11994 BOCK 91 PAGE '85O r MAR - 1 1994 BOOK 91 FAUC 8.51-7 D. Resolution Accepting Deed for Right -of -Way The Board reviewed memo from Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II dated February 18, 1994: TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: VfO" William G. Collins II - Deputy County Attorney DATE: February 18, 1994 SUBJECT: Acceptance of Deed for Right -of -Way David Feldman is processing his subdivision plat application for a project known as Victoria Fakes Subdivision. The project is located west of King's Highway south of 61st Street and north of 59th Street. 61st Street is now a 30 -foot right-of-way north of a 30 -foot Indian River Farms Drainage District right-of-way. In order to bring 61st Street up to the minimum local road standard of 60 feet in width, Mr. Feldman has arranged with the property owner to the north of his project to quit -claim an additional 30 feet to the County. RECOMMENDATION: Authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Resolution accepting the quit -claim deed for 61st Street right-of-way. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 94-42 accepting a deed for right-of-way for 61st Street west of Kings Highway, as recommended by staff. 4 Thls document wns prepared by a/]B/A 1(IL) Lq�)/victori�)tRC7AL(WCSC/»hnf) nud should be rewrned td ; READ VERIFIED the Couuly Allorney s O[flct K. BARTON 1840 251h St., Vero Beady' JEPfREY RESOLUTION NO. 94- 42 r`L _RK CIRCUIT COURT Florida ,32960 ' INDIAN RIVER CO.. FLA r `1 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD - OF-- COUNTY �(s COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ACCEPTING A DEED FOR RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR 61ST STREET WEST OF KING'S HIGHWAY. WHEREAS, 61st Street west of King's Highway is an existing 30 -foot right-of-way; and WHEREAS, County Land Development . Regulations establish a 60 -foot road width as a minimum local road standard; and WHEREAS, Mordechai Boaziz, as Trustee and Individually, has executed a Quit -Claim Deed dated December 27, 1993 for the -purpose of conveying an. additional 30 feet of right-of-way to Indian River County, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Quit -Claim Deed dated December 27, 1993 executed by Mordechai Boaziz, as Trustee and Individually, to Indian River County for the following described property: The North 30 feet of the South 60 feet of the South 20 acres of Tract 16, Section 8, Township 32 South, Range 39 East of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25; Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. Said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Is hereby accepted. The foregoing resolution was Bird and seconded by . Commissioner to a vote, the vote was as follows: offered by Commissioner Adams and, being put Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 1 day of March , 1994. I ATTEST:, . ey.�.. f �ey� �apton, Cler APPROi7.ED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL "SUFFICIENCY: William G. Collins II Deputy County Attorney MAR - 11994 G� INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By Jo i W . Tippffif ' iadrma indm We Ca Approved ~Dole Admin. Legal kcaC— ./ .. ia�;�iq®1 Ocp1. t3Wc x121 11 n1sl( Mgr. /�/ LJ _ t7D W O %D Ul 0 CD -o W W C" BOOK 91 FAGE 852 r MAR - 1 1994 Box 91 pnE $53 E. Budget Amendment #010 - Unemployment Compensation The Board reviewed memo from OMB Director Joe Baird dated February 22, 1994: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: February 22, 1994 SUBJECT: UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION BUDGET AMENDMENT 010 - CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director oq-- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following 1. The State of Florida, Department of Labor, has charged Indian River County for Unemployment Compensation payments to former employees. A budget amendment is required to reflect these payments. As requested by the Board of County Commissioners at the meeting of November 16, 1993, Jack Price, Personnel Director, has prepared a case history on the new unemployment claims for the period ending December 31, 1993. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 010. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment No. 010, as recommended by staff. 6 TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director BUDGET AMENDMENT: 010 DATE: February 22, 1994 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Clerk of Court Unemployment Compensation 001-309-513-012.15 $2,957 $0 GENERAL FUND/Property Appraiser Unemployment Compensation 001-500-513-012.15 $36 $0 GENERAL. FUND/Supervisor of Elections _ Unemployment Compensation 001-700-519-012.15 $20 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/ Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 $0 $3,013 EXPENSE S.W.D.D./Recycling Unemployment Compensation 411-255-534-012.15 $954 $0 S.W.D.D./Landfill Cash Forward - September 30 411-217-534-099.92 $0 $954 EXPENSE GOLF COURSE/Clubhouse Unemployment Compensation 418-236-572-01215 $1,788 $0 GOLF COURSE/ Cash Forward 418-236-572-099.92 $0 $1,788 EXPENSE UTILITIES/Water Unemployment Compensation 471-219-536-01215 $941 $0 UTILITIES/Water Cash Forward 471-219-536-099.92 $0 $941 F. Community Care Network Committee The Board reviewed the following letter: 7 r BOOK 91 PAGE 854 r MAR -1199d BOOK 85-5 IRMHIndianRiver Count Y II Ho 232TA D c Ct,tnmis::l mi s BOARD OF TRUSTEE54,-, Vincent ). Montuoro January 10, 1994 f= Chairman _._........._ ._ Ms n Duncan A. Chalmers Y K. Eggert Carol i1r�,r..-----1--- Chairman Paul A. Graham, M.D. Primary Care/Public Health Committee1'i-�"'`' Margaret Ingram 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Beverly O'Neill, R.N. Dear Ms. Eggert: Joyce Salter Health care leaders are feeling both elated and Broadus F. Sowell, M.D. apprehensive these days. On one hand they are gratified that our Country has Michael finally acknowledged 1. O'Grady, Jr. that the health care system needs to be revised. On Executive Director the other hand, they are concerned about what national reform will »ltimately mean for hospitals, patients, and communities. Some hospitals and their community leaders have already begun to move through the spectrum that leads from the way services are provided 'new to .the concept of Community Care Networks. A Community* Care Network is a plan to work collaboratively to improve the health status of a community through the provision of a continuum of services by a group of health care providers that operates within fixed resources and is accountable to the community. In- preparation of its budget for 1993-1994, the Indian River County Hospital District Board of Trustees in collaboration with Indian River Memorial Hospital recognized the need to investigate the development of a Community Care Network in Indian River County. The common bond that will bind networks and make them succeed is community -level collaboration. Development of *a Community Care Network requires consensus among community leadership with respect to: - A common vision of a Community Care Network. - A collaborative approach to stimulate networking of independent organizations in the community. - A strategic plan for devising appropriate incentives for incrementally moving independent organizations and activities into closer network relationship, particularly those organizations that provide the funding and those organizations that spent the money. 1000 36th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 (407) 567-4311 Fax No. (407) 562-5628 8 In our community, we have previously received input from the Indigent Care Advisory Task Force of the Indian River County Hospital District Board of Trustees which identified a series of needs to be addressed. The Indian River County Visions Workshop held in October of 1992 emphasized health related issues that should be tackled within Indian River County. In order to initiate this development process, the Hospital District, is forming an ad=hoc work group of eight to ten people representing organizations involved in the community's health care system to meet and begin discussing the concept of a Community Care Network and specifically to develop a mission statement, scope of services to be considered, participants in the process, and an overall time frame for accomplishing this task. I am asking you as a representative of the Primary Care/Public Health Committee to participate in this process. An initial meeting will be held on Tuesday, January 25, 1994 at 4:00 p.m. in the Administrative Board Room at Indian River Memorial Hospital. If you are interested in participating as a member of this work group please contact Maureen. Luther at (407) 567-4311, extension 1108. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact myself or Gerry Koziel, Senior Vice President fot Planning and Development at Indian River Memorial Hospital who will be providing staff assistance for this process. Sincerely, 14_e� Beverly O'Neill Trustee Ad-hoc Committee, Chairperson ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Commissioner Eggert, as Chairman of the Primary Care/Public Health Committee, to participate in the Community Care Network Committee. D MAR -11994 BOOK FA E 856 FP__MAR � 11994 BOOK 91 PAGE 857 PUBLIC HEARING - TY TARBY, TRUSTEE, REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 130.3 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I. AND TO REZONE FROM RM -6 AND A-1 TO CG ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously deferred the Public Hearing to the end of today's meeting to allow the applicant's representative ample time to arrive. (See page 30.) PUBLIC HEARING - ST. MARK'S ANGLICAN CHURCH REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A PLACE OF WORSHIP The hour of 9:05 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 a in the matter of In the Court, was pub- Ilshed in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ••.•i�t(en?8ubscribed before fi� this -' a day o7_=��,,D. 19 7. • �• (�l z BARRARA C. SPRAGUE., NOTARY Punt.1c, (Business Manager) fyCOmrn G' Stale of Florida, My Commlesw Exp. June 29, 1907 June p1res . m S. Commisstun Numher: GG300572 No2s 1997 N,A :.fS A j 7p •. LIG... • P ,•�•��F FLOR��'••• NotaryBARBARA C SPRAGUE NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consder granting of special exception use approval for a place of worship. The subject property is presently owned by St. Mark's Anglican Church, and located In Sectice 12, Town- =33 and Range 39. See the above map for the kxatlon. , A public hearing at which parties In interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, win be held by the Board of Courtry Conpnissloners of Indian Rker Cowry, Fbrda, 1h %e County Commis - Won Chambers of the County. Admfrdsbatbn Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor- da on Tuesday, March 1, 1994 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any, decKlon en- srich aay becoofting WE �gee that verbatim re atecord the proceedings Is made, which indudes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODA. TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT IADA) COORDINATOR AT 567.8000 X408 AT LLEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET- ING. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS BY -s -"m W. Tippin, Chairman Feb.4,1994 1069490 Planning Director Stan Boling commented from the following: 10 807 TO: James Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE: Community De elopmenti-Director THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: Eric Blad/1 Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: February 23, 1994 SUBJECT: St. Mark's Anglican Church Request for Special Exception Use Approval To Construct -A Place Of Worship SP-MA-94-01-03/IRC #93060048-002 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of March 1, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Todd Smith, on behalf of St. Mark's Anglican A.C.A., Inc., has submitted an application for major site plan approval and special exception use approval to construct a place of worship. The subject site is located at 1180 8th Street, approximately 3/10 of a mile west of Old Dixie Highway on the north side of 8th Street. Construction of the proposed church will be implemented in three phases; the first two phases involving site related improvements and construction of the buildings, while the third phase involves paving of stabilized parking areas and driving aisles established in the first two phases. No school or child care uses are proposed on site. Since the site is located within a RS -6 zoning district, special exception use approval must be granted by the county for use of the site as a place of worship. Pursuant to section 971.05 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted site plan and suitability of the site for that use. The Board -may approve, approve with conditions or deny the special exception use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. At its January 27, 1994 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the major site plan application subject to the Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception request and to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use. 11 V BOOK 9�. F�,GFfS L'�AR m 11994 r MAR - 11994 BOOK 91 FKu"t 8591 ANALYSIS: 1. Zoning Classification: RS -6, Residential Single Family (up to 6 units per acre) 2. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units per acre) 3. Surrounding Land Use & Zoning: North: Single Family Residences/RS-6 South: 8th Street, Residences/RS-6 East: Vacant/RS-6 West: Commercial, Vacant/CH, RS -6 4. Total Area of Development: 114,840 sq. ft. or 2.64 acres 5. Building Area: 4,280 sq. ft. (phase 1) 6,860 sq. ft. (phase 2) 111140 sq. ft. (total for both phases) 6. Impervious Surface: 19,713 phase 1 41,339 phases 2 & 3 61,052 total or 36% of the site 7. Open Space: Required: 40.0% Proposed (after phases 1, 2, & 3): 47.8% Note: The site plan data calculations section for impervious surface and for open space square footage includes the applicant's acknowledgement that grass parking areas cannot be credited toward meeting the open space requirement. 8. Traffic Circulation: The site will be accessed off 8th Street by a single 22' wide driveway. This driveway will access parking areas to the side (west side) and rear (north side) of the proposed buildings. The access to the site and the internal traffic circulation plan have been approved by the Traffic Engineering Division. 9. Off -Street Parking: Pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 954 for off-street parking, the site is required to provide parking at a ratio of one parking space for every 3 seats. Therefore, the per phase parking requirements for the site are as follows: phase 1 (120 seats): required parking: proposed parking: phase 1 & 2 (447 seats): required parking: proposed parking: 40 spaces 40 spaces 149 spaces 149 spaces 10. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has been approved by the Public Works Department, and a Type "A" stormwater permit will be issued. County Public Works intends to coordinate with the construction of the church project to extend a 10' wide swale within an existing 20' wide county easement that runs along the western boundary of the subject site. The swale improvement should help relieve drainage problems in the area. The county and applicant will coordinate construction of the outfall Swale with that of the drainage improvements for the church project. The applicant has agreed to grant the county permission to use the church property during construction of the swale due to the physical constraints of the easement and the site. 12 M M 11. Utilities: County potable water is available to service the project, and connection is required. The applicant must obtain a Utility Construction Permit in order to accomplish the mandatory hook-up. County wastewater service is also available to the project; however, County Utility Services has deferred mandatory connection until development beyond phase 1 of the project. Therefore, prior to site plan release, the applicant must apply for and obtain a Utility Construction Permit for water service. 12. Health and Rehabilitative Services (HRS): The Environmental Health Services Unit for the county has no objection to the proposed site plan application or the special exception use approvals. Prior to the release of the approved site plan for construction, the applicant must apply for and receive the applicable HRS permits for a septic system for phase 1. 13. Environmental Issues: No uplands preservation or wetlands requirements apply. Environmental planning staff have no objection to the site plan approval. 14. Landscape Plan: The landscaping plan is in accordance with Chapter 926 requirements, and provides the buffers required for places of worship. Since the property is adjacent to single-family residences, the required Type "C" and Type "D" buffers depicted along the north and east boundaries will be field inspected and approved by staff prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. 15. Dedications and Improvements: The county intends to purchase 20' of additional 8th Street right-of-way to secure the ultimate right-of-way width (801) for this segment of 8th Street. Public Works staff will be negotiating with the property owner regarding this right-of-way purchase. The proposed site plan accommodates purchase of the right-of-way as well as setbacks from the ultimate right-of-way. In accordance with the county's sidewalk and bikeway plan and the LDRs, the site plan depicts a 5' wide sidewalk along the site's 8th Street frontage, to be constructed prior to issuance of a C.O. for the project. 16. Specific Land Use Criteria: The application must satisfy all applicable criteria for a place of worship. The place of worship specific land use criteria are as follows: a. No building or structure shall be located closer than thirty (30) feet to any property line abutting a residential use or residentially designated property; b. Access shall be from a major thoroughfare unless otherwise approved by the public works department; c. Any accessory residential use, day care facility or school upon the premises shall provide such additional lot area as required for such use by this section and shall further be subject to all conditions set forth by the reviewing procedures and standards for that particular use. Accessory residential uses may include covenants, monasteries, rectories or parsonages as required by these regulations; 13 MAR LOOK 91 860 r�99� BOOK MAR � 91U'.861 d. Type "C" screening shall be provided along all property boundaries where the facility is located adjacent to a single-family residentially designated property. Type "D" screening shall be provided along all property boundaries when the facility is located adjacent to a multi -family residential designated property. Staff has verified that the site plan application satisfies all of the applicable specific land use criteria. Based on the following analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners: 1. Grant special exception use approval for the proposed project subject to the following condition: a. Prior to site plan release, the applicant must apply for and obtain a Utility Construction Permit for water service. b. Prior to site plan release,the applicant must apply for and obtain the applicable HRS permits for a septic system for phase 1. The Board reviewed the following letter: COLONIAL TERRACE HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATIONS 640 10TH COURT VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32962 February 28, 1994 Board of County Commissioners Indian River County -1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 RE: Proposed St. Mark's Anglican Church SP-MA-94-0103/IRC #93060048-002 Dear Honorable Members: As a homeowner in Colonial Terrace I received your certified letter regarding the proposed location of the St. Marks Anglican Church. 14 I would have no objection to the church being located 3/10 of a mile west Old Dixie Highway on the north side of 8th Street. However, I do think there should be a left turn lane going East and an off ramp going West. The traffic lights at Old Dixie & 8th Street and at 20th Avenue & 8th Street should both have left turn arrows to expedite the movement of traffic. The only way to enter or exit Colonial Terrace is by way of 10th Court off 8th Street. Without the above mentioned suggestions, the flow of traffic would be impaired. I appreciate your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Ralph J. Lindsey Director Commissioner Eggert led discussion regarding the left -turn signal, and Director Boling explained that the Traffic Engineering Department studies indicate that the left -turn movement during peak hours is below the required threshold for left -turn lanes. Commissioner Adams asked, and Director Boling clarified that utility services are currently available to this site but the applicants chose to include a septic system in the first phase, and to connect to the sewer service when the second phase begins. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Kurt Voit, 1115 Colonial Gardens, stated that he heard rumors that the church was not going to be built. Chairman Tippin responded that the Board must act on the application as presented. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously granted special exception use to St. Mark's Anglican Church to construct a place of worship under the conditions set out in staff's memorandum. 15 MAR -1 1994 BOOK 91 P,.GE 862 r MAR -11994 SCHEDULING OF SALES TAX WORKSHOP The Board agreed to schedule Wednesday, April 6, 1994, at 9:00 a.m. AFFORDABLE HOUSING,WORKSHOP (See page 23.) MOK 91 F},r 863 -1 a Sales Tax Workshop on 4TH ANNUAL SUNRISE BICYCLE CLASSIC ROTARY CLUB OF VERO BEACH The Board reviewed memo from Traffic Engineer Jeanne Bresett dated February 17, 1994: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.B. Public Works Directc FROM: Jeanne Brese Interim Chie is Engineer SUBJECT: 4th Annual Sunrise Bicycle Classic Rotary Club of Vero Beach DATE: February 17, 1994 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIOPS The Rotary Club of Vero Beach is planning the 4th Annual Sunrise Bicycle Classic. The 100 mile, three lap bicycle race is scheduled for April 9, 1994. (A separate series of shorter races will be held on private roadways within Grand Harbor on Sunday, April 10, 1994.) The race of 100 miles will begin and end at the Vero Beach Senior High School. The proposed route is the exact same route as the previous years and the racers will cover the following route three times: 1) 16th and 17th Streets at Vero Beach Senior High School over '17th Street Bridge to SR AlA 2) North on SR AIA to CR 510 3) West on CR 510 to 58th Avenue 4) South on 58th Avenue to Oslo Road 5) East on Oslo Road to 20th Avenue 6) North on 20th Avenue to Vero Beach Senior High School (16th Street) The route proved to be very successful in the previous years. The moving envelope of bike racers will be ushered by an official lead vehicle, a Sheriff's car, emergency vehicles, race official vehicles, Indian River Shores Police vehicles and City of Vero Beach Police vehicles. 16 Members of the "HAM" operators organizations, Vero Beach High School ROTC units, and uniformed Rotary Club members will be stationed all along the route to ensure visual and radio contact and positive traffic control at all times. The race is scheduled to begin at approximately 8:00 AM and will be concluded between 11:00 and 11:30 AM. ALT�LTATIVES AND ANALYSIS The request for approval from the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners to hold the 4th Annual Sunrise Bicycle Classic on Saturday morning, April 9, 1994 is the proposal before the Board at this time. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request based upon the success of the last three years events and the fact that the exact same route and procedures are to be followed this year. In addition, the Rotary Club will need to secure a right-of-way permit from Indian River County and the Floridan Department of Transportation. Liaison activities will be maintained between the race committee, Indian River County Sheriff's Department, City of Vero Beach Police Department and Indian River County Traffic Engineering. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the 4th Annual Sunrise Bicycle Classic as set out in staff's memorandum. PROFESSIONAL ENGINEERING SERVICES AGREEMENT - 49TH STREET (LINDSEY ROAD) STORMWATER PERMIT The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated February 22, 1994: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Direct SUBJECT: Professional Engineering Services Agreement - 49th Street (Lindsey Road) Stormwater Permit DATE: February 22, 1994 FILE: 49.AGN DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS As approved by the Board in December, 1993, staff has negotiated the attached engineering services agreement with Mosby and Associates, Inc., Vero Beach, which provides for stormwater permitting services for the paving of 900, of 49th Street west of Rings Highway. The negotiated compensation is a not -to - exceed fee of $2,500. 17 MAR -11994 BOOK 91 PAGE 864 RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING BOOK 91 P}+ F865 Staff recommends authorization for the Chairman to execute the attached agreement. Funding to be from the $65,000 Performance Bond posted by Dennis Smith when his sand mine on Lindsey road was approved conditioned on the paving of the road. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the engineering services agreement with Mosby and Associates, Inc., in the amount of $2,500, as recommended by staff. SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD REQUEST BY MOORINGS OF VERO PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A STREET LIGHTING DISTRICT (MSTU) The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated February 23, 1994: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Request by Moorings of Vero Property Owners Association for Establishment of a Street Lighting District (MSTU) REF. LETTERS: Herb Grandage and Jack MacLean, Moorings POA to James Davis dated Feb. 16, 1994 and Feb. 18, 1994 DATE: February 23, 1994 FILE: MOORINcs.A= DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Moorings Property Owners Association is requesting that the County establish a street lighting district to provide street lighting within the Moorings Development. The City of Vero Beach Electrical Engineering Division has designed the street light system. The County Surveyor has prepared a legal description for the district. 18 � � r ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Moorings POA is requesting that the County staff expedite the scheduling of the Public Hearing to establish a MSTU for a Street Light District. The Moorings POA has written the property owners of 1,114 parcels in the Moorings to determine community support for the lighting. The POA received 820 responses from the mailing and 622 property owners (56% of the 1,114 owners) were in support of the lighting. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that a Public Hearing be scheduled for April 5, 1994. The Moorings POA would prefer to schedule the hearing prior to seasonal resident returning to northern destinations. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously scheduled a public hearing for April 5, 1994 to consider the establishment of a Municipal Services Taxing Unit for a Street Lighting District in the Moorings Development as requested by the Moorings Property Owners Association. 34TH AVENUE WATER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT FINAL PAY REQUEST The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated February 21, 1994: DATE: FEBRUARY 21, 1994 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. AND STAFFED CAPITAL P BY: DEPAR SUBJECT: 34TH.AVENUE SER LINE ASSESSMENT PROJECT FINAL PAY REQUEST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -92 -25 -DS BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On June 15, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Timothy Rose Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $24,163.40 (see attached agenda and minutes). The project is now complete and we have received clearance from the Department of Environmental Protection (D.E.P.), to put the line in service. 11 BOOK �1 F��, r SOL' F' BAR e 11,994 BOOK 91 P�mu'F 867-1 To finalize this project, final payment must be made to the contractor. There was no need for a final change order in this project. Therefore, the final project cost is $24,163.40. The original completion date on this project was November 29, 1993. The project was completed on January 28, 1994. Liquidated damages will not be assessed due to extensive rainfall during the project, causing the delays. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the final pay request to the contractor as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the final payment to Timothy Rose Contracting, Inc., in the amount of $24,163.40, as recommended by staff. FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD IN-HOUSE DESIGN. CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION OF SOUTH U.S.#1 WATER MAIN The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated February 22, 1994: DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 1994 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO FROM: TERRANCE G. PI DIRECTOR OF UTILITY ER CES PREPARED WILLIAM F cCAIN AND STAFFED CAPIT ENGINEER BY: DEPAR F UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: IN-HOUSE DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION AND INSPECTION OF SOUTH U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 WATER MAIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -26 -DS BACKGROUND On November 2, 1993, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved the County Master Plan update by Brown and Caldwell. (See attached and minutes.) The water distribution section of this report (see attached exhibit), identifies a U.S. Highway No. 1 water main project from 49th Street to and through the City of Sebastian in 1994. On November 2, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved final design and construction of the portion of the project from C.R. 510 to the southern city limits of Sebastian (see attached agenda item and minutes). We now wish to proceed with the south portion of the water transmission system, which runs from C.R. 510 south to 49th Avenue. 20 ANALYSIS The proposed construction is for a water transmission main from County Road 510 south to 49th Street. The estimated construction cost is $1,540,,,000.00 and the project will be designed by in-house engineering. We have negotiated a work authorization with Masteller Moler and Reed, Inc., for surveying services in the amount of $27,310.00. (See attached work authorization.) The construction of this line will not only allow the expansion of the North County Water System but it will also allow several small package water treatment plants to be taken off line. The following package plants will be removed from service: 1) Hobart Landing 2) Copelands Landing 3) Various privately operated MHP treatment facilities The operational cost savings from the removal of these plants is estimated at $20,000.00 per year. This is a result of reduced regulatory testing and man hours to operate these facilities. The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the design and construction of this project as outlined and approval of the survey contract as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the.Board unanimously approved the design and construction- of the water transmission main. on U.S.#1 from CR -510 to 49th Street, and approved the contract with Masteller Moler and Reed, Inc., for surveying services in the amount of $27,310.00, as recommended by staff. SAID CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD SELECTION OF OCCUPATIONAL LICENSE EQUITY STUDY COMMISSION MEMBERS Deferred for one week. LETTER FROM JUDGE L. B. VOCELLE REQUESTING A COURTHOUSE WORKSHOP The Board reviewed the following letter: 21 BOX L -MAR ® 1 1994 r MAR - t wga� L B. VOCELLE CHIEF JUDGE Otaft of 3tortba Nfuteent4 Xualdal (1rcutt February 24, 1994 Mr. John Tippin Chairman , Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960-3394 Dear Chairman Tippin: POOK 91 FA,FS P. O. BOX 488 VERO BEACH. FL 32961 PHONE. (407) 770-5050 (407) 468-1460 I request a workshop meeting with the Board of Commissioners, Judges and those who have an interest in matters pertaining to the Judiciary to consider: 1. Overall court house budget, including security for new courthouse. 2. Projective use of present courthouse and annex when moved to view facilities. 3. The acquisition of adjacent properties to new courthouse for future judicial complex. 4. Other matters of mutual interest. Your earliest consideration to this request is appreciated. Early morning meetings (7:00 am) are more convenient to the Judge's schedule. L.B. Vocelle Chief Judge ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously requested that Commissioner Macht, Administrator Chandler and General Services Director Sonny Dean review Judge Vocelle's request and present a report to the Board. MEETING IN TALLAHASSEE ON MARCH 17 1994 Commissioner Macht led discussion regarding Legislative Day in Tallahassee on March 17, 1994, and the Board agreed that Chairman Tippin will be our representative. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT Chairman Tippin announced that the Board would adjourn to sit as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District, after which the Board would reconvene as the Board of County Commissioners. The SWDD minutes will be prepared separately. 22 AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP The Board reviewed memo from Community Development Director Bob Keating dated February 23, 1994: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: Robert M. Keating, AICP 4MK Community Development Director DATE: February 23,. 1994 SUBJECT: AFFORDABLE HOUSING WORKSHOP It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of March 1, 1994. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: At a recent meeting, the Board of County commissioners decided to have a workshop on affordable housing issues. The purpose of the workshop is to consider at one time affordable housing issues which have come before the Board incrementally, as well as to review the County's draft Housing Incentive Plan in a workshop type setting. Several factors have combined to warrant the Board's consideration of affordable housing issues at this time. These include the County's adopted comprehensive plan and its implementation; the. County's current Local Housing Assistance Program; and the County's draft Housing Incentive Plan. • Comprehensive Plan As required by Chapter 163.31611F.S., the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985, the County's comprehensive plan had to include a housing element. Consistent with this requirement, a housing analysis was undertaken, and a housing element was prepared. When the County's comprehensive plan was adopted in February, 1990, the housing component was one of the thirteen elements making up the plan. Besides a needs assessment, the housing element includes a set of goals, objectives, and policies. Among these policies are provisions for establishing an affordable housing advisory committee, creating a housing trust fund, and providing county surplus property for affordable housing development. A copy of the housing element goals, objectives, and policies is attached to this staff report. Once the comprehensive plan was adopted, the County was required to implement the plan. Among its various housing element implementation activities, the County formed the original Affordable Housing Advisory committee. That committee focussed on the housing trust fund and other housing element policies. •Local Housing Assistance Program As the County's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee was addressing implementation of the comprehensive plan's housing policies, the 1992 Legislature passed the Sadowski Affordable 23 MAR ® 11994 BOOK 91 WAGE 87® ROOK m MAS 11994 Housing Act. That legislation addressed the major affordable housing issue - funding. One of the programs created by the Act provided for the creation and funding of local Housing Trust Funds. That program is the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) Program. The SHIP Program provides a specialized funding source to be utilized in meeting the "affordable housing" needs of very low-, low- and moderate income households. Funds are collected for this program by the state and allocated to counties through the State Housing Initiatives Partnership (SHIP) program. For each of the 1992-93, 1993-94, and 1994-95 fiscal years, Indian River County is receiving $250,000.00 in SHIP funds; that amount will increase to $574,186.00 for FY1995-96 and subsequent fiscal years. To qualify for SHIP funds, the county undertook the following actions in April, 1993: 1. Adopted a local ordinance establishing a Local Housing Assistance Program (LHAProgram) and a Local Housing Assistance Trust Fund. 2. Adopted a Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAPlan) which details the intent and guidelines of the Local Housing Assistance Program (LHAProgram). 3. Created a Local Affordable Housing Advisory Committee which conducted a regulatory review of the county's regulations and developed a Local Housing Incentive Plan (LHIPlan) to be adopted by the county within one (1) year of adoption of the ordinance established the LHAProgram. A copy of the County's adopted Local Housing Assistance Plan (LHAPlan) has been provided with this agenda item, and a copy of the County's informational brochure is attached. The brochure summarizes the program and strategies, while the LHAPlan provides more detail. For the last six months, staff has been following the plan and implementing the program in conjunction with the local housing assistance partnership - local bankers, builders, realtors. During this time, 22 loans have been approved for a total of $114,759.00. • Housing Incentive Plan One requirement of the SHIP program is that each participating local government, within one year of adopting its Local Housing Assistance Plan, must prepare, adopt, and submit (to the state) a Local Housing Incentive Plan. The purpose of that plan is to recommend specific incentives to encourage or. facilitate affordable housing while protecting the ability of property to appreciate in value." According to the SHIP administrative rule, 9I-37.010(2), each Housing Incentive Plan must include recommendations addressing the following areas: • The Affordable housing definition in the appointing resolution. • The expedited processing of permits issued by the Local Government for Affordable housing projects. Provisions for prioritizing Affordable housing projects must be identified. The modification reduction or waive payment. of impact -fee requirements, including r of fees and alternative methods of fee 24 • The allowance of increased density levels. • The reservation of infrastructure capacity for housing for Very Low -Income Persons and Low -Income Persons. • The transfer of development rights as a financing mechanism for housing for Very Low -Income Persons and Low -Income Persons. • The reduction of parking and setback requirement. • The allowance of zero -lot -line configurations. • the modification of street requirements. • The establishment of a process by which a Local Government considers, before adoption, the impact of proposed policies, procedures, ordinances, regulations, or Plan provisions upon the cost of housing. • The preparation of a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for Affordable housing. In the past year, the County's Affordable Housing Advisory Committee (AHAC) has addressed all of the issues referenced above and prepared a draft Housing Incentive Plan. This plan was approved by the AHAC at its meeting of February 10, 1994. At that time, the AHAC recommended that the Board of County Commissioners adopt the plan and forward it to the state for its review. As scheduled, the Board of County Commissioners will consider adoption of the Housing Incentive Plan'at its meeting of March 8, 1994. To provide adequate review time and to permit discussion of the plan at the affordable housing workshop, copies of the draft plan have already been distributed. ANALYSIS: As indicated in the draft Housing Incentive Plan, many of the issue areas referenced in the SHIP rule have already been addressed by the County. Through the efforts of the original Affordable Housing Advisory Committee and the Professional Services Advisory Committee, the County's land development regulations have been reviewed in detail, impact fee issues and alternatives have been discussed, and provisions have been made for special housing development types. While the draft Housing Incentive Plan does not include recommendations for major changes, some recommendations may be controversial. These are discussed below. • County Surplus Property This is an issue that was briefly considered in the past. While the state SHIP rule requires that only a printed inventory of locally owned public lands suitable for affordable housing be prepared, the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee has recommended that County surplus property suitable for affordable housing be made available to non-profit housing agencies at below market cost. The AHAC has also recommended that, where surplus property is sold for other than affordable housing purposes, 50% of the proceeds be deposited in the housing trust fund. 25 i BOOK 91 FA,c 872 Fr - F MAR - 11994 BOOK 91 FA,F $73 -1 The draft Housing Incentive Plan addresses this issue in more detail. While the rule does not require that surplus property (or the proceeds from the sale of surplus property). be used for affordable housing purposes, the AHAC's position was that this is one local action that could be taken to provide affordable housing. • Prioritizinq*Housing Project Permit Reviews As approved by the AHAC, the draft Housing Incentive Plan does not propose special treatment for affordable housing project permit reviews. Instead, the draft plan recommends that the County move toward implementation of a one-stop permitting process, a procedure that would streamline all permit reviews. Recent correspondence from the state, however, indicates that such a recommendation will make a local Housing Incentive Plan unapprovable. According to February 10, 1994 SHIP Question and Answer Memorandum (94-01) from the Florida Housing Finance Agency, a Local Housing Incentive Plan which addresses expedited permit processing in general, but does not give affordable housing specific priority will be unacceptable. The memo cites Section 420.9076(6) as the applicable statutory requirement. Accordingly, the expedited permit processing section of the draft Housing Incentive Plan may have to be changed to give affordable housing projects specific priority. • Impact Fees The Affordable Housing Advisory Committee considered the issue of impact fees in detail. While the committee acknowledged the need for impact fees, the AHAC also noted that impact fees disproportionately affect affordable housing. It was recognized, however, that the SHIP program impact fee loan and grant strategies do somewhat address the problem. Also discussed by the AHAC, but not included in the Incentive Plan and not forwarded to the Board as a recommendation, was the concept of the County imposing an additional one cent of local option gas tax and using the proceeds to eliminate traffic impact fees for affordable housing units. Since each additional one cent of local option gas tax will raise approximately $560,000 in revenue, an extra penny could subsidize the traffic impact fee for most affordable housing units countywide. This issue is being brought up only for general consideration; the AHAC is not recommending action by the Board on this issue at this time. • Conclusion With passage of the Sadowski Affordable Housing Act and establishment of the SHIP program, the County now has some tools to use in addressing the County's affordable housing problems. Like most state funding programs, SHIP funds come with certain requirements attached. Besides extensive reporting requirements, these include the Housing Incentive Plan preparation requirements referenced above. These issues will be discussed in more detail at the March 1, 1994 Affordable Housing workshop. 26 Director Keating further explained the seven recommended strategies for housing and neighborhood conservation. 1. Impact Fee Grant: Grants to pay the cost of the impact fees for new houses or for required connection to utilities services for an existing house. Only families in the very low income category are eligible for these grants, and as with any grant, it does not need to be paid back. 2. Impact Fee Loan: Deferred loans with 3 percent interest rate; the principle and interest is not required to be paid back until the dwelling unit is sold. One advantage of an impact fee loan is that it is not included when financial institutions are looking at debt to income ratio. The impact fee loan is intended to pay for utility impact fees associated with connection to utilities as well as traffic impact fees and other costs associated with new construction. 3. Down Payment and Closing Costs: There is a 3 percent interest charge, but the principle and interest are deferred until the housing unit is sold. 4. Land Acquisition Loans: This type of loan is geared toward Habitat for Humanity and other non-profit organizations involved with housing. Staff had discussions with representatives of Habitat for Humanity and they indicated they will take advantage of this strategy. We will provide them with assistance to acquire land on which they can build affordable housing, and they will get potential home owners involved with the "Sweat Equity" approach. 5. Rehabilitation Loan: These are loans.for renovation of existing homes. 6. Land Bank: Purchase of property at market value. 7. Land Bank: Tax Deed Purchases. Regarding 6. and 7., staff does not know if these will be recommended, but they are possible strategies. Director Keating listed the three targeted income groups: Very Low = families whose income is 50 percent or less of the area's median family income; Low = families whose income is 80 percent of the area's median family income; Moderate = families whose income is 120 percent of the area's median family income. Last year the area median income was about $35,000 a year, and this figure is adjusted for household size. Commissioner Adams asked for clarification on the moderate income category, and Director Keating explained that 120 percent of the area's median income of $35,000 would be about $47,500 for the moderate income category. Director Keating further explained that the County approved the local assistance plan which includes requirements and 27 MA -1199 PooK �� a RGGK 91 Fb,; X75 restrictions to conform with State requirements. He gave examples of the criteria: At least 75 percent of the funds expended through this program must be for new construction, and at least 65 percent of that must be home ownership, not rental property. At least 30 percent of the beneficiaries must be in the very low income category and at least 30 percent in the low income category. Of the total program, at least 60 percent of the recipients must be in the very low or low income category. This program is intended to help not only people in need of housing assistance but also the construction industry as much as possible. It is recognized that communities are strengthened when homeowners have pride in the community because they keep their homes and lawns in better condition, they care about their neighborhood, they participate in the community, and the overall community is enhanced. Commissioner Bird asked if it is possible for home buyers to qualify for a loan as reimbursement for funds already expended, for example, if they made their down payment for the house and lot and are in the process of construction but they are short on funds for furnishings and other things. Director Keating responded that it would be possible if they have not closed on their loan, but it would not be possible to recapture the down payment after closing on the loan. However, they would be eligible for a grant or a loan for impact fees for utilities which would be a new expenditure. Director Keating pointed out that Indian River County has a head start on affordable housing requirements because we have set up the Professional Services Advisory Committee to study the County's land development regulations and we have eliminated needless or overly burdensome regulations. The housing incentive plan addresses the issue of impact fees by providing loans and grants for impact fees. Commissioner Eggert clarified that County property would be considered surplus only if it is not usable for anything else, such as a park, and if no County department has a use for the property. Director Keating agreed that the recommendation in the housing incentive plan would not preclude any property from being used for an appropriate County purpose. Commissioner Adams asked, and Director Keating clarified that the $250,000 that we get from the State is funded by the additional penny documentary stamp tax, half of which is designated for the Preservation 2000 fund and half for affordable housing matters. Commissioner Bird noted that staff is tracking the County's progress in complying with the housing elements of our Comprehensive Plan, and asked how we are doing in that regard. 28 Director Keating responded that staff is preparing an analysis, based on the 700 policies and 120 objectives of the County's Comprehensive Plan, and that evaluation and appraisal report is due in 1997. Commissioner Bird reflected that we should progress with the philosophy that the least government is the best government. The County government will facilitate and enhance this plan, but the private sector will fill the primary role in the housing market and the landlord business. Commissioner Eggert agreed that the emphasis of the affordable housing incentive plan is to work with the private sector to aid the very low and low income families. We have many people employed in service businesses who have not been able to buy homes. Commissioner Macht opposed subsidization of housing because there are people in the moderate income category who obtain housing through normal procedures, and they are taxed again to subsidize housing for others in the same category. Commissioner Bird noted that the ultimate goal is to hold costs down across the board so that every category of income can afford to buy a home. Director Keating agreed that the purpose of the housing incentive plan is to avoid subsidization. Our plan is a revolving loan program with an applicable interest rate and is designed to encourage developers to construct affordable housing. The financial institutions are cooperating in setting up a home buyer education program for recipients of these funds. The County is coordinating with financial institutions, builders, and realtors to hold meetings, to encourage everyone to become familiar with the program and to promote interest in the program. Commissioner Bird stressed that we have thousands of existing affordable lots, and he saw this plan as a way for people to buy existing platted lots rather than start new subdivisions. Commissioner Adams asked, and Director Keating clarified that loans under this plan are not available for mobile homes. Commissioner Bird remarked that this program will have the most immediate influence in the area of utility impact fees. Chairman Tippin asked if anyone in the audience had questions or comments. Herndon Williams, resident of Vero Beach, was concerned about the free enterprise issue or the County competing with the private sector, and conceded that the Board addressed that subject. He also was concerned about County surplus property being made 29 oOK 91 F'U 876 r MAR - 11994 Bov 91 F"GE 877 available to non-profit agencies at below-market cost. He cautioned that the County should not undercut people who create jobs through the free enterprise system and, in effect, take away with one hand and give with the other. Regarding the moderate income category, he found it difficult to believe that a family with a $35,000 income needs help from taxpayers to buy a home. Commissioners Eggert and Macht clarified that the definition of the income categories was directed by the State. PUBLIC HEARING - TY TARBY, TRUSTEE, REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 130.3 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE FROM RM -6 AND A-1 TO CG The County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTYOF STATE OF • •• Before the undersigned authorityy personally appeared J.J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he Nuttiness Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that a display ad measuring 33" at 7.50 per column inch billedW Indian River County Planning Dept. was published in said newspaper in the issues) of 2/18/94 on page 12A Sworn to and subscribed before me this 21 day o, February A.D 1994 •s _• PQ• �OTAq -�. , pr 0l,�• G s tdyLMY't. &pitta • &lel. ICY nAMJF- NOTARY °'7q�68iness Manager June 29, 1997 r Camnh•on k.µ.pme 2b. 1987 No. CM=72 �t Conenlnkn tJumpe,: Cl -M00672 ryry,�,,,,p �L-• •'--•1•sAnaAnAc8vnAaue 30 .i..2 Lbt'Fs� NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE'r+ R The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, . ,; ;,.twill consider a proposal to change the use of fond within the uOncor +' porated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the pro- rot ro- "} { poral will be held on' Tuesday, March 1, 1994,` at 9,05 a.m. in the County'Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, .It i.' located at 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing ;,the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the frons-•. mittal of this amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs ! ' for their review. The proposed amendment Is.included In the proposed ,.:,ordinance entilledt i. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, '' !,•:+ ;:, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE r t"I COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 & 58TH :' .1 .1 AVENUE COMMERCIALIINDUSIRIAL NODE FROM -1•/-166 ACRES ' .,•'. `TO •1•/-296.3 ACRES: AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION,.. •• j; SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.'' { a Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of this proposed Comprehensive Plan Amend Ment. .. .. �! The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at'; t the Community Development Deportment located on the second floor). 4 of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8t30 a.m. and Still) p.m. on - weekdays. • . 'bI. NO FINAL ACTION, WILL BE MADE AT THIS MEETING FOR THIS RE-' QUEST. ' Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be mode at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro- ';• •' ceedings is made which Includes the testimony and, evidence upon;. which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must ,, concoct the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator % 1 at 567-8000 extension 408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. r J-1f.1'e;,5117 1. F , Indian River Count' ?:i•T ;�: Board of County Commissioners ; ! :.:..a.'t..• 1.. ..��: Byr-s-John W. Tippin, Chairman.:•, ,{ it c,d c. Sublect PropertyIN �:.� is ,... � ;,t , I .,.,:.• �� .„ Community Development Director Bob Keating made the following presentation: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP 51 it • v Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel,*/ Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: February 16, 1994 RE: Ty Tarby, Trustee, Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan and to Redesignate Approximately 130.3 Acres from M- 1 to C/I, and to Rezone from RM -6 and A-1 to CG; PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 94-01-0087 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of March 1, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Ty Tarby, Trustee, has submitted a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 130.3 acres located on the north side of S.R. 60 between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue. The request involves changing the land use designation 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) and A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to CG, General Commercial District. This request is considered an expansion of the S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node from 166 acres to 296 acres. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property for a regional shopping center. The Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation is proposing to construct a 945,000 square foot regional mall, with a 310,000 square foot community shopping center and 142,000 square feet of peripheral commercial space. The entire project is to be reviewed as a Development of Regional Impact (DRI). The procedures for reviewing Comprehensive Plan amendments associated with DRI's are the same as those applied to non -DRI amendments. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission, as the Local Planning Agency, conducts a public hearing to review the request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or denial of the Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the Board of County Commissioners. Also, the Planning and Zoning Commission may approve or deny the rezoning portion of the request. If the rezoning request is denied, only the land use amendment request is forwarded to the Board, unless the denial to rezone is appealed. 31 1'k MAR - 11994 FOOK � . G r MAR -1 1994 BOOK 91 PACE 879 Following Planning and Zoning Commission action, the Board of County Commissioners conducts two public hearings. The first of these hearings is for a preliminary decision on the land use amendment request. At this hearing, the Board determines whether or not the land use amendment warrants transmittal to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for further consideration. If the land use amendment is transmitted, DCA conducts a 60 day review which includes soliciting comments from the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (TCRPC) and neighboring local governments. A Board of County Commissioners decision not to transmit the land use amendment to DCA constitutes denial of both the land use amendment and rezoning requests. The second and final Board of County Commissioners public hearing is conducted after the receipt of comments from DCA. The Board takes final action to approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning requests at that time. The DRI review is conducted by the TCRPC in conjunction with local and state agencies. The focus of this review is on the environmental, social, economic, and physical impact of the proposed development on the local and regional area. Following the TCRPC review, a Development Order is issued by the Board of County Commissioners. The Development Order constitutes an agreement between the county and the developer, and identifies the necessary improvements and conditions which will govern the development. These improvements and conditions can include factors such as type of buildings, general retail mix, buffers, parking, and off-site improvements. In this case, the Development Order, after consideration and recommendation by the Planning and Zoning Commission, will be issued at the final (second) Comprehensive Plan amendment public hearing. Finally, the development will undergo the necessary site plan approval process, including consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission. On November 16, 1989, the applicant submitted a similar Land Use Designation Amendment and rezoning request which the applicant withdrew at the November 13, 1990 Board of County Commissioners final public hearing. In the current application, the size of the area requested to be redesignated and rezoned has been reduced to exclude approximately 26.5 acres of wetlands and an access driveway. These areas are part of the DRI project area but will remain residentially zoned. On February 10, 1994, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to DCA for their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to DCA for their review. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject property contains several land uses. Largely devoted to citrus, the property includes the vacated Whistlewood subdivision, as well as several residences located along the S.R. 60 frontage. As depicted on attachment 4, the property has two zoning designations. The western 1300 feet and the area between the Whistlewood and Wallace Acres subdivisions to a depth of approximately 500 feet from S.R. 60 are zoned A-1. The remainder is zoned RM -6. Near 66th Avenue, property to the north, across 26th Street is planted in citrus and zoned A-1. Further east, land is zoned RS -3, 32 Single -Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), and contains undeveloped land, single-family residences and the Pine Netto Park subdivision. Between the subject property and 26th Street, land is zoned A-1 to a distance of 1300 feet east of 66th Avenue and planted in citrus. East of this area, property is zoned RM -6, but is largely undeveloped. Much of this area consists of wetlands. A narrow portion of land along 26th Street is zoned A-1. There are also several residences in this area. Northeast of the subject property to 58th Avenue, property is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). This area contains a church and the Rivera Estates subdivision. Rivera Estates. contains approximately 72 lots and is substantially built out. The remainder of the area to the east of the subject property is undeveloped and zoned RM -6 and CG. A bank is located at the corner of 58th Avenue and S.R. 60. The east side of 58th Avenue is occupied by the Ryanwood Square Shopping Center. This 108,000 square foot shopping center contains a grocery store, drug store and smaller specialty service establishments similar to those found in neighborhood or small community type shopping centers. This center serves the daily needs of residents to the west and south of Vero Beach and is the largest center not located in the U.S. #1 corridor. Along the south side of S.R. 60, land uses are split between agricultural and residential uses. The easternmost 40 acres are zoned CG. Approximately one half of this land is undeveloped, with the balance containing a citrus grove and a fruit and vegetable stand. Immediately west is a 20 acre grove zoned A-1. West of the grove is Sixty Oaks; this planned development is zoned RM -6 and contains 60 residences. West of Sixty Oaks is an unplatted residential area zoned RS -6. The three streets in this area (Charlotte, Flora, and Hedden) contain approximately 54 lots, ranging in size from 1/4 to 2 acres. Verona Estates, located west of this area, is also zoned RS -6. The southern half of this subdivision is devoted to agricultural uses. Immediately south of these residential areas is the Vero Beach campus of the Indian River Community College and an agricultural research center. The remainder of the south side of S.R. 60 is zoned and used for agriculture. Along the north side of S.R. 60 and surrounded by the subject property is a small area with commercial and residential zoning. Four lots in Wallace Acres subdivision with S.R. 60 frontage are zoned RM -6; the remaining 8 lots have RS -6 zoning. West of Wallace Acres is a 2 acre parcel zoned CL, Limited Commercial District, containing a small appliance store. West of the subject property, across 66th Avenue is Vista Plantation. This development is zoned RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up - to 4 units/acre) and contains on-site recreation facilities including a golf course along the project perimeter. A small neighborhood commercial center is located at the corner of S.R. 60 and 66th Avenue. Other than the adjacent S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue node, which is the node proposed for expansion, the closest commercial/ industrial node to the subject parcel is the S.R. 60 and I-95 node, which begins approximately 2 miles west of the subject parcel at 82nd Avenue. Two small neighborhood commercial nodes are in proximity to the subject parcel, one at S.R. 60 and 66th Avenue, the other at S.R. 60 and 74th Avenue. 33 B00K MAR - 194 MAR - 11994 Future Land Use Pattern BOOK 91 PAF The subject property and properties to the north, south, and west are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to eight units/acre. East of the subject property is the 166 acre S.R. 60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node. This node encompasses the four corners of the intersection and extends along the south side of S.R. 60 east to the Vero Beach city limits at 43rd Avenue. A few properties along the north side of S.R. 60, near 43rd Avenue, are also included in the node. Environment The subject property does not contain "environmentally important" uplands (coastal hammock or xeric scrub), as designated by the Conservation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Moreover, the property does not fall within a 100 year flood zone. There are, however, several examples of endangered or potentially endangered vegetation on the subject property, including the recognized "champion tree" Simpson Stopper cluster, and a cabbage palm hammock which supports an endangered "hand adder's tongue fern" colony. Soils on the subject property are generally of the Winder -Riviera - Manatee type which are wet, poorly drained soils. The constraints of building on these soils include the use of fill to change the soil conditions and raise the elevation above the water table and the use of engineering and building techniques to compensate for the wet soils. Specific identification and protection of isolated and individual resources must be addressed in the DRI and site plan approval process. An approximately 26.5 acre wetland system exists along much of the subject property's north border. While included in the DRI project area, this wetland slough system is not part of the Plan amendment and rezoning request and will remain residentially designated. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater lines extend to the site from the West County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System S.R. 60 forms the southern boundary of the subject property. This roadway is classified as a principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. East of 58th Avenue, S.R. 60 is a six lane road with approximately 100 feet of public road right-of-way. West of 58th Avenue, S.R. 60 is a four lane road with approximately 136 feet of public road right-of-way. The portion of S.R. 60 extending from 58th Avenue to 82nd Avenue is programmed for expansion to six lanes and 200 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. The segment of 66th Avenue that forms the western boundary of the property is classified as a minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This roadway becomes Schumann Drive and connects with U.S. #1 in Sebastian. South of S.R. 60, 66th Avenue is unpaved. The segment of 66th Avenue adjacent to the subject 34 property is a two lane road with approximately 50 feet of public road right-of-way. This segment of 66th Avenue is programmed for expansion to four lanes and 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. East of the subject property is 58th Avenue. From 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) to C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road), south of Sebastian, 58th Avenue is classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. Presently a two lane road with approximately 50 feet of public road right-of-way, this segment of 58th Avenue is programmed for expansion to four lanes and 100 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. Located north of the subject property, 26th Street is a two lane unpaved road with approximately 30 feet of public road right-of-way and is classified as a collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 26th Street is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 1995. ANALYSIS In this section, 'an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will address • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the.surrounding area; • potential impact on environmental quality; • the need for node expansion; and • consistency with the comprehensive plan; This section will also discuss the Board of County Commissioners' alternatives. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning district or land use designation. For commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. However, since this request is associated with a DRI application for a 11397,000 square foot retail development, the concurrency analysis will consider 35 r MAR - 11994 BOOK 91 PnF.8S3 that use. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated and Rezoned: ±130.3 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial - Industrial ommercial- Industrial Node 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under existing Land Use Designation: 1,042 Dwelling Units (DU) 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 1,397,000 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual) - Transportation A review of the traffic impacts that would result from a 1,397,000 square foot retail development on the property indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on S.R. 60 and other impacted roads would be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is as follows: Existing Land Use Designation 1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single -Family 2. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 1,042 DU X 9.55 trip ends/DU = 9,951 3. P.M. Peak Hour Trip ends: 1,042 DU X 1.01 trip ends/DU = 1,052 a. Inbound: 65% or 684 b. Outbound: 35% or 368 Proposed Land Use Designation 1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center 2. For structures 1,397,000 square feet: a. Average Weekday Vehicle Trip Ends: 29.56/1000 gross square feet b. 5-6 p.m. Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends: 2.7/1000 gross square feet 3. Formula for Determining Total New Trip Ends: Total Square Footage X Vehicle Trip Rate (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) a. Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 1,397,000 X 29.56/1000 = 41,295 36 b. Total P.M. Peak 1,397,000 c. Percentage New Hour/Peak Season Trip X 2.7/1000 = 3,772 Peak Hour/Peak Season d. New Total Average Weekday Trip Ends: 0.8 X 41,295 = 33,036 Ends: Trip Ends: 80% e. New P.M. Peak Hour/Peak Season Trip Ends: 0.8 X 3,772 = 3,018 - Inbound: 50% or 1,509 - Outbound: 50% or 1,509 4. Peak Direction of S.R. 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue: Westbound 5. Traffic Capacity on S.R. 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue at a Level of Service "D": 1,760 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips _ 6. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of S.R. 60: 1,012 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present land use designation is 91951. This was determined by multiplying the 1,042 DU's (most intense use) by ITE's factor of 9.55 Average Daily Trip Ends/DU. The number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trip ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the present land use designation is 684. This was determined by taking 65% (peak direction) of 1,042 DU's (most intense use) multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 peak hour trip end/DU. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use designation is 41,295. This was determined by multiplying 1,397,000 square feet of Shopping Use by ITE's factor of 29.56 Average Weekday Trip Ends/1000 square feet. The number of P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use designation is 3,772. This was determined by multiplying 1,397,000 square feet of Shopping Center Use by ITE's factor of 2.7 Peak Hour Vehicle Trip Ends/1000 square feet. The ITE has determined that 80% of the trip ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use designation will be new trip ends. Therefore, 80% of the 41,295 Average Weekday Trip Ends, or 33,036, will be new. Similarly, 80%, or 3,018, of the 31772 P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use designation will be new. According to ITE, 50$, or 1,509, of the New P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends will be outbound, and 50%, or 1,509 will be inbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the requested land use designation will generate 1,509 new p.m. peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips. This is 861 more than the 648 generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the present land use designation. Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the trips generated by the proposed land use designation were then assigned to roadways on the network. 37 BooK 9 FAUC884 F' MAR - 11994 Boos 91 FATE 885, -7 Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of S.R. 60 adjacent to this site is 11760 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at a Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume on this segment of S.R. 60 is 1,012 trips. The additional 1,509 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment will increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of S.R. 60 to approximately 2,521, or 761 more than capacity at LOS "D". The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with this proposed amendment. Impacted roads are defined in the county's Land Development Regulations as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more daily project traffic or fifty ( 5 0 ) or more daily project trips, whichever is less. As indicated in the table, segments 1925, 2050, 3025, and 3030 do not currently have sufficient capacity at LOS "D" to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request. Typically, when a proposed amendment or rezoning is anticipated to generate traffic in excess of capacity, a Developer's Agreement is required to ensure sufficient additional capacity is provided. For land use amendments and rezonings associated with a DRI, however, the Development Order performs the same functions as a Developer's Agreement. Therefore, the transportation concurrency requirements can be met by requiring that the associated DRI Development Order, to be adopted prior to but at the same Board of County Commissioners meeting as the proposed amendment, state that necessary improvements will be made to ensure that sufficient capacity is available to serve the anticipated traffic generation of this project. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Roadway Segment Road From To Segment Capacity LOS "D" 1130 I.R. Blvd S. VB City Lmt. 17th Street 1760 1140 I.R. Blvd 17th Street 21st street 1760 1150 I.R. Blvd 21st Street S.R. 60 1760 1330 O.S. #1 S. VB City Lmt. 17th Street 2270 1335 O.S. #1 17th street S.R. 60 2270 1340 O.S. #1 S.R. 60 Royal Palm P1. 2300 1830 C.R. 510 58th Ave. O.S. #1 630 1910 S.R. 60 C.R. 512 I-95 540 1915 S.R. 60 I-95 82nd Ave. 1680 1920 S.R. 60 82nd Ave. 66th Ave. 1760 1925 S.R. 60 66th Ave. 58th Ave. 1760 1930 S.R. 60 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 2650 1935 S.R. 60 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 2650 1940 S.R. 60 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 2600 1945 S.R. 60 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 1638 1950 S.R. 60 Old Dixie Hwy. 10th Ave. 1638 1955 S.R. 60 10th Ave. O.S. #1 1638 1960 S.R. 60 O.S. #1 I.R. Blvd. 1638 1965 S.R. 60 I.R. Blvd. ICWW. 1760 38 M M Segment Roadway Capacity Segment Road From To LOS "D" 2020 2030 2040 2050 2220 2335 2460 2470 2480 2860 2920 2925 2930 3005 3010 3015 3020 3025 3030 3035 3040 3055 3120 3130 3140 3150 3160 3170 3330 3340 4230 4330 4430 4720 4730 4830 4930 16th Street 16th Street 16th Street 16th Street 12th Street Old Dixie Hwy. 27th Ave. 27th Ave. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 66th Ave. 82nd Ave. 82nd Ave. 49th Street 45th Street 41st Street 26th Street 26th Street 8th Street 4th Street 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. 58th Ave. 16th Street S. VB City Lmt. 16th Street S.A. 60 16th Street 8th Street 12th Street 16th Street Oslo Road 4th Street 8th Street 12th Street 16th Street S.R. 60 41st Street 45th Street 69th Street S.R. 60 26th Street 41st Street' 45th Street 65th Street 69th Street 12th Street S.R. 60 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 66th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 27th Ave. 20th Ave. Old Dixie Hwy. 43rd Ave. S.R. 60 16th Street S.R.60 Atlantic Blvd. S.R. 60 12th Street 16th Street S.R. 60 4th Street 8th Street 12th Street 16th Street S.R. 60 41st Street 45th Street 49th Street C.R. 510 26th Street 41st Street 45th Street 65th Street 69th Street C.R. 510 S.R. 60 65th Street 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 43rd Ave. 830 830 830 970 830 830 830 830 830 1760 630 830 830 630 630 630 630 830 830 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 Exist in Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Ex st ng Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 1130 1143 43 1186 574 23 Y 1140 987 67 1054 708 31 Y 1150 987 79 1066 694 31 Y 1330 1341 116 1457 813 49 Y 1335 1341 116 1457 813 119 Y 1340 1143 98 1241 1059 43 Y 1830 422 32 454 176 29 Y 1910 367 77 444 96 6 Y 1915 906 248 1154 526 85 Y 1920 1012 168 1180 580 315 Y 1925 1012 206 1218 542 1509 N 1930 1040 513 1553 1097 599 Y 1935 612 306 918 1732 470 Y 1940 878 235 1113 1487 341 Y 1945 747 219 966 672 297 Y 1950 747 178 925 713 252 Y 1955 747 746 1493 745 243 Y 1960 509 88 597 1041 93 Y 1965 846 122 968 792 43 Y 2020 144 108 252 578 116 Y 2030 443 84 527 303 88 Y 2040 447 60 507 293 59 Y 2050' 851 80 931 39 46 N 2220 96 26 122 708 25 Y 2335 228 77 305 525 15 Y 2460 369 22 391 439 66 Y 2470 369 30 399 431 97 Y 2480 369 15 384 446 15 Y 2860 200 20 220 1540 23 Y 2920 477 18 495 135 53 Y 2925 662 23 685 145 68 Y 39 MAS 1994 BOOK 91 PAGE 88'7 Existing Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested segment segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 2930 662 45 707 123 99 Y 3005 186 13 199 431 46 Y 3010 186 25 211 419 100 Y 3015 186 33 219 411 159 Y 3020 186 48 234 396 184 Y 3025 474 221 695 135 300 N 3030 523 117 640 190 195 N 3035 435 24 459 171 82 Y 3040 332 21 353 277 71 Y 3055 266 32 298 332 71 Y 3120 201 5 206 424 68 Y 3130 177 7 184 446 136 Y 3140 177 7 184 446 87 Y 3150 168 5 173 457 67 Y 3160 168 2 170 460 57 Y 3170 201 14 215 415 49 Y 3330 227 31 258 372 29 Y 3340 65 12 77 553 28 Y 4230 134 11 145 485 23 Y 4330 263 15 278 352 59 Y 4430 152 42 194 436 54 Y 4720 147 6 153 477 136 Y 4730 147 50 197 433 15 Y 4830 95 52 147 483 57 Y 4930 117 27 144 486 59 Y Water A retail commercial use of 1, 397, 000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 419 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 104,750 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service- standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. - Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the. property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 419 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 104,750 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The site is serviced by the West County Wastewater Treatment Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 400,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 1,397,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 13,970 waste generation units (WGU) or 41,386 cubic yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a waste generation unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste/year. While WGU's are units of measurement which can be applied to either commercial or residential uses, WGU's must be considered in terms of residential units in order to correspond to the county's solid waste level of service standards. According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGU/unit. With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards/person/year and the county's average of two persons/unit, each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 people (2/1.6 = 1.25) and 2.9625 40 cubic yards of solid waste/year (1.25 X 2.37). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the proposed land use amendment, staff utilized the following formula: Total number of WGU's X 1.25 X 2.37 (13,970 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 41,386 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 2 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD). Since the site is located within the IRFWCD, development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a 24 hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the subject property does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards do apply to this request. Under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface will be approximately 4,824,500 square feet, or 111 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm, will be approximately 4.4 million cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required to retain approximately 3.4 million cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, the pre -development runoff rate is estimated to be 88.7 cubic feet/second. Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of 3.4 million cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request is not required to satisfy recreation concurrency requirements. The concurrency requirements for drainage, solid waste, water, wastewater, and parks have been met for the proposed amendment. Incorporating the referenced road improvements into the associated DRI Development Order will satisfy the concurrency test for the subject request. 41 rVA PAGE 8,88 MAR ®11994 bOUK, r MAR -11994 500N. 91 pmH- 9 , 8� Compatibility with the Surrounding Area The potential impact of the proposed amendment upon surrounding residential areas is an important -issue. At a minimum, these areas will be protected by buffers between commercial and residential districts, as required by county Land Development Regulations. This can be augmented by site designs which maximize the use of landscaped green areas to ensure that these areas are not only screened visually but also buffered from lighting, traffic, noise and fumes. Entrances, perimeter landscaping and external traffic improvements will need to be designed not to only provide for efficient and safe circulation, but to lessen the impact on existing development along the external perimeter of the area. These issues will be addressed more closely in the DRI Development Order and during the site plan approval process. For these reasons, development under the proposed amendment would be compatible with surrounding areas. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality The policies of Conservation Element Objective 5 and provisions of county code chapter 928 provide regulatory protection of wetlands, to ensure "no net loss" of the natural function of wetlands. Any proposed alteration of wetlands on site (as applicable) will require federal, state, and county permitting, including appropriate mitigation. Conservation Element Policy 6.12 and county code section 929.05 call for the preservation of at least 15% (10% of one contiguous "clump") of native upland plant community on site. Conservation Element Policy 7.2 and county code section 929.09 require a developer to conduct an environmental survey for endangered and potentially endangered fauna and flora, and to coordinate with the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to protect any identified species to the extent feasible. These Comprehensive Plan policies and county code provisions will provide upland habitat regulatory protection, particularly relating to the endangered hand fern documented on site. The herein described Conservation Element policies and county code provisions would apply to the subject property under either the existing or -proposed future land use designations and zoning. An exception is the portion of the subject property presently zoned A- 1. Since agricultural operations are largely exempt from county environmental regulations, these areas would actually be subject to more county environmental regulatory control if rezoned to a commercial designation. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SUMMARY: Conservation Element policies and County Land Development Regulations provide sufficient protection to ensure that the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning would have no substantial adverse impact on environmental quality. The rezoning of A-1 zoned property to commercial zoning would provide more county environmental regulatory control. The Need for Node Expansion In analyzing the request for the land use change and rezoning, staff has focused on several key issues. One issue is regional mall land availability. The Urban Land Institute estimates that shopping centers require about 10 acres of site area for each 100,000 square feet of building area. Since regional malls are usually 750,000 square 42 feet or larger, a regional mall would therefore require a site of at least 75 acres. Site requirements, of course, are also influenced by local land development and site plan regulations that determine the required parking, loading, circulation, open space and drainage areas needed to support this size shopping facility. Using this standard, the subject parcel would be adequate for a regional shopping facility. Review of commercially designated lands within the unincorporated portions of the county reveals that, other than the large commercial/industrial nodes located along the interstate, only one node (U.S. #1 from 57th Street to 49th Street, containing the site for the proposed Harbortown Mall) contains an adequate supply of vacant land (over 75 acres) which is also in a configuration suitable for a regional mall facility. Therefore, accommodating a mall in the urbanized area of the county would require redesignating property to a commercial classification. Based upon the land use pattern of the area, the node's centralized location, and its close proximity to the population center, expanding this node boundary would provide for an efficient land use pattern and for the maximum use of transportation and public facilities, while at the same time decreasing strip development, which would occur in other nodes if their areas were increased to accommodate the acreage necessary for the subject request. Another issue involves the proposed Harbortown Mall. As adopted, the Comprehensive Plan already includes an area for a regional mall; that mall site is along U.S. #1 at 53rd Street. It is generally accepted that, despite the rapid population growth in the county, the population base is sufficient to support only one such facility. Despite the fact that one mall has already received initial approval and that only one mall can survive in the county, several reasons exist for the consideration of this request. First, there are no guarantees that the Harbortown Mall will be built. Prior to construction certain public infrastructure improvements must be completed or contracted; leases must be obtained, and financing must be secured. Therefore, the advantage enjoyed by the Harbortown Mall is the land use, zoning, and DRI approval. Second, the prospect of competing regional mall sites reduces the chance of speculation by holding commercially designated land, and increases the likelihood of a regional mall being constructed in the near future. During the land use plan amendment review process for the Harbortown Mall, staff recognized that there is probably no one best site for such a facility and, therefore, provided opportunities for competing proposals to be reviewed. Staff feels that the subject property, like the Harbortown Mall property, should not be used for general commercial development which does not have the size requirements of a regional mall. Because this request is part of a DRI, the county has certain control which is not available in a normal rezoning or plan amendment. That control involves conditioning the DRI Development Order. In this case, to ensure that the subject property is not available for general commercial use (for which there is sufficient land currently available), staff feels that the Development Order should provide sufficient time for the county to redesignate and rezone the property if a regional mall is not constructed. The Harbortown Mall Development Order contains such conditions, and staff will recommend that the Development Order associated with this request also contain such conditions. As a result, the Development Orders will remove the incentive for either developer to realize an economic gain by obtaining a commercial land use 43 800K 91 FADE 8,90 r AR ®1199 pn M BOOK. � 9�.. PAGE 8�1 designation and then selling the property for general commercial use. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with .all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 153.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land .uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the action which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies and objectives. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a Comprehensive Plan land use designation amendment. These criteria are: • an oversight in the approved plan; • a mistake in the approved plan; and • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed land use amendment meets the first criterion. As noted in the previous section, the future land use map currently depicts only one area with a size and configuration suitable for a regional mall facility, other than the large nodes along the interstate. Since there is probably no one best site for such a facility, and to reduce the chances of land speculation, at least one other node should have contained vacant land with enough area and in a configuration that meets the requirements of a regional mall facility. Because the county's Comprehensive Plan established only one node in the urbanized area of the county suitable to accommodate a regional mall facility, there was an oversight in the comprehensive plan. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the first criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 and is consistent with the policy. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that all commercial land use designations must be located within the Urban Service Area. Since the subject property is located within the Urban Service Area, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. 44 - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.19 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.19 states that commercial land uses shall be located along roads and at intersections with functional classifications appropriate for the level of activity. The subject property is located along two arterial roads and at their intersection. Since arterial roads are designed to be appropriate for commercial uses, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.19. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 requires that nodes be designated at a size determined by their use, service area population, existing land use pattern, availability of infrastructure, and other demand characteristics. Based on the area's land use pattern, centralized location, available infrastructure, and proximity to the population center, expanding the subject node to accommodate a regional mall is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 Future Land Use Policy 1.21 also applies to this request. This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate commercial strip development and urban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. The subject property, located on a corner, with access to two arterial roads and one collector road, has ample depth as well as width. Through the DRI Development Order, the county can ensure that the site will be developed as a regional mall facility and in a nodal manner, as opposed to a "Strip Center" type development. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 prohibits node expansion closer than 11 miles to an existing node. Under the proposed amendment, the nearest node to the subject node would continue to be more than 1J miles from the subject node. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed or approved for development with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development. The intent of this policy is to establish specific criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard then is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded. In compiling the county's Data Source for Commercial Development, staff undertook an analysis to percentage developed or approved for development Staff proceeded with this analysis by compiling parcels in each node, obtaining the acreage of each Property Appraiser's tax maps, and aggregating amounts. Using this method, staff determined that of the subject node is 166 acres. 45 ' S A and Industrial determine the of each node. a list of all parcel from the these acreage the total size FACE 8 BOOK 91 PACE 8.93-1 Once the total node acreage was established, the next step was to determine the percent developed with non-agricultural and non- residential uses. Again, the staff used the Property Appraiser's information to do this. Based upon tax and use codes, staff determined which parcels were developed or approved for development with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, and then calculated the acreage of these parcels. Using this method, staff determined that the total non -agriculturally and non -residentially developed or approved to be developed acreage in the node was 77 acres. Based upon this analysis, staff determined that the total non - agriculturally and non -residentially developed land in the node constitutes approximately 46% of the node acreage. This is less than the 70% standard set by Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23. This policy, however, states that a node that is less than 70% developed may be expanded if otherwise warranted. Policy 1.23 specifically states that otherwise warranted may include certain conditions. One such condition is as follows: Expansion of a node is necessary to accommodate a. use ( such as a regional mall) which has a substantial land area requirement and no alternative suitable sites are available in existing nodes. The purpose of the request is to accommodate a regional mall. Existing nodes, however, contain no alternative sites with a sufficient amount of land in a suitable configuration for a regional mall facility. Therefore, the proposed node meets the above condition and is "otherwise warranted" as defined in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23. - Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5 Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5 states that the County shall encourage and direct growth into the Urban Service Area. The subject property is located within the Urban Service Area and is undeveloped. To develop the property according the applicant's plans, the subject property must have the requested commercial land use designation and commercial zoning district. Therefore, the proposed amendment will encourage development on the site and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.5. - Housing Element Objective 1 Housing Element Objective 1 states that the county shall provide means to reduce the cost of housing development and construction such that affordable housing is available to the 60% of the county households in the very low, low and moderate income groups. The result of the proposed request will be an increase in job opportunities for income groups of the very low to moderate range. Recognizing that the proposed project will create the need for some additional affordable housing, the DRI Development Order requires the applicant to assess housing needs created by the proposed project and develop a plan to address these needs. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Housing Element Objective 1. - Economic Development Objective 1 Economic Development Objective 1 states that the county will reduce its unemployment rate. The regional mall facility associated with this request will provide approximately 31,074 new jobs for the area. The developers expect the project to provide jobs for some of those presently unemployed as well as providing opportunities 46 M M _ for secondary wage earners currently unable to find jobs. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Objective 1. As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based on this analysis, staff determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Alternatives With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has two alternatives. Those alternatives are: 1. Deny the request to redesignate and rezone the subject property. 2. Approve transmittal of the proposed amendment to DCA for its review. Based on the analysis performed, staff supports alternative #2. Transmittal Alternatives In its 1993 session, the state legislature changed the statute regulating amendments of local government comprehensive plans. These changes were approved as part of the ELMS (Environmental Land Management Study) bill. With respect to the transmittal of proposed plan amendments to 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 request that DCA conduct an expedited review of a proposed plan amendment. This can speed up the process for some amendment requests, but lengthen the process for other proposed amendments. Under the old amendment review procedure, DCA had 90 days to review a plan amendment request (this included obtaining other agencies' review comments) and send its ORC (Objections, Recommendations, and Comments) Report back to the County. The legislature reduced this 90 day review time to 60 days. Regarding the subject request, the 60 day timeframe applies if the County opts to request that DCA review the proposed amendment in generally the same manner as has been done in the past. If, however, the Board feels that the proposed amendment has insignificant impacts and is generally non -controversial, the Board may request that DCA and the other reviewing agencies not conduct a full review of the proposed amendment. In that case, the review process may be quicker (45 days vs. 60 days for a regular review) if the various reviewing agencies agree that the amendment has insignificant impacts. If the agencies and DCA agree that a proposed amendment does not warrant a full review, DCA notifies the County that the amendment may be approved without change. Requesting an expedited review does not, however, guarantee a shorter review timeframe. In opting to transmit a proposed amendment to DCA with an expedited review request, the County takes the risk that at least one of the reviewing agencies (state agencies, regional planning council, water management district, other local governments, or affected persons) will request a full review of the amendment. These agencies have 45 days to decide whether an amendment request needs a full review. If one or more 47 MAR ®11994 91 PAGE 8.94 BOOK. 91 F�U� 895 MAR ®1 1994 agencies request a full review, then the normal 60 day review period starts after the end of the 45 day period. Consequently, an expedited review request to DCA by the Board could result in a 105 day review process, if one or more agencies request a full review. To summarize, if the Board decides to transmit the subject request, the Board will have two transmittal alternatives. Those alternatives are: 1. Request DCA and all reviewing agencies conduct a full review of the amendment. With this alternative, DCA will have 60 days to review the amendment and issue an ORC Report. 2. Request an expedited review of the amendment. This could result in a 45 day review period or a 105 day review period. Since this amendment request is associated with a Development of Regional Impact, the proposed amendment, by definition, is significant and will have large impacts. For this reason, there is a high probability that the various reviewing agencies would request a full review. Therefore, requesting alternative #2 would likely result in a 105 day review period. In contrast, by requesting alternative #1, an "up -front" review, the County can be assured that DCA's review of the proposed amendment will be done within a 60 day timeframe. For this reason, staff supports alternative #1. CONCLUSION The proposed amendment is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, compatible with surrounding areas, and will not negatively impact environmental quality. Impacts on the transportation system must be addressed by the DRI Development Order. The analysis has demonstrated that regional malls are special land uses which have minimum size requirements and highly developed infrastructure needs. While there presently exists an oversupply of commercially designated land in the county, the analysis has demonstrated that inadequate sites exist for a regional mall. Because of these factors, staff acknowledges the need to redesignate land to accommodate a regional mall. The subject site meets the criteria for designation of such a mall site. The location is within an urban service area and is capable of being served by three major roadways which, with improvements, will serve the transportation needs of the facility. The location is also in close proximity to the population centers of the county. Staff supports the request. Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Dick Greco, representing the Edward J. DeBartolo Corporation, thanked the Board and staff for their excellent cooperation in the project. He pointed out that Indian River County is the only county in the state where a development of this nature is planned. He cited the potential benefits to the County as follows: 48 D I rq Q V fnA L -L' Iii 4-. 9 A A AP -X ---Ar MOLL. to W e --'O Kj ;M M . Soll-D-00-1 . --.N- - RL.Lle CNtiLFC.G-�v� IQ oRRL TV -L) LTO coo UoOOL. ffS wATC--P-- t5 e-. 440�m)io. f4L- P- r-- n Jo P --u P -Z14 A"s 'LAA 1{T1:fP— (21 RC -1 T*L� Mr. Greco noted that the review process is long and complex but serves to protect the public interest. He understood the policy that if the mall is not built, the property cannot be used for any other commercial development and will revert to residential use. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. 49 50OF 91 ..PACE MAR - 11994 MAR ® 11994 BOOK 91.. FAUE 87: ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 94-43 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review, as recommended by staff. RESOLUTION NO. 94- 43 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 a comprehensive plan amendment application that is directly related to a proposed Development of Regional Impact, and WHEREAS, pursuant to section ,163.3187 F.S., comprehensive plan amendment applications that are directly related to proposed Developments of Regional Impact are exempt from the twice per year amendment submittal window requirements, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on the comprehensive plan amendment request on February 10, 1994 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 1 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 March 1, 1994, 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 amendment process, �Tl7 � � r RESOLUTION NO. 94-43 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 -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node for approximately 130.3 acres located on the north side of S.R. 60 between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue. The forgoing Resolution was offered by - Commissioner Adams and seconded by Commissioner Eggert and upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ayes The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 1st day of March 1994. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY:0z e--. . oh W. Tippih_,_r0fi&irmaW .J �-'—•n., �' -qtr � r, '~ , 1 ATTEST: 1. Jef,frey K. Barton, Clerk There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 11:00 a.m. ATTEST: ':�ZK Q)CSL J. arton, Clerk 51 Jo YinW. Tipp irY, airman MAR � 11994 BOOK 91PA;c 8��