Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/12/1994MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AGENDA REGULAR MEETING -- TUESDAY, APRIL 12, 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. Macht, 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 2. INVOCATION - None James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - James E. Chandler 4. /ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Item 7.F. Support for Sebastian River Mariculture Project Grant Proposal Item 13.E. Display Advertisements for BCC Workshops 5. PROCLAMATION AND PRESENTATIONS Adoption and Presentation of 'Proclamation Designating April 17-23, 1994 as "National Volunteer Week" in Indian River County, Florida 6. APPROVAL OF .MINUTES Regular Meeting of 3/22/94 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Release of Utility Liens (memorandum dated March 24, 1994) B. Release of Utility Liens ( memorandum dated March 31, 1994 ) C. Release of Utility Liens ( memorandum dated March 31, 1994 ) D. Reappointment of Carolyn S. Stuckey to Indian River County Housing Authority ( memorandum dated March 30, 1994 ) E. Laurel Homes Inc.'s Request for Preliminary Plat Extension for The Laurels Subdivision ( memorandum dated March 31, 1994 ) APR 12 1994 J -41 CONSTITUTIONAL APR 1 18. GOVERNMENTOFFICERS AND AL AGENCIES None _ 9:05 a.m. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None B. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. St. Edwards School Inc. Is Request for Special Exception Use and Conceptual Plan Approval to Expand the Existing St. Edwards Upper School Campus (memorandum dated April 4, 1994) 2. Harvest Christian Retreat's Request for Special Exception Use and Major Site Plan Approval to Construct a Retreat (memorandum dated April 5, 1994) 3. Brewer Int'I. Inc. Request to Amend the Comp. Plan to Redesignate Approx. 6.4 Acres from L-1 to AG -1 (memorandum dated March 30, 1994) 4. K 6 R Groves, A Florida General Partner- ship, Request to Amend the Comp. Plan to Redesignate Approx. 8.4 Acres from M-1 to C/ 1, and to Rezone that 8.4 Acres from RM -6 to CG; and to Amend the Comp. Plan to Redesignate Approx. 8.4 Acres from C/I to L-2, and to Rezone that 8.4 Acres from IL and A-1 to RM -6 ( memorandum dated March 29, 1994 ) S. Seb. Grove Holdings, Ltd. Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 159 Acres from R to L-1 (memorandum'' dated April 4, 1994 ) 6. County Initiated Request to Amend the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub - Elements, the Future Land Use Element, and the Capital Improvements Element of the Comprehensive Plan (memorandum dated April 4, 1994) 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Conceptual Approval Agreements for State Cost -Share to Acquire Prang and Lost Tree Islands (memorandum dated April 5, 1994) B. EMERGENCY SERVICES Approval of Renewal of EMS ALS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Indian River Shores Department of Public Safety to Provide PreHospital Emergency Medical Services (memorandum dated April 5, 1994) 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.) : C. GENERAL SERVICES Indian River County Courthouse Project - Additional Security Cameras ( memorandum dated March 30, 1994 ) D. LEISURE SERVICES None E. OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET None F. PERSONNEL None G. PUBLIC WORKS 1. Consultant Services Ranking Vero Lake Estates, MSSW Permitting ( memorandum dated March 29, 1994 ) 2. March of Dimes - Sebastian Walk America ( memorandum dated March 28, 1994 ) 3. Barber Ave. Widening and Drainage Improvements - Amendment No. 3 (memorandum dated April 4, 1994) 4. Intersection Improvements at 10th Court and 37th St. (memorandum dated April 4, 1994) 5. Sandridge Golf Course New 18 Amendment No. 7 (memorandum dated March 28, 1994) - 6. Request by Robert Cairns to Construct Storm Grove Road West of Old Dixie Hwy. to Lateral "G" Canal ( memorandum dated April 4, 1994 ) 7. Request from Robert Cairns for County to Acquire Road R -O -W Along North Property Line of Baytree (memorandum dated April 4, 1994) H. UTILITIES Gifford Wastewater Treatment Facility Aeration Modification (memorandum dated April 4, 1994) 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. CHAIRMAN JOHN W. TIPPIN APR 1.? 1994 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (cont'd. ): APR 12 1994 B. VICE CHAIRMAN KENNETH R. MACHT Discussion of Proposed Resolution Regarding Unfunded Mandates 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 None 15. ADJOURNMENT ANYONE WHO MAY WISH TO APPEAL ANY DECISION WHICH MAY BE MADE AT THIS MEETING WILL NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE WHICH INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL WILL BE BASED. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MAY CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 -X 408 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF MEETING. 77 Tuesday, April 12, 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, April 12, 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, and County Administrator Jim Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Adams requested the addition of Item 7.F., Support for Sebastian River Mariculture Project Grant Proposal. Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13.E., Display Advertisements for BCC Workshops. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously added the above._items to the Agenda.. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS Chairman Bird read aloud the following Proclamation and presented it to Linda Downey, president of the Junior Service League and Jacelyn Block, director of the Volunteer Program: APR 12 1994 BOOK r,ar,F% BOOK 92 FA;E 9j A P R4 2 1994 _ PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING APRIL 17 TO 23, 1994 AS "NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK" IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,, FLORIDA WHEREAS, today's communities demand more from citizens than ever before; and WHEREAS, volunteers frequently call attention to problems and offer workable solutions to community problems; and - WHEREAS, volunteers in Indian River County are essential to the growth and well-being of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, volunteers unite diverse groups and interests to work toward resolution of problems and enrich all of our lives; and WHEREAS, volunteers are often the bridge between indif- ference and action; between problem and solution; and WHEREAS, volunteers working together multiply their effectiveness and improve our communities in numerous ways; and WHEREAS, volunteers remind all of us of our moral responsibility to each other and, therefore, make us all better persons; and WHEREAS, volunteers are the life force of our community: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAINED BY THE BOARD "OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that April 17 to 23, 1994 be designated as NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK in Indian River County. The Board sets aside this time of year to commend and inspire volunteer accomplishments in our community, and to celebrate those who are making a difference. The Board -also encourages others to join in this great work. Adopted this 12th day of April, 1994. 2 BOARD OF COUNTY CONbUSSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Jo Tippiri,/ airman APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 22, 1994. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of March 22, 1994, as written. CONSENT AGENDA Commissioner Adams requested the addition of Item F. to the Consent Agenda. A. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated March 24, 1994: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: LAR.ller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: March 24, 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: BRITT GUTERAS VAN VLIET 2. AlA/North Beach Water Project: BIRGAL CORP. (2) 3. Blue Cypress Lake Sewer Project: MIDDLETON 4. Rockridge Sewer Project: GAARN/ASBURY 5. Shady Oaks Water Project: °l HOWARD APR 121994 3 Boor, 94 i I APP x.21994 92 FacE 95 6. Summerplace Water Projects GENRE 7. Phase I Water Projects VAL VLIET 8. Phase III Water Project: FOWLER NILBAS O'QUINN - ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the lien releases listed in staff's memorandum. SAID SATISFACTIONS AND RELEASES ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY B. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated March 31, 1994: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's Office DATE: March 31, 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. Phase I1 Water Project: BEARDSLEY, SR. (2) CULVER GARDEN GUTTERAS RAULERSON (3) SABONJOHN/CATTAFI/TESTA STUMP WYNN ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the lien releases listed in staff's memorandum. SAID RELEASES ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 4 C. Release of Utility Liens The Board reviewed memo from Lea R. Keller, CLA, dated March 31, 1994: TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS J2. FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, County Attorney's•Office DATE: March 31, 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. Phase I Water Project: MILLER YATES 2. Phase II Water Project: BUCKINGHAM BRODMERREL DIXON HOUSCH KELLEHER (2) KRONYAK ROBERTO SCHELL ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the lien releases listed in staff's memorandum. SAID RELEASES ARE RECORDED IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY D. ReaRRointment of Carolyn S. Stuckey to Indian River County Housing Authority The Board reviewed the letter from Governor Lawton Chiles dated March 30, 1994: APR 121994 5 BOOK 92 F'.+GE 96 I BOOK 92 fl� UGE 9 7 APR j2 1944' _ SPATE OFIWMA of #ire 5aVernur TIS CAPITOL TAr t H&&%& MOMA 32399-0001 March 30, 1994 Tiepin, Chair Board of Commissioners, Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear John: I have reappointed Carolyn S. Stuckey to the Board of Commissioners, Indian River County Housing Authority. According to Section 421.27 Florida Statutes, County Commission approval is required. Please place this matter on the agenda for the next County Commission meeting and contact the Appointments Office with the results. Enclosed is a copy of the questionnaire for your review. With kind regards, I am Sincerely, LAWTON CHILES ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the reappointment of Carolyn S. Stuckey to the Indian River County Housing Authority Board of Directors. E. Laurel Homes Inc Request for Preliminary Plat Extension for The Laurels Subdivision The Board reviewed memo from Current Development Senior Planner John W. McCoy dated March 31, 1994: 6 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV ON HEAD CON NCE: ert M. Keating',tt ICP Community Developm D ctor THROUGH: Stan Boling,,AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP �w`M Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: March 31, 1994 SUBJECT: Laurel Homes Inc.'s Request for Preliminary Plat Extension for The Laurels Subdivision V It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 12, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: On August 27, 1992 the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a preliminary plat application submitted by Carter Associates, Inc. on behalf of Laurel Homes Inc. for the Laurels Subdivision. The Laurels Subdivision is a proposed 113 lot subdivision located at 36th Avenue between 8th and 10th Streets. Carter Associates, Inc., on behalf Laurel Homes Inc., has requested that a preliminary plat extension be granted. Due to permitting delays, the applicant has been unable to commence construction of the approved preliminary plat. The request for preliminary plat extension was effectively received prior to expiration of the approved preliminary plat on February 27, 1994. Therefore, the extension request is valid and may be approved by the Board of County Commissioners. The approved preliminary plat is essentially in conformance with the present land development regulations. Laurel Homes Inc. is requesting a preliminary plat extension v pursuant to -...the provisions of the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, Chapter 913. Pursuant to the Subdivision and Plats Ordinance, the Board of County Commissioners may grant, or grant with conditions the requested preliminary plat extension for a period of up to 18.. months. In staff's opinion, the existing approved preliminary plat application would substantially conform to current requirements. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Laurel Homes Inc. Is request for a one (1) time, eighteen (18 ) month extension of The Laurels Subdivision's preliminary plat approval. The new preliminary plat approval expiration date will be August 27, 1995. APR 12° 194. 7 BOOK 92 FacF'� APR 121994 BOOK 92 DIU 99 ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved extension of The Laurels Subdivision's preliminary plat approval to August 27, 1995, as recommended by staff. F. Resolution in Support of Sebastian River Mariculture Project ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 94-50, in support of the Sebastian River Mariculture Project. RESOLUTION NO. 94-50 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD' OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN SUPPORT OF "THE SEBASTIAN RIVER MARICULTURE PROJECT". WHEREAS, the Sebastian River Mariculture Project Advisory Committee has developed a grant proposal entitled "The Sebastian River Mariculture Project"; and WHEREAS, the "Project" is intended to integrate shell -fish mariculture into the existing vocational agricultural and science curriculum of Sebastian River Middle School, to the benefit of the "Project", students and shell -fish producers, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the Board supports "The Sebastian River Mariculture Project", as set out in the exhibit attached as a "Grant Proposal". The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and seconded by Commissioner Eggert and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: 8 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 12th day of April, 1994. ATTEST: By: Barton Clerk INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By' . QYM W. Tij3pinjrman PUBLIC HEARING - ST. EDWARDS SCHOOL, INC., REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND CONCEPTUAL PLAN APPROVAL TO EXPAND EXISTING ST. EDWARDS UPPER SCHOOL CAMPUS 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 Beath. 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 Presa•Journal, a dally newspaper published � at VeEooBeaacch in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being 1. I In the matter of�/�E F�J In the Court, was pub. lished 1n sold newspaper M the Issues of ` 1��9f t .-7/ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press•Journat is s newspaper published at Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, end that the said newspaper hes heretofore been continuously published In said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter of the post office In Vero Beach, In sold Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first puhlleallon 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 M the sold newspaper. ,•,.prrrr.�., .•0 p6140 ipbscrlbed before me this day o i U4Z A.D. 19 � s • 4tyI enl mL j : , ✓� •';? All .nt (8 s s Manager) 3 m• F�pires 4 s ° T�. 1997 . r No. CC99pg a sale.f Florida, my Cmun'ssxm I..p ,h,i, ala. i}!sl �AtJ 114, OF FLdP a0CA Nelry RARRARA C. SPRAGUE APR 1 1994 9 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Nage of hearing to consider the granting of ape - del euse approval for the expansion of St. EdwaAper School. The subject property is presently owned by St. Edwards Upper School Inc. 1afnadpointe West LC., and looted in Section map for ownsto 3 and Range 40. See the above A public heaft at which parties in Interest and dozens shall have an Opportunity to be heard, will of be held by the Board of County Commilmners AM Chaarrbn Indlan River ofy�the Cam norldla. in - n Bulld- Ing, located at 1840 25th Street, y�tr�ch. Flor. A ida an Tuesday, April 12,1994 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meetlrxl will deed to ern_ sure that a Ifenbatim record of the prods is made, which Includes testy and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL A000MMODA. TION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 567-8000 X223 AT LE O T 48 HURS W ADVANCE OF THE MEET. ROM RIVER COUNTY Board of Count BY-Wft W. 7ippirl� s Marcia 21,1994 1082414 8001{ APR 121994 Attorney Vitunac advised that Attorney Bruce Barkett wished to make a preliminary statement. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing property owners in Sandpointe West Subdivision, understood that the applicant produced a new set of plans just prior to today's meeting, and he was not prepared to argue because he did not see the plans and was not able to confer with his clients. Planning Director Stan Boling understood that the applicant would propose something different from what was presented initially, imposing some limitations on the conceptual plan in terms of setback and building height, and it was staff's intention to allow the applicant to make his presentation. Chairman Tippin announced that the Board would hear the presentation unless there was strong opposition. Commissioner Bird asked whether the applicant was agreeable to postpone the presentation and take the opportunity to work with the property owners and people that have concerns about the plan. Attorney William Stewart, representing St. Edwards School, Inc., stated that his client would like to proceed because the information presented would be useful to the property owners of Sandpointe West. Attorney Vitunac advised that the request for special exception use falls under the new Snyder and James Rule, and all persons who testify must be placed under oath. Staff and members of the audience who planned to address the Board regarding this item stood and were duly sworn by Attorney Vitunac. Director Boling, having been duly sworn, made the following presentation: 10 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator • 1,p Dobe=t - M.Keafting f PCP Community Development D THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: April 41 1994 SUBJECT: St. Edwards School Inc.'s Request for Special Exception Use and Conceptual Plan Approval to Expand the Existing St. Edwards Upper School Campus It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 12, 1994. BACKGROUND: Masteller & Moler, Inc. has submitted an application for special exception use and conceptual plan approval on behalf of St. Edwards School Inc. to expand the existing St. Edwards Upper School. The school is located at 1895 St. Edwards Drive. Since the subject property is zoned RS -3, expansion of the existing educational facility requires special exception use approval. The expansion is proposed in four phases to be built over the next two years. Recently, St. Edwards School, Inc. entered into a proposed land swap with Sandpointe West L.C. to trade approximately 4 acres of riverfront property owned by St. Edwards for lots 1-12 in the Sandpointe West Subdivision. St. Edwards proposes to use this additional property to expand its existing upper school campus. Accordingly,, Sandpointe West L.C., under a separate application that has been approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, is proposing to plat additional riverfront lots with the land being swapped for lots 1-12. The proposed land swap would convert some existing St. Edwards river frontage to riverfront lots and would move the St. Edwards property boundary north, up to West Sandpointe Lane which is a local residential street. At its March 10', 1994, meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 2 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the special exception use and conceptual plan requests, with an added condition that all buildings be limited to one story and be set back 75' from the new north property line (see attachment #4). This condition was added to the -two conditions recommended by staff at the end of this report. Because it takes at least 4 affirmative votes of the 7 member Planning and Zoning Commission to approve an action, and because the approval recommendation passed with only 2 affirmative votes, no official Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation has been made to the Board of County Commissioners. APR 12`1994 11 BOOK 94W F01r.�.Sr1�+ APR 121994 8m 92 Palet 103 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 conceptual site plan and the 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. If the Board approves the special exception use and conceptual plan requests, then the applicant will need to obtain major site plan approval as its next step in the development review and approval process. ANALYSIS: 1. Gross Site Area: 23.43 acres (existing, total upper school campus) 25.44 acres (proposed, total upper school campus) 2. Zoning Classification: RS -3, Residential Single Family District (up to 3 units per acre) 3. Land Use Designation: L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units per acre) 4. Phasing: Phase 1: tennis court replacement, buffer and stormwater improvements Phase 2: classrooms and supporting parking Phase 3: administration building and supporting parking Phase 4: chapel building and supporting parking 5. Building Area: Existing: 57,695 sq. ft. Phase I: 57,695 sq. ft. Phase II: 74,495 sq. ft. Phase III: 82,395 sq. ft. Phase IV: 92,395 sq. ft. (build -out) 6. Total Impervious Area: Existing: 195,609 sq. ft. Phase I: 195,609 sq. ft. Phase II: 249,597 sq. ft. Phase III: 259,744 sq. ft. Phase IV: 289,744 sq. ft. (build -out) 7. Open Space: Required: 40% Provided: 76% (build -out) 8. Traffic Circulation: The facility's overall traffic circulation pattern will not change. The existing main driveway will continue to provide access to S.R. A -1-A. Several rows of additional parking are proposed to the north of the existing parking lot. The county's traffic engineering division has reviewed and approved the conceptual traffic circulation plan. 9. Stormwater Management: A conceptual stormwater plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The applicant will need to include the stormwater improvements within phase I since the project's existing stormwater treatment areas are within the area that would be swapped with Sandpointe West. 12 10. Off -Street Parking: Proposed Required Existing: 168 spaces 168 spaces Phase I: 168 spaces 168 spaces Phase II: 214 spaces 168 spaces Phase III: 230 spaces 168 spaces Phase IV: 230 spaces (build -out) 168 spaces Note: The required number of parking spaces has been reduced from 213 to 168 through a parking study prepared in conjunction with SP -MA -91-05-27. The study allows up to 20% of the parking to be provided as grassed spaces. The parking will be required to be increased only if the enrollment increases. 11. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Chapter 926. This includes depiction of a Type "C" buffer which is required adjacent to the residentially designated properties along the north and west boundaries of the subject site. Additionally, the staff is recommending that the Type "C" buffer contain a 6' opaque feature. 12. Utilities: The school will continue to be served by the City of Vero Beach for water and -sewer services. 13. Concurrency: Concurrency for schools is based on enrollment. Since the proposed expansions will not increase enrollment, a concurrency certificate is not required. The conceptual plan lists the present enrollment -at 375 students. Therefore, as a condition of approval any expansion of the enrollment beyond 375 students will require a concurrency analysis. 14. Specific Land Use Criteria: The following specific land use criteria apply: A. Sites for secondary schools shall be located near thoroughfares so as to discourage traffic along local residential streets in residential subdivisions. Elementary schools should be discouraged from locating adjacent to major arterial roadways; B. For the type of facility proposed, the minimum spatial requirements for the site shall be similar to standards utilized by the Indian River County school board and the State of Florida; C. No main or accessory building shall be located within one hundred (100) feet of any property line not adjacent to a street or roadway. No main or accessory building shall be located within fifty (50) feet of any property line abutting a local road right-of-way that serves a single- family area; D. The applicant shall submit a description of anticipated service area and projected enrollment, by stage if appropriate, and relate the same to a development plan explaining: 1. 2. APR -11,199C Area to be developed by construction phase; Adequacy of site to accommodate anticipated facilities, enrollment, recreation area, off-street 13 BOOK 9� Fa F 104 fi00K 92 FAur"..1Q� APR .12, 1194 parking, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation on-site including loading, unloading and queuing of school bus traffic; 3. Safety features of the development plan; E. No rooms within the school shall be regularly used for the housing of students when located in a single family residential district; F. The facilities shall have a Type "C" buffer in the A-1, A-2, A-3, RFD, RS -1, RS -21 RS -3, and RS -6 districts; G. The facilities shall have a Type "D" buffer in all other residential districts not listed in subsection F above. 15. Setback Proposals: There were several building setback scenarios discussed at the March 10th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. These scenarios included the 50' setback as required by the LDRs and proposed by the applicant, a 100' setback as proposed by Sandpointe Subdivision property owners, and a 75' setback as recommended by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Attachment #5 illustrates the various setback scenarios discussed. A 50' building setback from the property line would result in a 135' separation distance between school buildings and adjacent residences, while 100' and 75' building setbacks would result in separation distances between school buildings and adjacent residences of 185' and 160', respectively. Attachment #6 illustrates the 125' building separation resulting from the existing development configuration (without the land swap). Note: At the March 10th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, St. Edwards representatives indicated that they would agree to a 60' setback for 1 story buildings and a 75' setback for 2 story buildings. This proposal by the St. Edwards representatives is not a standing offer. The proposed conceptual plan still depicts the required 50' setback. 16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Sandpointe West Subdivision/RS-3 South: The Moorings Golf Course/RS-3 East: S.R. A -1-A, Sandpointe Subdivision/RS-3 West: Indian River/N/A RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use and conceptual plan approval for the St. Edwards Upper School expansion with the following conditions: 1. That school enrollment shall not be increased beyond 375 students without county review and approval of the impacts associated with such increase. 2. That all required perimeter buffer improvements be installed prior to final inspection or prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (C.O.) for the first phase of project development, and that said buffer shall contain a 6' opaque feature along the site's West Sandpointe Lane frontage. 14 77 Director Boling further explained that the applicant proposed changes to the conceptual plan by increasing the setback and reducing the height of the structure to one story. The applicant agreed that the buffer along the northern boundary must be installed prior to final inspection and issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, and that enrollment at the school will not be increased from the current 375 students. - The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Peter Benedict, headmaster of St. Edwards School, having been duly sworn, recounted the history of the school, school policies, accreditation and its national and statewide recognition as a national merit school. The school is funded entirely by private money, and has been a good neighbor to the community, opening its facilities to groups and organizations. He stated that it is universally recognized that junior high schools should be separate facilities. Constructing the St. Edwards Junior High facility near to yet apart from the upper school allows them to use the facilities of the upper school, such as the library and swimming pool. Attorney Stewart, stated that the conditions established by staff and staff recommendations are acceptable to the school. The 75 -foot setback is unnecessary and unworkable and the architect will explain the alternative setback dimensions. Steve Moler, of Masteller and Moler, having been duly sworn, displayed a rendering showing the relationship between the property proposed for the new school building and the residential lots in Sandpointe West. He described the buffer which would block the view from the residential lots to the school property. Mark A. Ugowski, architect, having been duly sworn, stated that he designed the St. Edwards Library and the Indian River County Library so he is familiar with our community. He described the proposed structure as a low-key, low -impact, one-story, barrel tile roof building that fits the neighborhood. The roof line will be broken to give it a light institutional look. All activity will be directed to the south side of the building. The north side will have 50- to 70 -foot staggered setbacks, plus a berm, Type C buffer, swale, 60 -foot right of way and the setback for the residences. Commissioner Adams led discussion about details and clarified that the drawings the Board was looking at were new and had just been given to Bruce Barkett's clients this morning. APR x..2;1494 15 BOOK R F'�;F 10'6 APR `12 i9�4 . BOOK 9 FacE107 Commissioner Bird commented that the parking lot would be relatively inactive, except for morning and after school traffic. Commissioner Macht stated that the details of the berm should be spelled out and make sure that it is maintained. Attorney Barkett wanted to be sure this plan would accommodate the school's needs for future planning. He questioned Mr. Ugowski about details of the design. He conceded that this new plan looks nicer than the original, but it was not distributed until just prior to this meeting and he was not given the opportunity to study it. He asserted that there was no advance notice, which violates the rules of judicial proceedings and deprives the property owners of the ability to cross-examine witnesses. Mr. Barkett stated that he would like an opportunity to review the new proposal and contended that the Board cannot vote on the plan as presented but they must remand it to the Planning & Zoning (P&Z) Commission. Discussion ensued regarding the differences in the plans, and Director Keating advised that the plan presented today is not substantially different from what was presented previously to P&Z. Attorney Vitunac advised that with that evidence from staff, the Board can choose to send the application back to P&Z or to rule on it. Further discussion ensued regarding the changes in the plan, and Commissioner Macht thought that if Mr. Barkett and his clients had an opportunity to meet and study the new proposal, the Board will not have to go through the process. Peter Armfield, from the appraisal firm Armfield Wagner, Inc., having been duly sworn, stated that he researched the adverse influences which may occur from the special use and he estimated that the impact to the value would be in the range of 15 to 20 percent less than without those influences. He could not comment on the new plan because the new plan is substantially different. Robert C. McNally, owner of property in Sandpointe West, having been duly sworn, stated that he is a builder and developer, and that the issue is compatibility and the impact on the character of the neighborhood. He is a member of a -group of owners who purchased lots in Sandpointe West. They have great respect for St. Edwards and favor St. Edwards expanding their campus but they do not want it to impact adversely on their neighborhood. Mr. McNally requested the opportunity to sit across the table and discuss alternatives so that everyone will benefit. 16 Andrea Thurn, lot owner in Sandpointe West, having been duly sworn, recounted the history of Sandpointe West and questioned the propriety of imposing this type of structure into a residential neighborhood to change the character of the neighborhood. Ms. Thurn pointed out that the school has other land on which to build, and that it would be a violation of the County Code to grant a permit which will impact the orderly development of surrounding projects. She stated that realtors are not willing to sell property in Sandpointe West until this project is completed. Ms. Thurn felt that if the applicants were comfortable about their request, they would be forthcoming with the details. Vincent Boyle, lot owner in Sandpointe West, having been duly sworn, opposed the project because of incompatibility. It will impact his property and will hurt him financially; buffers do not change the impact. Attorney Stewart encouraged the Board to make a decision. He argued that due process has been served because the property owners were given the plan before this meeting. He did not expect the property owners to change their minds because they simply do not want the project. Attorney Barkett argued that there is substantial difference in the plan and urged the Board to submit the plan to the P&Z for review. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Macht did not see any harm to either party if the Board deferred this item for a period of time, because Mr. Barkett has not had time to confer with his clients and they have not had time to study the new proposal. He accepted Director Keating's professional judgment that it is not a substantial departure but is merely a variation. Commissioner Macht would like the opportunity to study the plans if he were a property owner at Sandpointe West. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board could continue the hearing to a time certain. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously continued this Public Hearing to the meeting of April 26, 1994. APR 12 1994 17 BOOK 92� L,� GF 108 I 92 ME 199 APR 12 1994 PUBLIC HEARING - HARVEST CHRISTIAN RETREAT'S REQUEST FOR SPECIAL EXCEPTION USE AND MAJOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL TO CONSTRUCT A RETREAT 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 f er In the matter of f -P4 0lV/l�MfA' In the lashed In said newspaper In the Issues of ��e z Z 2 4 4004/ Court, was pub - Afllant further says that the sold 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. ,8'�p�lq;argj'Nbscribed before me this ��_ day o Uld, A.D. 19 ,(eualnese. Manager) Y Comm. Expires• • June 29, 1997 ;� No. C tp C .. AL13f)057p Stele of rlorida. My Cnnar.iss0m UP .lune 29,1lg7 connsiun Number: CC300572 44 sem+: Wary: BA14HARA C. SPnAGUE 44.8:40.0 no r,. •sw. M44 ; •44 iHN I".. ;40.4 ism :M.4 S.R. 60 T_Ite � NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the grants of specs exception use approval for a retreat. The subject WoWty Is preserhtiy owned by Sowing Seed Mhds- try, and located In Section 9. Township 33 and Range 37. See the above map for ft location. A pubic hearing at which parties In interest and citizens slap have an oRxnwdty to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Commissioners of Wan River County, Florida, In a County Commis- sion Chambers of the Canty Admilft" on Build - big. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero •Beach, Flor- Ida on Tuesday. April 12,1994 at 9:05 a.m. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ern - sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings Is made, which hxludes 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 (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 587-8000 X223 AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEET- ING, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Board of County Caninissioners BY -s -MM W. Tlpphh March 21, 1994 1082402 Attorney Vitunac advised that the request for special exception use falls under the new Snyder and James Rule, and all persons who testify must be placed under oath. Staff and members of the audience who planned to address the Board regarding this item stood and were duly sworn by Attorney Vitunac. Planning Director Stan Boling made the following presentation: 18 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV SION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. eats , AI Community Development Director THROUGH: Stan Boling,41ICP Planning Director reRON: John W. McCoy, AICP �'� Senior Planner, Curr nt Development DATE: April 5, 1994 SUBJECT: Harvest Christian Retreat's Request for Special Exception Use and Major Site Plan Approval to Construct a Retreat It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 12, 1994. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION BACKGROUND: John Dean, Architect and Associates, P.A. has submitted an application for special exception -use and major site plan approval on behalf of the Harvest Christian Retreat (Sandy & Rich Coffey) to construct a retreat located at 801 154th Avenue (7.5 miles west of I-95, 1.5 miles south of S.R. 60). The subject property is zoned A-2, a zoning district which requires special exception use approval for a retreat use. There is an existing house on the subject property that will remain on site as part of this project and will be occupied by the owner/manager of the retreat. In addition, a bunk house will be built to house up to 24 people, and a new barn will be constructed to facilitate the gardening activities associated with the retreat's programs. The proposed retreat use will involve stays of up to 6 months, religious classes and ministries, gardening activities, and prayer and study programs (please see attachment #4 for a detailed description of the retreat use). Oftentimes, use categories overlap. Such is the case with the county's "camps and retreats" use category. Uses such as hotels, residential treatment centers, and group homes can share some use characteristics with retreats. In reviewing this proposed project, staff found that the proposed use will have characteristics of a retreat and of a group home. In staff's opinion, a retreat is a use involving an isolated setting, removed from "normal life", where persons can focus on various personal issues or topics during relatively short-term stays. Because an element of isolation is involved, retreats are usually located in remote, rural areas (hence the allowance of retreats in agricultural areas). The proposed project will involve some group home characteristics such as some stays up to six months and periodic, limited transportation from the retreat site back into the "normal world". APR 121994 19 800Y 9? F-vlj l BOOK 92 PAGF 111 AP's 12 1994 The applicant has informed staff that retreat goers will be brought into town at a frequency of no more than once -a -week for participation in religious services, service projects, and for essential needs if necessary (e.g. medical treatment). However, it is staff's opinion, based upon the applicant's use explanation, that the use will consist mostly of retreat type characteristics. Such characteristics include isolation of the site, a variety of religious programs and learning activities, and on-site activities such as gardening (see attachment #6). At its March'10, 1994 meeting, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (5-0) recommended to deny this project. The Planning and Zoning Commission's main reason for recommending denial related to possible use incompatibilities between the retreat and the adjacent active agricultural activities (see attachment #5 and section 14 of the analysis section of this report). Also, since the Planning and Zoning Commission denied major site plan approval and since the applicant has appealed this denial, the Board of County Commissioners will be taking final action on the request for major site plan approval as well as the request for special exception use approval. The Board of County Commissioners is now to consider the applicant's request for special exception use and major site plan approval. 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 ensue compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. ANALYSIS: 1. Size of Area of Development: 10 acres or 435,639 sq. ft. 2. Zoning Classification: A-2, Agricultural District 2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) 3. Land Use Designation: AG -2, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/10 acres) 4. Building Area: Existing: 2,528 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,976 sq. ft. Total: 7,504 sq. ft. 5. Impervious Area: Existing: 26,603 sq. ft. Proposed: 4,976 sq. ft. Total: 31,579 sq. ft. 6. Open Space: Required: 80% Proposed: 81% (excluding any credit for on- site water bodies) 7. Traffic Circulation: The site will be accessed from 154th Avenue (an existing, paved road connected to S.R. 60) by an existing unpaved driveway. This driveway will provide access to a stabilized, unpaved parking lot area. The facility may use stabilized, unpaved parking and driveway areas, pursuant to the specific land use criteria provisions, with the approval of the public works director. The public works director has approved the proposed unpaved parking and driveway areas. 20 8. Off -Street Parking: Required: 12 spaces (unpaved) Provided: 16 spaces (unpaved) 9. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management plan has been reviewed and approved by the public works department. The applicant will need to obtain a Type "B" stormwater management permit prior to site plan release. 10. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Chapter 926 requirements. Since the site is not adjacent to residentially designated property, no special buffers are required, and none are provided. 11. Utilities: The site, located several miles outside of the Urban Service Area, will utilize an on-site well and septic system to accommodate water and wastewater needs. These utility provisions have been approved by the County Department of Utility Services and Environmental Health Department. 12. Concurrency: The applicant has executed a concurrency acknowledgement form, indicating that it is the applicant's duty to obtain an initial concurrency certificate prior to the issuance of a building permit. Thus, the project's concurrency requirements related to site plan approval have been satisfied. 13. Special Exception Criteria: The following special exception criteria apply to retreats and camps: A. A site plan meeting all of the requirements of Chapter 914, which shows: 1. All building, camping and recreation facilities and areas and distances to all property boundaries; 2. Location, width, composition and a cross-section of all buffer areas; 3. Location and number of all camping or sleeping areas (maximum number of people accommodated for sleeping in permanent structures); 4. Drop-off facilities; and 5. A complete description of all planned uses, activities and programs to occur on site and corresponding hours of operation. B. The -:site must be located on a minimum of ten (10) acres of property. C. No building, camping or recreation facility or area may be located closer than forty (40) feet of any property line, or closer than seventy-five (75) feet to any property with a residential land use designation, whichever distance is greater. The referenced seventy - f ive f oot setback may be reduced to thirty- f ive ( 35 ) f eet if a type B buffer with a six-foot opaque feature is provided. APR 21'994 21 VVA 92rrij{ 800K A� APR 121994 D. -The development of permanent structures test accommodate the sleeping of persons shall be limited 'as follows: sleeping areas within permanent structures shall not accommodate more than four (4) persons per acre of the total project area less area devoted to camping accommodations. E. Drop-off facilities may be required by the public works director where such facilities are deemed necessary to accommodate anticipated traffic operations on site. F. Stabilized, unpaved parking and driveway areas may be approved by the board of county commissioners based upon a positive recommendation from the public works director. G. Restrictions or limitations on outdoor lighting and location and hours of operation for outdoor activities may be imposed to mitigate potential adverse light and noise impacts on surrounding properties. The application and proposed site plan meet all of these specific land use criteria. 14. Compatibility with Surrounding Uses and Use Restrictions: At the March 10, 1994 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, it was brought out by several surrounding property owners that, due to some of the intense --activity that goes along with active agricultural operations, the proposed use may not be compatible with the surrounding agricultural uses. In addition, some concerns were expressed by owners of surrounding citrus groves regarding the potential danger of the applicant installing caribbean fruit fly host plant material on site. It should be noted that the applicant has been made aware that there are existing, surrounding active agricultural activities that may adversely affect the recreational and residential uses proposed for the site. The applicant has acknowledged this and has addressed the other concerns raised by grove owners in a letter attached to this report as attachment #6. 15. Environmental Issues: There are several isolated wetlands on the site. These consist mostly of cypress tree stands. The proposed development will not impact these tree stands. Therefore, no alteration to wetlands is proposed and no wetland resource permit is required. 16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant/A-2 South: Citrus Grove/A-2 East: Citrus Grove/A-2 West: Citrus Grove/A-2 RECOMMENDATION: Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissions approve the special exception use request. 22 Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicant, wished to reserve his comments to the end of the public hearing. John Dean, architect for the proposed project, having been duly sworn, gave details of the project. He pointed out that the location is isolated, is adequate in size, and is accessed by 154th Avenue which is paved. The retreatants will stay on site because the purpose of a retreat is for people to be isolated to make changes in their lives. There is objection to this use from the grove owners because of the agricultural nature of the surrounding property, but isolated places are not to - be found in developed areas. The applicants are aware of the activity involved in grove care and do not feel there is any problem. There are two other pieces of property in that area which are not used for agriculture. The applicants will agree to a condition not to raise any host plants which would impact the Japanese Fruit Fly Protocol Program. Mr. Dean maintained that the special use plan meets every technical criteria, will not adversely impact the public health, safety or comfort, or rural development in the area, and is compatible with the other uses in that area. Commissioner Eggert stated that she always advises people who want to build day care centers for adults or children that they should put them in areas of passive agriculture or virgin land. She asked why the applicants chose this property which is located in a very active agricultural area. Mr. Dean responded that among the criteria necessary for a retreat is isolation and this property is isolated, is accessed by a paved road and was available. Pastor Sandy Coffey, having been duly sworn, described herself and her husband, Richard, as long-time, tax -paying, law abiding citizens of the community. Mr. Coffey owns a large construction company and has employed several Vero Beach residents for the past 12 years. Pastor Coffey and her husband have been active as volunteers with different community projects and have a lot to offer Vero Beach. After Pastor Coffey announced at her church that she wanted to start the ministry, a woman told her about this property. She went out to see it and decided it was the right spot, and they will reside permanently on the property. Pastor Coffey stressed that Harvest Christian Ranch is needed. It is a non-profit corporation, a discipleship church reaching out to the community. The doors are open to anyone desiring to change their life. The retreatants will stay no longer than six months, although some individuals will leave before six months. The program is very structured. It is run like Faith Farm facilities 9 APR 121994 23 noK, F-, , All APR 121994 sm 92, F -Au 115 in Boynton Beach, Fort Lauderdale and Okeechobee, which have a 65 to 70 percent success rate. Teen Challenge is another similar program and has a 96 percent success rate. Richard Coffey, having been duly sworn, further explained that this property was within their price range for 10 acres. He noted that only the rear of the property is adjacent to the grove. Scott Rogers, a worker at Packers of Indian River, having been duly sworn, spoke in opposition to the request for special exception use for two reasons. First, the Japanese Fruit Fly Protocol Program calls for all host plants to be cleared within a 3 -mile radius of the grove, and it would be financially disastrous for the grove owners if the Protocol were not followed. Secondly, the groves must use pesticides in air and ground spraying, and sometimes that spray drifts a quarter of a mile. Mr. Rogers pointed out that all grove workers are trained in personal safety when handling pesticides and procedures for reentering the groves after spraying, but these retreatants will not have that type of knowledge. There have been incidents of individuals from the subject property coming onto grove property, and that makes him worry about liability. Jim Rogers, president of Packers of Indian River, having been duly sworn, emphasized that thousands of people count on the citrus industry for their livelihood and the risks are too great for this retreat facility in that location. Those in the citrus industry conduct their business safely, but those outside the industry are exposed to some of the effects of the necessary grove procedures. His recommendation would be that these people find a area of passive agriculture in which to conduct their wonderful work. Tom James, representing T. G. Rogers, the owner of the property to the east of the subject property, having been duly sworn, urged the Board to follow the recommendation of P&Z and deny this request. Sonny Howard, representing E. B. Connelly, owner of 640 acres contiguous to the subject property, having been duly sworn, spoke in opposition to the request for special exception use. He stated that all grove owners work together, and their employees are trained in handling pesticides and grove equipment. Rob Airway, employee of Sowing Seeds Ministry and supervised by Richard and Sandy Coffey, having been duly sworn, stated that the grove owners should not be concerned for his health. He stated that on a daily basis he is exposed to unhealthy things, but this retreat is needed for spiritual growth. He believed that Sandy and Richard Coffey were called to carry on this ministry. 24 _ M Larry McClusky, having been duly sworn, spoke in favor of the retreat because he has been helped by Sandy and Richard Coffey. He described this retreat as an opportunity for a life change. He assured the Board that they will not do any harm to the groves. Pastor Jefferson, St. Peter's Missionary Baptist Church, having been duly sworn, spoke in support of the retreat and stated that his membership is behind it. He urged the Board to allow the retreat because it will do the community a great service. James Barstow, manager of Grace Brothers Okeechobee Mission, having been duly sworn, spoke in favor of the retreat because there are many people hurting spiritually who need a place like this to change their lives from the inside. Reverend John Ferver, having been duly sworn, spoke in favor of Sandy Coffey and her ministry. He stated that he was an alcoholic, his father was an alcoholic, and he knew how important it is to have this retreat in the community. June Fritz, resident of Indian River Estates and participant in the Sowing Seeds Ministry, having been duly sworn, stated that her neighbors grow vegetables and fruits. They are not bothered by the spraying; their main problem is with the blossoms. Jack Harris, representing the pastor of Faith United Fellowship, having been duly sworn, realized that the citrus people are Christians and should not be fighting this project. Brenda Young, having been duly sworn, has a son in the Harvest House program. She described the change in her son as a miracle. R. Harold Lee, Pastor of the First Baptist Church of Sebastian, having been duly sworn, has directed people to retreats in Okeechobee, Fort Lauderdale and Titusville, and would welcome a retreat in this area. He predicted that the citrus folks and retreat folks will help each other. James McClain, having been duly sworn, stated that he was released from prison 3 weeks ago. He backs the Harvest House because the men are worth it, and women, too. Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicants, having been duly sworn, believed this project presents an opportunity for the people involved in agriculture. There are no restrictions on what a property owner can grow, but Sandy Coffey will agree to a condition that she will not allow any host plants to be planted on the subject property. No trespassing signs will be posted along the perimeter of the property as a condition of approval. There are people involved in activities other than citrus in that area and none of them complain that their health is affected by the groves. Mr. O'Haire stated that this is a permitted use, the Coffeys have met all the criteria for the special exception use, APR 121994 25 BOOK 92 i,a,I 116 aooK 92 Fa;r 117 APR 121994 and unless the Board has substantial competent evidence that the use would be adverse to the public interest, the request should be granted. Attorney Vitunac advised that this is not a permitted use and generally is not permitted in the district unless there are special protections from any adverse impact. Once an applicant has met all the conditions stated in the Code, then the burden shifts to the County to show by competent substantial evidence that the use would be adverse to the public interest. There was evidence supplied by the citrus growers, and the Board must decide if the weight of that evidence is competent and substantial enough to deny the request. Commissioner Bird was concerned about the increase in the number of people residing at that location from 2 individuals to 24 or 40 retreatants, plus visitors to the property. He viewed it as an intensification of the existing use and asked how we can control or limit its expansion. Attorney O'Haire felt there will not be many facilities like this because there are not many people like Sandy Coffey who would take on such a responsibility. In addition, there is migrant housing as a special exception use which increases the intensity and density. The migrants are employees of the grove owners, but the effects are the same because they can grow fruits and vegetables and are subjected to pesticide spraying. Steve Mayo, employee of Packers of Indian River, having been duly sworn, argued that migrant workers are trained under the Workers Protection Safety Standards and they understand what precautions are required for their safety and the safety of their families. He was concerned that an accident could happen if someone wanders off the Coffey property unintentionally. He feared that granting the request would place him at risk of losing his income from possible complications which could arise through no fault of his. Citrus growers take extensive measures to comply with current laws as well as expected future laws, but there are inherent dangers when working with toxic materials. Reverend Henry Holmes, having been duly sworn, suggested collaboration in training regarding pesticides which would help all parties. Woody Anderson, 14 -year resident of Indian River County, having been duly sworn, stated that he and his wife are volunteers and hoped the Board would support the retreat. Davis Wilkerson, member of Sowing Seeds Ministry, having been duly sworn, thanked Sandy Coffey for reaching out and helping him. 26 He stated that he loves oranges, and the Board and the citrus men should have compassion for the people who need this retreat. Jim Rogers returned to respond to several arguments. He emphasized that he is not in the business of religion but he is a religious man. Everything that his company owns is the Lord's and he is a steward. He is concerned and frightened because we live in a litigious society and the Coffeys cannot protect him from people who come out to the property, get a whiff of the pesticide and decide to grab the brass ring. He pointed out that 154th Avenue was paved by the Federal government when the FCC facility was built because they must have access to that facility in all weather conditions. John Bates, owner of a business in Indian River County and a member of the board of directors of Sowing Seeds Ministry, having been duly sworn, believed that the citrus growers have unfounded fears. He observed that the Coffeys have met all criteria and urged the Board to make a favorable decision. Wilfredo Ortiz, having been duly sworn, stated that he supports the Coffeys, who give young men like him a chance to change their lives. Sandy Coffey stated that she learned something about the handling of chemicals when her son went through the training for employment in the citrus industry. She pointed out that many people live in that vicinity who are not trained. Richard Coffey stressed that this is the only place they have. They put all their money into this property. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. Commissioner Adams commended Richard and Sandy Coffey and hoped they will begin to think about our young women. Commissioner Adams told of her experience in buying property in an area of passive agriculture which changed to active groves. Her property is sprayed when the groves are sprayed from the air. She has some plants which are considered host plants, which she is switching to other plants. She has traps that are monitored frequently and they have never found fruit flies. Commissioner Adams called herself a tough advocate for citrus, but she stressed that we must stop thinking of reasons why we cannot live together and find reasons why we can and should live together. She reminded everyone that liability extends to spray falling on vehicles as they move along APR 121994 2' soot 9Z F,,�.1�.8 800K 92 Far,F 119 the roadways. Commissioner Adams pointed out that owners have a right to use their property, and the Board has the authority to decide whether a special exception use is appropriate in that particular area. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, to approve the special exception use request. Under discussion, Commissioner Macht knew of a similar facility existing in the middle of a grove and there are no problems with pesticide or intrusion or conflict. He told of his experience with Teen Challenge wherein a member of his family was helped to change his life. He realized that any request for such an institution meets with the "not in my backyard" argument, but he predicted that there will be positive results from approval of this special exception use. Commissioner Bird admitted that this is the toughest vote in his 19 years as a commissioner on the P&Z and BCC. He realized that every speaker was sincere, and that we need this type of facility in our community, but it is a question of location. Our long range plan for the County set aside the area west of I-95 primarily for agriculture, and citrus people have made substantial investments out there. The citrus industry is the number one employer in our County, and he had no doubt that the grove owners support the concept of the retreat. He wished the Coffeys had made the request before they purchased the property because he would have encouraged them to look elsewhere. Commissioner Eggert has similar feelings and pointed out that she has always supported projects and facilities for nurturing people, personally and as a Commissioner. She agreed that the Coffeys have a wonderful goal but she could not support or approve this type of facility in an area of active agriculture. Commissioner Adams pointed out that this area is designated A- 2, which allows one unit per 10 acres. That one unit could allow 15 people if they had a family of 15. She pointed out that there are cases where people bought property in areas of passive agriculture which changed to active agriculture, and she asked whether the original owners should be forced to move out. Chairman Tippin agreed that it is the most difficult decision in his experience as a Commissioner, but he recalled that many families were raised in the middle of the groves. He realized that it is not a perfect situation but he judged that the good points outweigh the negative, and he would support the motion. 28 M THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 3-2, Commissioners Bird and Eggert voting in opposition. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the site plan for Harvest Christian Retreat as requested by Sandy and Richard Coffey. PUBLIC HEARING - BREWER INTERNATIONAL, INC. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 6.4 ACRES FROM L-1 TO AG -1 The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: APR 1-2.1994 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Too 3ournal STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that 11, $0 pev- CO -e t t t w.n t_ 110-0, Calf di /'7AA4i0Q:9%P1J*'3r- billed• OF ,�vc�i iZ�i'N2 gj was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) Sworn to and subscribed before me this ( 0- day of ,....M... SP OTA ki =m; My comm. Expire ; BARBARA C. SPRAGUF. wTAn)EkidnekfManager Jury 29. 1097 Slate of Ftoridi. My cammis I ■p AM 29.1967 No. CC30B572 i 1p" N "�' Cc3�15x2 (S'OF BARBARA .F W MIR 9? PAGE 1?0 BOOK 92 PAGF..121 w, 121994 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con- sider adopting an ordinance to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County as shown in the map of the advertisement and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing, on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The pro- posed amendments are included in the proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE POTABLE WATER SUB -EL- EMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP- ITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES- IGNATION FOR +-159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWES M r R A 10 ANn A?Nn AVFNt]F FROM RTO l_1 AMEND- ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE CO PREHEN- SIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE. -AL ING VENUE„BE- ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 1 & C.R. 510 (NORTH) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +-284 ACRES TO +-292.36 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REDUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 1 COMMERCIAL/INDUS- TRIAL NODE (C.R. 510 TO HOBART ROAD) FROM +-190 ACRES TO +-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING CODIFICA- TION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com- munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad- ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 exten- sion 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. - th ST m ' Subject l Property N � --- m :R a AG -2 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -John W. Tippin, Chairman Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the following: 30 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DE NT BEAD CONC NCE Ro ert M. Beating,C7Dctor Community Developme t THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICD s '� Chief, Long -Ran a Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: March 30, 1994 RE: BREWER INTERNATIONAL, INCORPORATED, REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 6.4 ACRES FROM L-1 TO AG -1. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 93-07-0153 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 12, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to change the land use designation of approximately 6.4 acres from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre).to AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Due to the size and location of the subject property, this request does not involve changes to the Urban Service Area (USA). A rezoning is not part of this request. Located on the south side of Sth Street, between 90th Avenue and I- 95, the subject property is owned by Brewer International, Inc. The applicant manufactures agricultural products on the site. This use is permitted as a special exception use in the existing A-1 zoning district. The applicant plans to eventually expand the structure on the site, but cannot do so unless all special exception criteria for agricultural businesses in the A-1 zoning district are met. One of the special exception criteria for an agricultural business in the A-1 zoning district is the requirement that the business be located in an area designated as either agricultural or rural on the comprehensive plan's future land use map. At the time the site was developed, it had an agricultural land use designation and, therefore, met this criterion. With the current L-1 land use designation, however, the use is non -conforming and cannot be expanded. By changing the land use designation of the site to an agricultural designation, the existing business will again conform to county land development regulations and may be expanded. On October 14, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend the transmittal of the proposed land use amendment APR 121994 31 BOOK 92 P, UE 12 APR 121994 request to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. On December 7, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on February 28 ,1994, did not contain any objections to the proposed amendment. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation. Existing Land Use Pattern The subject- property, encircled by a chain link fence, is zoned A-1 Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and contains an agricultural products plant and a small retention pond on the north portion of the site and rows of trees on the south portion of the site. Land to the north, also zoned A-1, is developed with a residence and several storage buildings. To the east, across a drainage canal and 90th Avenue, is pasture land zoned RS -3, Single - Family Residential District (up to 3 units/ acre). I-95 borders the subject property on the south and west. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and property to the north and east are designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) on the future land use map. The L-1 designation allows agricultural uses and residential uses with densities of up to 3 units/acre. Land to the west and south, across I-95, is designated AG -2, Agricultural -2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) on the future land use map. The AG -2 designation allows agricultural uses and residential uses with densities of up to 1 unit/10 acres. Environment According to County Flood Insurance Rate Maps, the subject property is located in a Zone A; this indicates that the property is within the 100 -year floodplain. No base flood elevations have been determined for this site. Although the interior of this parcel is landscaped with native and non-native trees, the perimeter has been invaded by the Brazilian pepper, an exotic, nuisance species. While some protected native trees exist on the property, environmental planning staff have concluded that no intact (ground cover, understory, and canopy) native upland plant communities exist on the site. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the County; however, wastewater lines do not extend to the site. The South County Reverse Osmosis Plant provides potable water to the site. 32 M M s s e � Transportation System The property has access to 90th Avenue which is classified ' as a collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 90th Avenue is a two-lane dirt road with approximately 50 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of 90th Avenue is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the -comprehensive plan also requires that new development be reviewed. For land use amendment requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDR), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests are not projects, County regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested land use designation. For agricultural land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDR's) is the maximum number. of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: t6.4 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: L- 1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) 3. Maximum Number of Units with Existing Land Use Designation: 19 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) 5. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Land Use Designation: 1 As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This APR 121994 33 BOOK 92 1',1 r 1A? I k BOOK 92 FAGS 1?5 APR 121094 land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review, because the requested land use designation would not increase the total number of potential units that the site could accommodate. It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of the proposed land use amendment. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency ..analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area As with any proposed land use change, it is important to assess whether or not this requested land use designation will be compatible with surrounding areas. Since the subject property is located at the edge of the urban service area, this request is essentially for an extension of the existing agricultural land use designation west and south of the site. Therefore, staff determined that any possible impacts associated with this request would be on future residential development to the north and east. If the subject property were redesignated to AG -1, the parcels to the north and east would be among parcels in several areas of the county where agricultural and residential land use designations abut. The parcel to the north of the subject property is approximately eight acres in size, while the parcel to the east of the subject property, across the drainage canal and 90th Avenue, is approximately 65 acres in size. Both of these parcels are large enough to buffer themselves from active agricultural uses as required in the County's comprehensive plan (Future Land Use Element Policies 1.36 and 6.3) and LDRs (Section 911.04(3)(c)5). According to these requirements, the minimum buffer provided must include a 25 foot buffer yard with a type "B" buffer and a six foot opaque feature. Additionally, given the present agricultural uses of the parcels north and east of the subject property, incompatibilities would occur only if the current agricultural uses of these parcels were converted to residential uses. Since agricultural and residential land use designations must abut, the most logical place for it to occur, in terms of compatibility, is in an area presently dominated by agricultural uses. In this way, if agricultural land were developed with residential uses, the developer and the residents would know in advance that adjacent land is designated for agricultural uses. For these reasons, staff has determined that this request will not create incompatibilities with the surrounding area. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and -commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which 34 M - M M identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets policy 13.3's second criterion. Prior to February 131 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was adopted, land use was governed by the previous comprehensive plan's future land use map which was adopted in 1982 and last amended in 1988 (see attachment 4). Inspection of previous future land use maps shows that the subject property historically had an agricultural designation. Although the Board of County Commissioners never intended to change the subject property's land use designation, an oversight caused the subject property to be included in the expanded L-1 designated area east of I-95 and south of 8th Street. The Board did not consider that agricultural uses existed on the subject property. This oversight occurred when the current comprehensive plan was adopted. For this reason, the proposed amendment meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7 states that the agricultural land use is applied to those areas of the county that have been traditionally used for agricultural purposes and are sufficiently removed from urban areas. This policy also states that the agricultural land use category will ensure continuation of the industry. Located in an -area dominated by agricultural and vacant land, the subject property's only use is and has been agricultural. Since the site, at the edge of the urban service area, is removed from urban development and has traditionally been used for agricultural purposes, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.7. Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3 Future Larid Use Element Policy 6.3 states that the county shall permit the continuation of agricultural uses east of I-95. The purpose of this request is to provide for the continuation and expansion of an existing agricultural use. Additionally, the site is not only east of I-95, but also contiguous to agriculturally 35 APR 121994 KKK 9� FA r.12 BOOK 92 f''+ut 127 APR 121994 designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3. - Future Land Use Element Objective 10 Future Land Use Element Objective 10 states that the county will reduce the number of uses which are inconsistent with the future land use map. Since the existing use on the site is inconsistent with the current future land use plan designation, but would be consistent with the proposed land use designation, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective l0 w- - Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county shall encourage the expansion of existing businesses. Since the existing use is non -conforming under the present land use designation, but not under the requested land use designation, this request facilitates expansion of the existing business. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy 1.1. As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality Agricultural operations are largely exempt from county environmental permitting requirements. For this reason, land use designation changes from residential to agricultural usually have negative impacts on the environment. However, since the subject property has already been disturbed and contains no environmentally important areas, such as wetlands or native upland plant communities, no negative environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated. DCA Objections As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this staff report, DCA did not have any objections to the proposed amendment. CONCLUSION The proposed AG -1 land use designation is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public services. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the subject property's land use designation from L-1 to AG -1. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the B-dard of County Commissioners approve the request to redesignate approximately 6.4 acres from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres). 36 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 94-09 amending the land use element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation for +/-6.44 acres on the south side of 8th Street between 90th Avenue and Interstate 95 from L-1 to AG -1. ORDINANCE NO. 94-09 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±6.44 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 8TH STREET, BETWEEN 90TH AVENUE AND INTERSTATE 95, FROM L-1 TO AG - 1, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1993 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 1993 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and APR ,1.2,1994 37 BOOK 92 � �I"F I?w I BOOK 92 FN�r 14- APR 121994 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 20, 1993, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 28, 1994, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this comprehensive plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on April 12, 1994, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. ive Plan )tion and The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Af fairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: The South 762.73 feet of Tract 1, Section 15, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, lying East of the East.right-of-way of Interstate 95 and the North 330.55 feet of Tract 8, Section 15, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, lying East of the East right-of-way of Interstate 95, LESS rights-of-way and easements of record. Said parcel containing 6.44 gross acres. Is changed from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly. SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. 38 ORDINANCE NO. 94-09 SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the sixth day of April, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on the 12th day of April, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin Ave Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams- Ave Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF I IAN RIVER COUNTY__ BY John ,.W -,.t ippi , Chairman � ATTEST BY: Jef�%d'y K. Barton, Clerk j 4z (;, 61. CC Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 15th day of April , 1994. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of April , 1994, at 10:00 a.m. BC309CXJIX and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Wil G. Collins II,:Deputy County Robert M. Keating, ICP Community Development Di ctor Attorney APR 121994 39 sooK 91.0 PASF1°30 L4.rm n. (f 9 Dep t. Riz!< h"gr. y APR 121994 39 sooK 91.0 PASF1°30 � a 92 F,�GE1:31 PUBLIC HEARING - R & R GROVES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.4 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 8.4 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO L-2, AND TO REZONE THAT 8.4 ACRES FROM IL AND A-1 TO RM -6 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 In the matter of / L r In the ,_ /Court, was pub- lished In said newspaper in the issues furtherAfflant Vero Beach,In saihe d IndianRiverCounty, Florida, and that said Vero Beach Press-Journal he said newspaper has elreto Drat 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. L .• PS r61�j-pubscribed before me this //l' • _n_L_ da of Y A.D. 19 �QQ• �pTq'q�'Qyc ., % Cornu►• Expires m's_ ��•� ,� �F i,Le r;lvbL6 i Manager) June 29, 1997 Nom• No. CC30%72 �' a RAGUE. NOTARY PURLIC, • L) , Stake of Florida, My Cnmmissiun Exp June 29. 1997 ry-9j ....... L1.•`aQ`.� xmNumer CC300572 ��'•.F LAP; • � a ,, Signed: Nolan BARBARA C. SPRAGUE (.iTOM 5L SubJect Property _" ° CL O o IL "RM -6 s 77th ST , oe r s IS i E NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING couretice iy ordnancee rrezonigland it=:LLiight Ina- dushial District and A-1 Acral District (up to 1 wM acres) to RW. &i�dfjpla F Residential District (up to 6 unlislacre). The p= wned by K&R Droves, a Fl &P1OP(>eneal . The subfect p►oPary Is located at the southwest co er of 79th Street and the F.E.C. Railroad Tracks, and txxhtains 8.4 acres. The =property in scut east w sects of UPI 31S, Range 39E, Iyjand being N Indian River County, Florida fwbVc heaking at which parties In Interest and be hal shag have an opporturdty to be heard, w® Indim held by the Bard m Camnissbners of Sim slambers of the Calmly Adn�tra fan Build- ing, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Flor- ida an Tuesday. April 12,1994, at 9:05 a.m. may adopt another zdsM, other then the district to. Pleated. )rodded it Is within the same general use eallmAnyone who may wish toappeal any declaw which may be made at this mei wil need to en- sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which Wdes testin" and evidence upon which the appeal Is based. this � who nemust cxmta al accommodaffcrn for Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coor�tcr at 5674000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in advance of Indra River County Bard of comfy Canm�sior�a By -..,U. W, TiWplh, Chalmnan March 21,1994 1082422 Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the following: 40 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP NT HEAD CONCURRENCE Obert Mlff. R ating AIC Community Develo ent rector THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICD :�P"J? - Chief, Long-Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel/ Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning DATE: March 29, 1994 RE: K & R GROVES, A FLORIDA GENERAL PARTNERSHIP, REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.4 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 8.4 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO L-2, AND TO REZONE THAT 8.4 ACRES FROM IL AND A-1 TO RM -6. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LURA 93-07-0176 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 121 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to redesignate approximately 8.4 acres from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, commercial/ industrial node, while simultaneously redesignating 8.4 acres from C/I, commercial/ industrial node, to L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre). Both tracts are owned by K & R Groves, a Florida general partnership. In contrast to node expansion, this request will not increase the amount of C/I designated land. Rather, this request will slightly reconfigure two adjacent nodes. The proposed amendment will shift 8.4 acres from the U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node, C.R. 510 to Hobart Road (77th Street), to the adjacent U.S. #1 and C.R. 510 (North) Commercial/Industrial Node. The property to be redesignated to C/I, commercial/ industrial node, is located at the southeast corner of C.R. 510 and 46th Avenue. This property.. -will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request includes changing the land use designation of this tract from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CG, General Commercial District. The property to be redesignated from C/I, commercial/industrial node, to L-2 is located at the southwest corner of 79th Street and the F.E.C. Railroad Tracks. This property will be referred to as Subject Property 2. The request includes changing the land use designation of this tract from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, to 41 APR 21994 aOOK 9 j eoox 92 FAGS 133 APR x.21994 L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre), and rezoning the property from IL, Light Industrial District and A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RM -6, Multiple - Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). The purpose of this request is to allow the commercial development of Subject Property 1. On October 14, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend the transmittal of the proposed land use amendment request to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. On December 7, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on February 28", 1994, did not contain any objections to the proposed amendment. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the proposed land use designations and zoning districts for the subject properties. Existing Land Use Pattern - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 and adjacent properties to the north, across C.R. 510, and south are zoned RM -6 and contain groves. To the east is vacant land, also zoned RM -6. The vacant land to the west is zoned CL, Limited Commercial District. - Subject Property 2 Except for a chain link fence near the property's south and west boundaries, Subject Property 2 is a vacant, unused portion of an approximately 15 acre parcel. A citrus packing house operates on the remainder of the 15 acre parcel. Except for a small A-1 zoned area in the southwest corner of the parcel, the entire parcel is zoned IL. South of the parcel is the Hobart Estates subdivision which contains nine lots, three of which are developed with single-family residences. Some portions of this subdivision are zoned A-1, while others are zoned IL. East of the parcel containing Subject Property 2, across the railroad tracks and Old Dixie Highway, the land is zoned CL and contains abandoned groves. Land to the north and west of Subject Property 2 is zoned RM -6 and is undeveloped. The land to the north is heavily wooded. Future Land Use Pattern -Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 and adjacent lands to the south and east are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county's future land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. Land to the north, across C.R. 42 M M M 510, is designated L-21 Low -Density Residential -2, on the county's future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. Land to the west is designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, which permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 and properties designated C/I. Properties to the 2 on the county's future land use Environment - Subject Property 1 to the east and south, are also west and north are designated L - map. Subject Property 1 is currently used for agricultural purposes, being a citrus grove. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. The subject property is within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of 8 feet NGVD (National Geodetic Vertical Datum of 1929). - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 is not within a_flood hazard area. The northern portion of the property is intermixed with disturbed wetlands and scrub habitat. Environmental planning staff have concluded that, due to its former use as a sand mining operation, no intact (ground cover, understory, and canopy) native upland plant communities exist on the southern 50% of the site. Utilities and Services - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 is within the Urban Service Area of the County; however, water and wastewater lines do not extend to the site. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 is also within the Urban Service Area of the County. In this case, water lines do not extend to the site, while wastewater lines do extend to the site from the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 has access to C.R. 510 which is classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of C.R. 510 is a two-lane paved road with approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of C.R. 510 is not currently programmed for expansion. The site also has access to 46th Avenue which is a local road. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 has no road frontage. The overall #15 acre parcel containing Subject Property 2, however, has access to 77th Street (Hobart Road) via an easement. This segment of 77th Street is classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. Currently an unpaved two lane roadway with 'APR 12 1994 43 Bou 92 PAP 1.34 APR 12 494 - 1100 approximately 80 feet of public road right-of-way, this segment of 77th Street is programmed to be paved by 1995. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of node reconfiguration, the analysis will include a description of: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; • potential impact on environmental quality; and • alternatives. Discussion of Node Reconfiguration - Standard of Review Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request involves a -net decrease in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes. Besides the commercial reconfiguration, this request involves removing 8.4 acres of M-1 designated land, with a density of up to 8 units/acre, while adding 8.4 acres of L-2 designated land, which has a density of up to 6 units/acre. The net result is a decrease of 2 units/acre for 8.4 acres. For this reason, the subject request can be characterized differently from most plan amendments. Typically, plan amendments involve increases in allowable density or intensity of development. As such, the typical amendment would result in impacts to public facilities and changes to land use patterns. Consequently, both the county comprehensive plan and state policy dictate that a high standard of review is required for typical plan amendments. This standard of review requires justification for the proposed change based upon adequate data and analysis. The subject amendment, however, differs significantly from a typical plan amendment request. Instead of proposing density or intensity increases, the subject amendment involves only a locational shift in future land uses with a net density decrease. Staff's position is that these different types of plan amendments warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan, a high standard of review is justified. For amendments involving just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less Justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land use plan map is correct and, in fact, many variations may conform to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies. - Land Use Efficiency The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/ industrial nodes. While the node containing Subject Property 2 focuses principally on the U.S. #1 Corridor, the node containing Subject Property 1 is positioned to serve both the U.S. #1 and the C.R. 510 Corridors. Several factors suggest that there is a greater need for more commercially designated land along the C.R. 510 Corridor than along the U.S. #1 Corridor. These factors include: population growth on the northern portion of the barrier island and along the C.R. 510 44 M - Corridor; recent development proposals in this portion of the County (including a Disney Company resort); and the land owner's proposed use of the subject properties. Together, these factors indicate that the proposed node reconfiguration (moving the commercial designation of 8.4 acres from the U.S. #1 Corridor to the C.R. 510 Corridor) will supply a presently unmet demand for commercially designated land along the C.R. 510 corridor. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is logical and rational, and will facilitate efficient land use. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the County Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage, and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the comprehensive plan requires that new development be .reviewed. For land use designation amendment requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's Land Development Regulations (LDR), conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested land use designation. For commercial/ industrial land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDR's) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 1 is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: t8.4 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 67 Dwelling Units 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial/ Industrial Node 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 84,000 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County LDR's) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of Subject Property 2 is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: APR 121994 45 t8.4 acres C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node ROCK �� F'i`r �CJ+� wK 92 uu 137 APR 121994 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 84,000 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). 4. Proposed Land -Use Designation: L-2 Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) ..5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 50 Dwelling Units As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation changes would not increase the square footage of retail commercial use or the total number of potential units that the sites could accommodate. There will, -in fact, be a net reduction in land use intensity with approval of the request. While the amount of commercially designated land will remain the same, with 8.4 acres changed from residential to commercial and a corresponding 8.4 acres changed from commercial to residential, the 8.4 acres that are currently designated M-1 (up to 8 units/acre) and proposed for redesignation to commercial will be replaced with 8.4 acres of commercial land that will be redesignated to L-2 (up to 6 units/acre). It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of this land use designation amendment. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area - Subject Property 1 Commercial development on Subject Property 1 would be compatible with surrounding areas. Since this property abuts commercially designated land to the west, the proposed redesignation would result in a continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. While the properties to the north, south and east are currently used for groves, they are zoned RM -6 and could be converted to residential uses. Given the current zoning of this land and the CG zoning requested for Subject Property 1, development on Subject Property 1 would be required to install a Type "C" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque feature along its southern and eastern borders. If surrounding properties, including those to the north, across C.R. 510, were converted to residential uses, the resultant developments would be large enough to provide adequate buffers and to orient residences away from Subject Property 1. The most severe impacts of development of Subject Property 1 would be on adjacent land, currently owned by the applicant, to the south and east. For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use designation for Subject Property 1 would cause minimal impacts and result in development compatible with the surrounding area. 46 M M -Subject Property 2 The proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 2. Residential and industrial zoning districts abut along the site's northern and western borders. Since the parcel containing Subject Property 2 was developed prior to the adoption of Land Development Regulations requiring buffers, there are no buffers along this border. The proposed amendment will simply move the location of the border where the two zoning districts abut. There are two scenarios under which Subject Property 2 could be residentially developed. The first scenario would require Planned Development approval which gives the Board of. County Commissioners more flexibility in setting approval standards. Under this scenario the Board could require additional buffering of the property. The other, and more likely, scenario involves the combination of Subject Property 2 with one of the adjacent residentially zoned parcels. At 43 and 180 acres, large enough to buffer themselves industrial use. respectively, these parcels are from the impacts of the existing Presently, the applicant has no plans to develop Subject Property 2. Due to its configuration, the only commercial or industrial use feasible on Subject Property 2 is the expansion of the existing packing house contained on the overall 15 acre parcel. Since the applicant has no intention to expand the packing house, Subject Property 2's greatest value and most efficient use is as a residentially designated tract that can be combined with adjacent residentially designated land. For these reasons, the proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 2. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy APR 121994 47 BOOK 9? "-AGF 1,038 F_ BOOK c7? EA Jr. 1639 APR .12 requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when evaluating land use amendment requests to increasedensity or intensity. — _Compared to such requests, amendments that do not increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutiny. In this case, the subject request is for a minor node reconfiguration which actually decreases the overall land use intensity. With respect to Policy 13.3, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third criterion. For typical amendment requests, substantial evidence justifying a change in circumstances would need to be documented. Because the subject amendment involves only a re -orientation of future land uses, a physical change in circumstances need not be documented. In this case, the change in circumstances relates to the property owner's expectations for use of his properties. These expectations are based in part on trends in the vicinity of his properties. Recent development activities in proximity to the subject property have changed market forces affecting the properties. Population growth has continued on the north barrier island, and the Disney Company's proposed 599 unit Resort_ Development at the intersection of C.R. 510 and S.R. AlA has been approved. With approval of the Disney project, the only commercial property on the north barrier island will be used for residential and hotel uses. This can be expected to increase demand for C/I designated land along C.R. 510. To accommodate the increase in demand for C/I designated land along C.R. 510 without increasing the amount of C/I designated land, nearby C/I nodes can be adjusted. It is staff's position that the change in market forces and the need to address such changes constitute a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Therefore, the proposed amendment meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the Low -Density Residential land use designation is intended for areas within the urban service area that are suitable for urban and suburban scale development. These areas should be located in proximity to existing urban centers. Subject Property 2 is located within the urban service area, and is suitable for low-density urban residential development. The proposed amendment would allow such development on Subject Property 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the commercial land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for office, retail trade, service, and similar uses. M ElI? M Fronting a major road, adjacent to commercially designated land, and within the urban service area, Subject Property 1 is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use and service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics. The amount of C/I designated land is based on service area population, the existing land use pattern, and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not alter the amount of C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries should provide for efficient land uses and maximum use of transportation facilities while eliminating strip development. Based on demand characteristics, the most efficient uses of the subject sites are as requested in the proposed amendment. Additionally, C/I designated land along C.R. 510 would provide for the maximum use of that transportation facility. Subject Property 1, located on a corner, with access to two roads, has ample depth as well as width. Therefore, redesignation of the subject properties will not result in strip development. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non- agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. When considered separately, the node containing Subject Property 1 does not meet this standard. The intent of this policy, however, is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since the proposed amendment intends to remove an equal amount of land from one node as is to be added to an adjacent node, there would be no increase in the amount of C/I designated land associated with this amendment. For that reason, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23's 70% developed standard does not apply to this amendment. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its former designation if construction on the site has not commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement. This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that demand for additional C/I designated land is present before requests to expand nodes are approved. This policy also allows for the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of demand for more C/I designated land. APR 12-1994 49 600K F'aGF 140 800K 92 FAGC 141 APR 121994 - Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county shall encourage the attraction of new businesses. The proposed amendment will move C/I designated land from an area where it is unlikely to be used to an area where it will be developed. The location of Subject Property 1 on a major road in a fast growing area is attractive to commercial businesses. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy 1.1. As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality Since Subject Property 1 is presently used for a grove, and therefore has been disturbed, development of that site under either the existing residential or the requested commercial/ industrial land use designation would have no significant negative environmental impacts. While Subject Property 2 has also been disturbed, It does contain some uplands communities and wetlands. County environmental permitting requirements, including the 10$/15$ native upland plant community set-aside requirement, -are the same under either the existing commercial/ industrial or the requested residential land use designation. However, compared to a commercial/ industrial use, residential development may be more likely to preserve the native habitat and wetland areas for their aesthetic value. For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment would have no significant detrimental effects on the environment at either site. DCA Obiections As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this staff report, DCA did not have any objections to the proposed amendment. Alternatives This land use designation amendment request involves two sites. In order to meet the criteria of several comprehensive plan policies, including Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23, the redesignation of both sites must be considered jointly. Redesignating only one of the subject sites would not be consistent with the comprehensive plan and, therefore, is not an option available to the County. With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has three alternatives. The alternatives are: 1. Deny the request. 2. Approve the.request. 3. Approve the request, with changes. 50 M M M s a � CONCLUSION As proposed, the land use designation changes at both sites are consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public services. For these reasons, staff supports the request. Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the subject request and thereby take the following actions: 1. Change the Land Use Designation of Subject Property 1 from M-1 to C/I. 2. Rezone Subject Property 1 from RM -6 to CG. 3. Change the Land Use Designation of Subject Property 2 from C/I to L-2-. 4. Rezone Subject Property 2 from IL and A-1 to RM -6. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Christopher Marine, representing the applicants, was available to answer questions. The Chairman determined that no one else wished to be heard and thereupon closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 94-10, amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use designation on properties as described. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 94-11, amending the Zoning Ordinance and Accompanying Zoning Map for properties as described. APR 121994 51 MOF 9? PAGE 142 BOOK 9? F�a'F143 APR 121994 ORDINANCE NO. 94-10 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF C.R. 510 AND 46TH AVENUE, FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND ENLARGING THE U.S. #1/C.R. 510 (NORTH) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM ±285 ACRES TO ±293.36 ACRES; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 79TH STREET AND THE F.E.C. RAILROAD TRACKS, FROM C / I TO L-2, AND REDUCING THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE, C.R. 510 TO HOBART ROAD (77TH STREET) FROM ±173 ACRES TO #164.64 ACRES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. - WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1993 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 1993 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 20, 1993, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 28, 1994, and 52 ORDINANCE NO. 94-10 WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this comprehensive plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on April 12, 1994, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PARTS OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 15, NARANJA TRACT SHELLMOUND BEACH SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOR 1, PAGE 6, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS LYING SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 510, AND THAT PART OF EUREKA ECOUNTYS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 40, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS, INCLUDING ALL PARCELS, LOTS, BLOCKS AND ROADWAYS LYING WITHIN GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE RUN NORTH 00054'58" WEST A DISTANCE OF 92.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00054158" WEST A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD 510; THENCE RUN NORTH 44035132" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 314.00 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10026'31"1 A RADIUS OF 2824.79 FEET, HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 49048147" EAST, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 514.80 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00054'58" EAST A DISTANCE OF 534.42 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 44035'32" WEST A DISTANCE OF 871.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 8.36 ACRES MORE OR LESS Is changed from M-11 Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node: 0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly; and 0 Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to add ±8.36 acres to the U.S. #1 and C.R. 510 (north) Commercial/Industrial Node; and APR 121. 53 APR 121994 ORDINANCE NO. 94-10 800K 92 FnE 145. The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County,, Florida to wit: COMMENCE AT CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HOBART ROAD AND THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF F.E.C. RAILROAD; THENCE NORTH 25056'51" WEST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF F.C.E. RAILROAD, 222.41 FEET; THENCE DUE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF HOBART ESTATES SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 20 OF THE RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 560.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DUE NORTH, FOR 157.07 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 25056'50" WEST FOR 368.14 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 64003'09" EAST FOR 435.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED F.E.C. RAILROAD; THENCE NORTH 25056151" WEST FOR 458.27 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89055'08" WEST FOR 328.95 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00026'01" WEST FOR 1090.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED HOBART ESTATES SUBDIVISION; THENCE DUE EAST FOR 307.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING ±8.36 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Is changed from C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node to L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre): 0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly; and 0 Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to remove ±8.36 acres from the U.S. #1 Commercial/ Industrial Node, C.R. 510 to Hobart Road (77th Street). SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. 54 ORDINANCE NO. 94-10 This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the sixth day of April, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on the 12th day of April, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin Ave Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave Commissioner Fran B. Adams AYe Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Jonn .� ppin, rrzrlr�nan ATTEST BY: Jef R. "-Barton, Cl.erk Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 15th day of April , 1994. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day,of April , 1994, at 10:00 a.m. AQF . and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY ag ), W"am 16. Collins II, Deputy Robert M. Keat1n(fj AI Community Development u\v\j\k&rcpa.ord APR 121994 A r 55 Attorney Indian Rma Ca AV&ro ed ' Dale Admlr*L Legal VrY If 0' Budget Dept. Risk Mgr. �/� BOOK 92 u,;140" APR 121994 ORDINANCE NO. 94-11 800K 92 Face 147 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6 TO CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTY ROAD 510 AND 46TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN; AND AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM IL AND A-1 TO RM -6, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 79TH STREET AND THE FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILROAD TRACKS, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: A PARCEL OF LAND LYING IN PARTS OF LOTS 1, 2 AND 15, NARANJA TRACT SHELLMOUND BEACH SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 6, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS LYING SOUTH OF COUNTY ROAD 510, AND THAT PART OF EUREKA ECOUNTYS SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 40, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC RECORDS, INCLUDING ALL PARCELS, LOTS, BLOCKS AND ROADWAYS LYING WITHIN GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, THENCE RUN NORTH 00054158" WEST A DISTANCE OF 92.49 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE NORTH 00054158" WEST A DISTANCE OF 600.00 FEET TO THE SOUTH RIGHT OF WAY OF COUNTY ROAD 510; THENCE RUN NORTH 44035132" WEST ALONG SAID RIGHT OF WAY A DISTANCE OF 314.00 FEET TO A POINT OF A CURVE CONCAVE TO THE SOUTHEAST; THENCE CONTINUE ALONG THE ARC OF SAID CURVE HAVING A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10026'31", A RADIUS OF 2824.79 FEET, HAVING A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 49048'47" EAST, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 514.80 FEET TO A POINT ON SAID CURVE; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00054'58" EAST A DISTANCE OF 534.42 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 44035132" WEST A DISTANCE OF 871.92 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. 56 ORDINANCE NO. 94-11 SAID PARCEL CONTAINS 8.36 ACRES MORE OR LESS Be changed from RM -6 to CG; and that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to - wit: COMMENCE AT CONCRETE MONUMENT AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE NORTH RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF HOBART ROAD AND THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF F.E.C. RAILROAD; THENCE NORTH 25056151" WEST ALONG SAID WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF F.C.E. RAILROAD, 222.41 FEET; THENCE DUE WEST ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF HOBART ESTATES SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 8, PAGE 20 OF THE RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, 560.20 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE DUE NORTH, FOR 157.07 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 25056'50" WEST FOR 368.14 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE NORTH 64003'09" EAST FOR 435.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED F.E.C. RAILROAD; THENCE NORTH 2505651" WEST FOR 458.27 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 89055'08" WEST FOR 328.95 FEET TO A POINT; THENCE SOUTH 00026'01" WEST FOR 1090.07 FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF THE AFOREMENTIONED HOBART ESTATES SUBDIVISION; THENCE DUE EAST FOR 307.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINING ±8.36 ACRES MORE OR LESS. Be changed from IL and A-1 to CG. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in County Land Development Regulations. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 94- in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10). Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 12th day of April, 1994. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 21st day of March, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on the 12th day of April, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: 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 Ave APR 121994 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY John W. ip~in,rman i ATTEST BY: �Mejy K. Barton, Clerk 57 a(10K C A S r � -148 ar APR 121994 ORDINANCE NO. 94-11 MOK 92 uGF.149 Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 21st day of April , 1994. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of April , 1994, at 10:00 a.m. fiLML1X+K and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY -C f�)' 1&�-' .. WillAfm Collins II, Deputy County Attorney Robert M. Keatin, AI Community Developmen irector u\v\j\k&rrzon.ord 101iaa Itivu v3 i 'AW Jk ca i v Admin. ,- 7 9 Legal Buage; Debi. Risk Mgr. PUBLIC HEARING - SEBASTIAN GROVE HOLDINGS, LTD. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 159 ACRES FROM R TO L-1 The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: 58 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con- sider adopting on. ordinance to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County as shown in the map of the advertisement and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The pro- posed amendments are included in the proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE POTABLE WATER SUB -EL- EMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP- ITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES- IGNATION FOR +-159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510 AND 82ND AVENUE FROM R TO L-1; AMEND- ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEW SIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE, BE- TWEEN 8TH STREET AND 1-95, FROM L-1 TO AGA; AMEND- ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 1 & C.R. 510 (NORTH) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +-284 ACRES TO +-292.36 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REDUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 1 COMMERCIAL/INDUS- TRIAL-NODE (C.R. 510 TO HOBART ROAD) FROM +-190 ACRES TO +-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING CODIFICA- TION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com- munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad- ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 exten- sion 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. # '% ! CITY x ' Subject Property S .0 APR 121994 UMP 59 60i "N' Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -John W. Tippin, Chairman �ooK 9 F.:Ur1�0 APR 12 1994 800K 92 F a„ , 151 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER Proo 3ournit STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that 00! billed t 30AR4. OF _Q(h4A) 0MC dibul was published in said newspaper in the Issue(s) of itU Yt L (off`'- , o�f ana Qcw 2_ EA V Sworn to and subscribed before me this !� day of /-0/'7 L A.D •''Pp, C. Sp''••,, Q�P pT%1igcG,c� �Mt� m; My Comm. Expires•: = BARBAnA C. sPRAGIIF. NorAn Dusine Manager Jime 29, 1997 state of Florida. My Commissxm E xp June 29.1997 No. CC300572 = C • an Number: CC300572 1t+•• G • • _o , ''•.,C OF v9-1 f Notary: BARBARA (` SPRAGI IF Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the following: 60 r � � M TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP HEAD CONCURRENCE R ert M. Keating, IC THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICP Chief, Long - e Planning FROM: John Wachtel p, Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: April 4, 1994 RE: Sebastian Grove Holdings, Ltd. Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 159 acres from R to L-1. PLAN AMENDMENT NUNBER: LURA 93-07-0170 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 12, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to change the land use designation of approximately 159 acres from R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre) to L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre). The subject property is owned by Sebastian Grove Holdings, Ltd. A concurrent rezoning is not part of this request. Located at the northwest corner of C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road) and 82nd Avenue, the subject property extends more than half a mile north of C.R. 510. In fact, a portion of the subject property's northern boundary abuts the St. Sebastian River which forms the border between the City of Sebastian and the unincorporated portion of Indian River County. A seven -acre tract containing two out -parcels that are not part of the subject property fronts C.R. 510. The purpose of this request is to secure the land use designation necessary for developing the property with residential uses at up to 3 units/acre. On October 14, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. Although a majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the amendment request, Section 103.02.12 of the County Code of Laws and Ordinances states that any matter or application considered by a board or commission with more than five members must receive four or more votes for passage. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission has seven members and the subject application received only three af,, , ative votes, the favorable -tecommendation technically fai=.. sem;: APR 1218 617 ;,a APR 121994 BOOK 92 IF ',A ra 1,5 On December 7, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, which planning staff received on February 28, 1994. The DCA ORC Report contained three objections to this proposed amendment. These objections relate to inconsistencies between the proposed amendment and provisions in the County Comprehensive Plan, state law (Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163, F.S.), the State Comprehensive Plan, and the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Specifically, DCA cited the following three objections: • The proposed amendment does not discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl and does not ensure the separation of urban and rural land uses consistent with Future Land Use Objective 1, because it would permit low density residential development in an area of existing agricultural land uses. Rules 9J- 5.006( -3)(b)2. and 7., F.A.C., and s.187.201(16)(b)2., F.S. • The proposed amendment is not consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.11, which restricts low density residential to areas which are suitable for urban and suburban scale development, and Policy 4.3, which requires the FLUX to depict a concentration of urban land uses to discourage urban sprawl, because the subject property is located in an area of existing, viable agricultural land uses. Rules 9J-5.005(5) and 9J-5.006(3)(c)l., F.A.C. • The proposed amendment is -not supported by an adequate analysis, based on professionally acceptable methodology, which demonstrates that the proposed residential land use is necessary to accommodate the needs of the projected population. Rules 9J-5.005(2) and 9J -5.006(2)(c), F.A.C. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation. Existing Land Use Pattern Used exclusively as a grove, the subject property and all unincorporated lands surrounding it are zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Except for the St. Sebastian River Floodway and isolated residences, the land surrounding the subject property is used exclusively for groves. A portion of the subject property and surrounding land may contain wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River. Within the unincorporated parts of the county, any wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River are deemed to be zoned Con -2, Wetland Conservation District (up to 1 unit/40 acres). The limits of Con -2 zoning are determined by an environmental survey conducted by an applicant at the time of site development and based upon soils, vegetation, and hydrology. Consequently, the Con -2 zoning district may apply to parts of the subject property and adjacent lands. The portion of the City of Sebastian that is across the St. Sebastian River from the subject property is zoned RS -10, Residential Single -Family (10,000 square foot minimum lot size) on the City's zoning map. The City of Sebastian's RS -10 zoning district allows agricultural uses and single-family residential uses with densities up to four units/acre on lots at least 10,000 62 M M square feet in size. This area presently consists of vacant uncleared land within the St. Sebastian River Floodway right-of- way, and groves north of the floodway. Future Land Use Pattern The subject property and unincorporated areas to the north, east and west are designated R, Rural, on the county future land use map. The Rural designation permits residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/acre. To the south, across C.R. 510, the land is designated AG -11 Agricultural -1, on the county future land use map. The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. The land north of the subject property in the City of Sebastian is designated LDR, Low Density Residential, on the City's future land use map. The LDR designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 5 units/acre. Within the unincorporated parts of the county, any wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River are designated C-2, Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) on the county future land use map. Since the subject property and surrounding land may contain wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River, the C-2 land use designation may apply to these areas. Environment The subject property is currently used for agricultural purposes, being a citrus grove. The land is not within a flood hazard area. Although no native upland plant communities exist on the site, there are three emergent freshwater wetland areas on the property, two of which appear to be associated with the ditches that drain these wetlands into the St. Sebastian River. The north boundary of the subject property abuts wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River Floodway. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Presently, wastewater lines do not extend to the site. Water lines, however, extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. When the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which is currently under construction, is complete, it will serve the site. Transportation System The property abuts C.R. 510, which is classified as an urban principal arterial road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of C.R. 510 is a two-lane paved road with approximately.._ 80 feet of existing public road right-of-way. Currently, there are no plans to expand this segment of C.R. 510. Eighty-second Avenue borders the east side of the subject property. This segment of 82nd Avenue is an unpaved local road that dead ends approximately one half of a mile north of C.R. 510. Currently, the county has no plans to expand this segment of 82nd Avenue. The City of Sebastian's thoroughfare plan, however, calls for Laconia Street, which aligns with 82nd Avenue, to eventually extend south to C.R. 510. The City's thoroughfare plan also includes realigning the north portion of Laconia Street to link directly into Roseland Road at the C.R. 512 intersection. Therefore, with the implementation of these plans, 82nd Avenue/Laconia Street will connect C.R. 510 and C.R. 512. No completion date or funding has been identified for this project at this time. Since this segment 63 APR 121994 0 T, }k E 154 APR 12 1''99�4, �OijK `F1 E155 of 82nd Avenue/Laconia Street crosses the city/county boundary, this project would require coordination between the City of Sebastian and Indian River County. Eighty-sixth Avenue, an unpaved local road, borders the west side of the subject property. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: • a response to DCA's objections; • an analysis of the R and L-1 land use designations; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on the residential allocation ratio; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the comprehensive plan; • an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the surrounding area; • an analysis of the proposed environmental quality; and amendment's potential impact on • a description of applicant and Board alternatives. Response to DCA's Obiections DCA's first two objections to the. proposed amendment, both relating to the proliferation of urban sprawl, are not valid. In one of these objections, DCA cites Future Land Use Element Policy 4.3 as being inconsistent with the proposed amendment. Since this policy deals with the location of commercial/industrial nodes, it has no applicability to the proposed amendment. Also in its first two objections; DCA asserts that the proposed amendment would permit low density residential development in an area of existing agricultural uses and, therefore, does not discourage urban sprawl. The current land use plan designation for the property, however, permits residential densities up to 1 unit/acre. Since the county's land use plan already permits low density residential development on the subject property, the plan recognizes that the existing agricultural use of the property may be terminated. In contrast to DCA's urban sprawl objection, the proposed amendment may actually reduce urban sprawl. Under the current land use designation, the site can be developed with single-family houses on one -acre lots. With the proposed density increase to 3 units/acre, there would be a decrease in the amount of land used for each unit, thus increasing land use efficiency and decreasing urban sprawl. Finally, DCA staff, in a conversation with planning staff, emphasized that the ORC Report objections should be read as a whole. It was their position that addressing the first two objections was not as critical as addressing the third objection. DCA's third objection calls for more detailed data and analysis, demonstrating that the county's approved residential allocation ratio will not be increased by adoption of the proposed amendment: While staff's position is that the data and analysis provided was adequate to demonstrate that there would be no increase in the residential allocation ratio, staff has undertaken a more detailed M M analysis of the proposed amendment's impact. on the residential allocation ratio. The results of this analysis are provided in the residential allocation model section of this staff report. Analysis of R and L-1 Land Use Desianations Presently, there are 11,878 acres of L-1 land designated throughout the county. Even accounting for the approximately 6,400 acres of L-1 designated land that has been subdivided, although not necessarily developed, there are more than 5,400 acres of raw L-1 designated land. Approximately 4,000 acres of this L-1 designated land is one half of a mile west of the subject property. That area includes several subdivisions, the largest of which is Vero Lake Estates. At this time, less than 20% of these 4,000 acres is developed. In contrast, there are only 1,115 acres of R designated land in the county, less than any other residential land use designation. Except for 40 acres along 58th Avenue, all R designated land is located between C.R. 510 and the City of Sebastian. Approval of this amendment would reduce the amount of R designated land in the county to 956 acres. It is reasonable to expect that approval of this amendment would affect the rest of the R designated land in the county. Since the subject property has similar characteristics to all other R designated parcels along C.R. 510, redesignating the subject property would likely result in redesignation of all other R designated parcels. This would eventually leave the county with no R designated land. While the R designation serves as -a transitional designation from agricultural to urban uses, the large required lot size often makes development prohibitively expensive, especially where utility service is available. In contrast, the L-1 designation allows for more cost efficient, compact and affordable development. Concurrency of Public Facilities This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also require that new development be reviewed. Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For land use amendment requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested land us -6 designation. For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and APR 12 1994 65 MCI. 920, -,mu 156 Boof U� Fv%r 1.57 APR 121994 the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 1159 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Proposed Land Use Designation: 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Existing Land Use Designation: 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: - Transportation R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre) L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) 159 dwelling units 477 dwelling units A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the maximum number of units allowed on the subject property under the proposed land use designation indicates that the existing level of service "D" or better on C.R. 510 would be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic is as follows: Existing Land Use Designation 1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single -Family 2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual: a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit c. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65% i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75% ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35% i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25% ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75% 3. Peak Direction of C.R. 510, from 66th Avenue to C.R. 512: Westbound 4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage (159 X 1.01 X .65 X .75) = 78 5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (159 X 9.55 = 1,518) Proposed Land Use Designation - 1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Single -Family 66 2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual: a.. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 9.55/unit b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65% i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75% ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35% i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 25% ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 75% 3. Peak Direction of C.R. 510, from 66th Avenue to C.R. 512: Westbound 4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Westbound Percentage (477 X 1.01 X .65 X .75) = 235 (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) 5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (477 X 9.55 = 41555) 6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of C.R. 510, at a Level of Service "D": 630 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of C.R. 510: .422 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation is 1,518. This was determined by multiplying the 159 units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor of 9.55 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation is 41555. This was determined by multiplying the 477 units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor of 9.55 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring -in the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways. According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on C.R. 510 is westbound. Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation was calculated to be 78. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (159) under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% (104) will be inbound and 35% (56) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 75% or 78 will be westbound. To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total number of units allowed under the proposed amendment (477) was APR 12 x`04 67 BOOK r 158 AIT x.21999 �ooK multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to determine the total number of trips generated (482). Of these trips, 65% (313) will be inbound and 35% (169) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 75% or 235 will be westbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 157 (235 - 78 = 157) more trips than the 78 that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation. Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips, whichever is less. Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of C.R. 510 adjacent to this site is 630 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the existing traffic volume on this segment of C.R. 510 is 422 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 235 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of C.R. 510 to approximately 657, or 27 more than capacity at LOS "D". The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with this proposed land use amendment. As indicated in this table, segments 1810 and 1829 currently do not have sufficient capacity at LOS "D" to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request. However, the applicant has entered into a developer's agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to make the necessary improvements to segments 1810 and 1820 to provide the additional capacity required to maintain LOS "D" on those roadways at the time of development. The execution of this agreement satisfies the transportation concurrency requirement for this request. TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Segment Roadway Capacity Segment Road From To LOS "D" 1020 S.R. AlA S. VBC Limits 17th Street 1320 1030 S.R. AlA 17th Street S.R. 60 1060 1040 S.R. AlA S.R. 60 N. VBC Limits 1120 1050 S.R. AlA N. VBC Limits Fred Tuerk Road 1240 1060 S.R. AlA Fred Tuerk Road Old Winter Beach Rd. 1310 1070 S.R. AlA Old Winter Beach Rd. N. IR Shores Line 1310 1080 S.R. AlA N. IR Shores Line C.R. 510 1310 1160 I. R. Blvd. S.R. 60 W. VBC L-Imits 1760 1210 I-95 N. County Line C.R. 512 3530 1315 U.S. 1 4th Street 8th Street 2270 1320 U.S. 1 8th Street 12th Street 2270 1325 U.S. 1 12th Street S. VBC Limits 2370 1330 U.S. 1 S. VBC Limits 17th Street 2270 68 segment Roadway Capacity Segment Road From TO LOS "D" 1335 1340 1345 1350 1355 1360 1365 1370 1375 1380 1385 1720 1730 1740 1810 1820 1830 1840 2120 3030 3035 3040 3045 3050 3055 3170 3310 3320 3330 U.S. 1 O.S. 1 O.S. 1 O.S. 1 O.S. 1 O.S. 1 O.S. 1 U.S. 1 O.S. 1 O.S. 1 U. S. 1 C.R. 512 C.R. 512 C.R. 512 C.R. 510 C.R. 510 C.R. 510 C.R. 510 17th Street 58th Avenue 58th Avenue 58th Avenue 58th Avenue 58th Avenue 58th Avenue 66th Avenue 82nd Avenue 82nd Avenue 82nd Avenue 17th Street S.R. 60 Royal Palm Pl. Atlantic Blvd. N. VBC Limits Old Dixie Hwy. 41st Street 45th Street 49th Street 65th Street 69th Street I-95 C.R. 510 W. Seb. City Limits C.R. 512 66th Avenue 58th Avenue O.S. 1 I.A. Blvd. S.R. 60 41st Street 45th Street 49th Street 65th Street 69th Street 69th Street Oslo Road 4th Street 12th Street S.R. 60 Royal Palm Atlantic Blvd. N. VBC Limits Old Dixie Hwy. 41st Street 45th Street 49th Street 65th Street 69th Street Old Dixie Hwy. C.R. 510 W. Seb. City Limits Roseland Road 66th Avenue 58th Avenue O.S. 1 S.R. AlA S.A. AlA 41st Street 45th Street 49th Street 65th Street 69th Street C.R. 510 C.R. 510 4th Street 12th Street S.R. 60 2270 2300 2300 2300 2300 2300 2650 2650 2650 2650 2650 630 630 630 630 630 639 630 1760 830 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 630 Existin Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Ex st ng VeStia Segment Segment Project Concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 1020 665 84 749 571 22 Y 1030 805 83 889 172 22 Y 1040 890 59 949 171 22 Y 1050 760 24 784 456 22 Y 1060 458 15 473 837 30 Y 1070 458 14 472 838 30 Y 1080 405 35 440 870 30 Y 1160 509 45 554 1206 30 Y 1210 1030 1 1031 2499 38 Y 1315 1228 86 1304 956 30 Y 1320 1228 83 1301 959 30 Y 1325 1526 90 1616 754 30 Y 1330 1341 99 1440 830 44 Y 1335 1341 109 1450 820 44 Y 1340 1143 91 1234 1066 89 Y 1345 1143 117 1260 1040 89 Y 1350 1309 86 1395 905 89 Y 1355 1309 38 1347 953 89 Y 1360 910 78 988 1312 89 Y 1365 910 45 955 1695 89 Y 1370 910 44 954 1696 89 Y 1375 910 53 963 1687 89 Y 1380 910 35 945 1705 89 Y 1385 988 40 1028 1622 89 Y 1720 365 92 457 173 60 Y 1730 385 24 409 221 27 Y 1740 385 13 398 232 27 Y 1810 422 91 513 117 235 N 1820 422 35 477 173 187 N 1830 422 32 474 176 149 Y 1840 393 30 423 207 45 Y 2120 1179 53 1232 528 30 Y 3030 523 113 636 194 38 _ Y 3035 435 24 659 171 38 Y 3040 332 21 353 277 38 Y 3045 369 28 397 233 38 Y 3050 369 10 379 251 38 Y 3055 266 32 298 332 38 Y 3170 201 14 215 415 38 Y APR 12199 69 BOOK 9? �qJF M0 Boa 92 F.� F 1lJ1 APR 121994 Existing Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Ex st ng Vested Segment Segment Project concurrency Segment Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 3310 116 8 3320 116 9 3330 227 26 - Water 124 506 38 125 505 38 253 377 38 Y Y Y With the proposed land use designation, the subject property could accommodate 477 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 477 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 119,250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The subject property is presently served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,400,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is complete, it will serve the subject property. This plant, which is currently under construction, will have a capacity of approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. - Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 477 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 119,250 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day.. County wastewater lines currently do not extend to the site. However, the applicant has entered into a developer's agreement with the county which states that the developer agrees to connect to the county wastewater system at the time of development. When connected to county wastewater lines, the subject property will be serviced by the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of more than 800,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. Solid waste generation by a 477 unit residential development on the subject site will be approximately 763 Waste Generation Units (WGU) or 2260 cubic yards of solid waste/year. A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to 2.9625 cubic yards of waste/year. According to the county's solid waste regulations, each residential unit generates 1.6 WGU/unit. With the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic yards/person/year and the county's average of 2 persons/unit, each WGU is equivalent to 1.25 people (2/1.6 = 1.25) and 2.9625 cubic yards of solid waste/year (1.25 X 2.37). To calculate the total cubic yards of solid waste for the most intense use allowed on the subject property under the proposed land use designation, staff utilized the following formula: Total number of WGUs X 1.25 X 2.37 (763 X 1.25 X 2.37 = 2260 cubic yards/year). A review of the solid waste capacity for the active -segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of more than 900,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has, a 3 year capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under 'the proposed amendment. - Drainage All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The subject property is located within the M-3 Drainage Basin. Therefore, development on the site would be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of the pre -development rate. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be approximately 4,155,624 square feet, or 95.4 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm,would be approximately 4,356,000 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 217,800 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate is 245 cubic feet/second. Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standards would be met by limiting off-site discharge to its pre - development rate of 245 cubic feet/second and requiring retention of the 217,800 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property. As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process. - Recreation A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed amendment indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by park type. LOS Project (Acres per Demand Surplus Park Type 1000 population) Acres Acreage Urban District 5.0 5.48 206.154 Community (north) 3.0 3.29 24.715 Beach 1.5 1.65 72.246 River 1.5 1.65 33.243 Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that facilities for drainage, solid waste, water, wastewater, and recreation have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation. The execution of a developer's agreement -has ensured that adequate road capacity will also be available at the time of development. With the execution of the referenced developer's agreements for transportation and wastewater, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. APR 124.994 71 BOOK 9 � F, �F 1620 APR 121994 BOOK 92 Fac 163 Impact on the Residential Allocation Ratio Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land use change on the county's residential allocation ratio. A residential allocation ratio is the measure of total residential units allowed under the land use plan compared to the number of residential units expected to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on population projections. The following formula is used to calculate the residential allocation ratio: Total number of units allowed - Existing units Projected number of units needed (1990-2010) When Indian River County and DCA entered into a stipulated settlement agreement to bring the county's plan into compliance with state requirements, both parties agreed to a residential allocation ratio of 4.487. The information used to determine the residential allocation ratio at that time was as follows: 1. Total number of units allowed: 119,739 2. Existing units: 26,000 3. Projected number of units needed (1990-2010): 20,887 4. 1990 Residential Allocation Ratio: 119,739 - 26,000/20,887 = 4.487 Given the agreed upon ratio, the county's residential land use designations were acceptable to DCA. Subsequently, the stipulated settlement agreement was implemented through an amendment to the county's comprehensive plan. That amendment, which was found in compliance by DCA, formally established 4.487 as an acceptable residential allocation ratio for the county. Since that time, however, changes affecting the number of units allowed and the number of existing units have occurred. Land use designation amendments involving_ residentially designated land within the urban service area affect the number of units allowed. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments involving residentially designated land within the urban service area have been adopted. The effect of these amendments has been a net decrease of 109 units allowed. Therefore, land use plan amendments have reduced the number of units allowed from 119,739 to 119,630. The following tables depict the information used to determine the change in the number of units. Since the C/I designation is not intended for residential uses, land use amendments redesignating land to CII reduce the number of units allowed, while amendments redesignating land to residential increase the number of units allowed. Staff estimates that 25% of land designated for residential uses is used for infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention. Therefore, the net developable acreage is 75% of the total acreage. LAND USE AMENDMENTS TO COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL AMEND. TOTAL NET NET DECREASE NAME FROM UNITS/AC. ACRES ACRES IN UNITS Korine __ L-1 3/1 _ 15.00 11.25 _ 33 Smith L-2 6/1 1.86 1.40 8 Koerner M-1 8/1 0.31 0.23 1 Seb. Assoc. L-2 6/1 4.00 3.00 18 72 ANSM TOTAL NET NET DECREASE - NAME FROM UNITS/AC. ACRES ACRES IN UNITS Sob. Assoc. M-1 8/1 4.00 3.00 24 Antes L-1 3/1 20.00 15.00 45 Rockwell L-2 6/1 0.32 0.24 1 McRae M-2 10/1 6.80 5.10 51 Oslo Plaza L-2 6/1 4.83 3.62 21 TOTAL 202 LAND USE AMENDMENTS TO RESIDENTIAL AM=. NR N=. Uff=/ man. , Eff nQCRsass Nall RM WIM/AC. AMES ACM UNM W AM UNM IN UNIM Fwldmm AG -1 1/5 40.00 30.0_ 6 R 1/1 30 24 Window C/I 0 15.33 11.5 0 L-2 6/1 69 69 TOML _ 93 Due to new development since plan adoption, there has also been a change in the number of existing units. For the time period beginning with the adoption of the comprehensive plan in 1990 through the end of 1992, the county had issued building permits for over 1939 dwelling units. Therefore, the number of existing units has increased from 26,000 to over_27,939. Considering the referenced changes to the county's land use plan and new units built since plan adoption, the county's present residential allocation ratio is 4.387. The information used to determine this residential allocation ratio is as follows: 1. Total number of units allowed: 119,630 2. Existing units: 27,939 3. Projected number of units needed (1990-2010): 20,887 4. Current Residential Allocation Ratio: 119,630 - 27,939/20,887 = 4.390 Staff's position is that densities allowed by the comprehensive plan can now be increased to the extent that the additional units which can be accommodated by the density increase do not cause the county's residential allocation ratio to exceed -4.487. With respect to the proposed amendment., staff has determined that the increase in potential units associated with the proposed density increase would be 239. That is based on the following information: 1. Total Acres: 159 2. Net Acres: 119.25 (Total Acres X 0.75) 3. Maximum Units in Low Density -1 Designation (3 units/acre): 358 4. Maximum Units in Rural Designation (1 unit/acre): 119 5. Net Increase in Units (358 - 119): 239 Using a conservative estimate, 39.75 acres, or 25% of the subject property's 159 acres, would be used for infrastructure such as APR 12.1994 73 fl y �QW 92. i,�IJC 164 APR 121994 BOOK 92 PA'r'.,,J&" roads and stormwater retention. Removing land used for infrastructure leaves up to 119.25 acres for residences. At the proposed density of up to 3 units/acre, 358 units could be built on the subject property. This is an increase of 239 units over the 119 units that could be built under the existing designation of up to 1 unit/acre. Therefore, the proposed amendment increases the total number of units allowed by 239. The impact of this increase in total number of units allowed on the residential allocation ratio would be as follows: 1. Total number of units allowed (119,591 + 239): 119,830 2. Existing units: 27,939 3. Projected number of units needed (1990-2010): 20,887 4. Residential Allocation Ratio with the Adoption of the Proposed Amendment: 119,830 - 27,939/20,887 = 4.399 As indicated, with the adoption of the proposed amendment, the residential allocation ratio would be 4.399, less than the approved ratio of 4.487. Staff is currently undertaking a Urban Service Area Vacant Land Analysis to provide detailed information regarding the amount of vacant land, the number of vacant platted lots, the number of existing units, the number of potential new units, and the current residential allocation ratio. When complete, that analysis will provide even better information to use in calculating the county's residential allocation ratio. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the LDRs, the "comprehensive plan -may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or 74 M M • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Based on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion. When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the subject property was programmed to receive utilities service by 2010. Water lines, however, already extend to the site, and wastewater lines are programmed to do the same by the end of 1994. The early provision 'of utilities service constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Additionally, the new St. Sebastian River High School is now under construction on C.R. 510, approximately one mile from the subject property. This high school will attract families with children. Generally, housing at a density of up to 3 units/acre is more affordable for this group than the up to 1 unit/acre density permitted under the current land use designation. The siting and construction of this High School has occurred since plan adoption. Therefore, the building of the new St. Sebastian River High School constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met, and the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Objective 1 Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl, while maintaining the overall low density character of the county. By increasing the density of land currently within the urban service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or sacrificing compactness. Furthermore, with a density of up to 3 units/acre, the requested L-1 land use designation maintains the overall low density character of the county. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that the L-1, Low - Density Residential -1 land use designation is intended for areas which are: 1. suitable for urban and suburban scale development; 2. within the urban service area.; and 3. located in proximity to existing urban centers. Although the subject property and much of the surrounding area is currently used for agriculture, the site is now, as it was when the comprehensive plan was found "in compliance" by DCA, appropriate for low density residential development. Located within the urban service area, on a major road, and with potable water service currently- -available and sanitary sewer service programmed to be available in approximately one year, the subject property meets each of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11's criteria. Additional nearby public services that are under construction include the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant and the St. Sebastian River High 75 APR 12 1994 Boor 92 I., ,-A66 166 6)OUR 92 -LrtiuF. 16 School. The subject property borders the City of Sebastian and lies one half of a mile from the Vero Lake Estates subdivision which has the same land use designation as that requested for the subject property. Additionally, the zoning of the land in the City of Sebastian that abuts the subject property permits a higher density than that requested for the subject property. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11. Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1 Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1 states that land use categories shall be designated in a manner which concentrates urban uses, thereby discouraging urban sprawl. By increasing the density of land currently within the urban service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the proposed amendment concentrates growth in the area designated for urban uses. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1. - Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 states that the county will, through the future land use element, provide higher densities along major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass transit provision. Since the proposed amendment will increase the allowed density along C.R. 510, which is a major transportation corridor, this request is consistent with Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2. As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all the policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staff's position is that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Staff's position is that granting the request to redesignate the subject property to L-1 would result in development which would be compatible with surrounding areas. Although bordered on all sides by groves or the St. Sebastian River, the subject property, at approximately 159 acres, is large enough to buffer itself from the adjacent agricultural uses (as required in Future Land Use Element Policy 6.3 and in section 911.04(3)(c)5b of the County LDRs). Despite the fact that it is currently used for groves, the land to the north, east, and west is designated for future low density residential development. In fact, the adjacent land in the City of Sebastian is designated for a higher density than that requested for the subject property. For these reasons, staff feels the requested L-1 land use designation would be compatible with the surrounding area. Potential Impact on Environmental Oualit Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject property would be essentially the same under either the existing or the proposed land use designation. Changing the land use designation of the subject property from R to L-1 may enhance environmental quality by encouraging residential development of the site which is currently a grove. 76 M M M M _ The environmental quality of the site may be enhanced by residential development, because site development would result in construction of a stormwater management system, installation of a shoreline protection buffer, and protection of jurisdictional wetlands on site. Due to the county's stormwater retention requirements for residential development, residential development on the subject property would also reduce the amount of stormwater runoff outfalling to the St. Sebastian River. The requirements for residential development contrast with the present agricultural design that allows drainage directly into the St. Sebastian River without any' stormwater retention. Therefore, t_he required stormwater management associated with residential development should reduce the amount of pollutants and freshwater runoff that is currently placed into the river via the approximately 159 acre agricultural operation. Additionally, in conjunction with subdivision plat approvals, the applicant would be required to maintain a shoreline protection buffer zone along the St. Sebastian River (929.06). Since the new subdivision parcels would be created after June 18, 1991, the applicant would be required to maintain a 100 foot shoreline protection buffer zone along the St. Sebastian River (measured from the mean high water mark). All jurisdictional wetlands located on the parcel are protected by federal, state, and county regulations. Wetlands associated with the St. Sebastian River must retain a Con -2, Wetlands Conservation District, (1 unit/40 acre) zoning designation, in accordance with the County Comprehensive Plan and LDRs (reference Future Land Use Policy 1.31, LDR Section 911.05(3)(x)). For these reasons, significant adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are not anticipated. Alternatives The applicant has three alternatives regarding development of the subject property. These alternatives are: 1. Create and develop a subdivision of one -acre single-family lots under the current land use designation. Because of infrastructure requirements, the total number of lots created will be less than one/acre. 2. Create a Residential Planned Development under the current land use designation. This alternative gives the applicant site design options such as the clustering of development. With respect to the subject property, up to 159 units could be built on a portion of the property, while the balance of the land would remain in agriculture or open space. The undeveloped land could be developed in the future if the underlying land use designation were ever changed to a higher density. 3. Request a land use designation amendment allowing more intense development of the subject property. This is the alternative the applicant has chosen. If this request is denied, the applicant's other two options for site development remain. With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has two principal alternatives, approval or denial. The Board can also direct staff to examine the land use designation of the entire C.R. 510 corridor. Given changes, such as new utility lines that have been installed in that area, such an examination may be warranted. APR 121994 77 bOCIK 9 F,Avr168 APR 121994 CONCLUSION 800K 92 EA.UE ss9 Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation is compatible with surrounding areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable land use designation amendment criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low density residential uses. Finally, this staff report has been modified to address the objections raised in DCA's ORC Report.' 'The data and analysis demonstrate that the proposed amendment will not increase the county's approved residential allocation ratio. For these reasons, staff supports the request to amend the land use designation of the subject property from R to L- 1. RECONNENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to redesignate the subject property from R to L-1. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 94-12 amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for +/-159 acres at the northwest corner of CR -510 and 82nd Avenue from R to L-1. 78 ORDINANCE NO. 94-12 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510 AND 82ND AVENUE, FROM R TO L-1, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July, 1993 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 1993, after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency reviewed this comprehensive plan amendment request and made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 20, 1993, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 28, 1994, and WHEREAS, Indian River County revised the data and analysis supporting this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC Report and pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(7), and . I APR 121994 " 79 BOOK 94 BOOK 9 A71 APR 1Z 1994 ORDINANCE NO. 94- 12 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on April 12, .1994, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: The Southeast j of Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 38 East, LESS the West 341.62 feet of the East 1327.07 feet of the South 661.56 feet; ALSO LESS the West 331.74 feet of the East 1658.81 feet of the South 267.71 feet; ALSO LESS the East 125 feet and the South 40 feet; TOGETHER WITH the Southeast j of the Northeast j of the said Section 26 lying South of Lateral C of the Sebastian River Drainage District described in Deed Book 32 of Page 177 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. Is changed from R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre) to L-1, Low -Density Resdential-1 (up to 3 units/acre): The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly. SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. 80 ORDINANCE NO. 94-12 SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the sixth day of April, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on the 12th day of April, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Bird and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Avp Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: 7W17 Jbhn,, W-., ., Tip in Ohairman ATTEST BY: Je ` ' --'K arton,_ Clerk Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 15th day of April , 1994. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of April , 1994, at 10:00 a.m. 1t i(fX*v and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFIC ENCY ;., 0�mw R� jgert G. Collins II,RoM. Keating, AICP Community Develop nt I� u\v\j\sghcpa.ord AFK 1`41994 or ounty Attorney 81 Acnin. j Legal Budget Dept. _ Risk Mgr. 5m 92 F,n ,,172 r - 92 F-AUE 173 APR 121994 PUBLIC HEARING — COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SUB—ELEMENTS, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The hour of 9:05 a.m. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVERrc ,s Ourn1( ' STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authorltyy personnlly appenred J.J. Schumnnn, Jr. who on oath says that he Is Business Manager of the Vero Bench Preas-Journnl, a newspaper published at Vero Beach In Indian River County, Florida; that / ���Li s2Cltc� �t i� •,t i to li �t< «< D 3 3'' • 6_ 4 11190 Der n(t Gill �tcn t t1C:C� billed was published In said newspaper In the issue(s) i Of page. t - ( Sworn to and subserlbed before me this I I ! _ clay or l..hlT 4e.C�07%li9 qcG= CPvn' .t t1'Mt MycB . Fnkes :� s nsnnnnAn srnr!arc. r,nr.ndTusine Manager Jp„0 217, NNJ7 tiW. et i b.M.•• PAY C-*... ,p J,_ 29, MY We. 1;.3W 1`2 : v.rFm.w•C(:7tRSr7 •r of F1.0: �a nan, nA,roAaAe areuurs — NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND • CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con- sider adopting an ordinance to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County as shown in the map of the advertisement and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, April 12, 1994, at 9,05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan. The pro- posed amendments are included in the proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER .COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE POTABLE WATER SUB -EL- EMENT, THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE CAP- ITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DES- IGNATION FOR +-159 ACRES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510 AND 82ND AVENUE FROM R TO L-1; AMEND- ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHEN. SIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +-6.44 ACRES ON THE WEST SIDE OF 90TH AVENUE, BE- TWEEN 8TH STREET AND 1-95, FROM L-1 TO AGA; AMEND- ING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY ENLARGING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 1 & C.R. 510 (NORTH) COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM R. ACRES TO +-292.36 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REDUCING THE U.S. HIGHWAY 1 COMMERCIAL/INDUS- TRIAL NODE (C.R. 510 TO HOBART ROAD) FROM +-190 ACRES TO +-181.64 ACRES; AND PROVIDING CODIFICA- TION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard of the public hearing regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. - The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public of the Com- munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad- ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made of this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator of 567-8000 exten- sion 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. 82 Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Byr-s-John W. Tippin, Chairman Lj, awnt I ' pmwy ,tp, "r I baeuct -- ,rte-' ,� ►rop.nr AO -2 � � r Community Development Director Bob Keating commented from the following: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIV N HEAD CONC CE obert M. Rea ing, ICP Community Developmeht Di for THRU: Sasan Rohani, AICD S '-- Chief, Long -Range Planning FRGM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: April 4, 1994 RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE POTABLE WATER AND SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENTS, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, AND THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 93-07-0154 It. is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of April 12, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 13, 1990, Indian River -County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires. Also, the plan, itself, requires annual amendment of certain elements. For example, the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the plan needs annual amendment as required both by plan policy and state regulations. For those reasons the county has initiated this amendment. At this time, the county is initiating a comprehensive plan amendment which involves several elements of the plan. The affected elements are: the Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub - Elements, the Future Land Use Element, and the Capital Improvements Element. As originally proposed, the request did not include modifying the Future Land Use Element. Changes to this element were added in response to the Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) • The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on attachment 3. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and figures are labeled as either existing or proposed. APR 12194 83 Bou 92 r -acs 174 Fr ­ BOCK 92 FAA. 175 APR 121994 On October 14, 1993, the Planning and, Zoning Commission voted 5 to 0 to recommend the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment request to DCA for their review. On December 7, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an ORC Report, which planning staff received on February 28, 1994. The ORC Report did not contain any objections to the proposed amendment to the Capital Improvements Element. The ORC Report, however, did contain two objections to the proposed amendments to the Potable Water Sub -Element and the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element. These objections, involving the prevention of urban sprawl, and the preservation of agriculture and open space, relate to inconsistencies between the proposed amendments and provisions in the County Comprehensive Plan, state law (Rule 9J-5, F.A.C. and Chapter 163-F.S.), the State Comprehensive Plan (Chapter 187 F.S.), and the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Specifically, DCA cited the following objections: 1. The amendment, as proposed, is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1 which prohibits public services which would induce or encourage the development of agriculturally designated areas (except to provide for the health, safety, and welfare of existing residents). 2. The amendment, as proposed, is not consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.9 which states that the expansion of public services shall be based on, among other things, future land uses. As with all proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the proposed amendments. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of the plan needing amendment. Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Elements One component of the comprehensive plan is the Urban Service Area (USA). Not only does the plan's USA limit urban development to appropriate areas where urban services can be efficiently provided, but the USA also delineates an area where the county will provide urban services. Future Land Use Element Policy 2.1 established the USA as depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Because roadways are easily identifiable on maps, the boundaries of the USA were established along major roads. Following plan adoption, a question arose regarding the economic feasibility of providing utility service to only one side of roads whose rights-of-way contain utility lines. Prior to plan adoption, the county had not considered this factor. Subsequently, the county developed and adopted, and DCA approved; Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37. 84 I Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 states that: By 1993, Indian River County shall conduct a corridor study for each roadway which serves as an urban service area boundary. A corridor includes road right-of-way and property within one-quarter mile of land area on both sides of the right-of-way. The Kings Highway Corridor is hereby designated as a high priority corridor study area. For each corridor studied, the analysis shall identify programmed infrastructure improvements, particularly water and sewer lines. Where water and sewer lines are planned for installation within the right- of-way of a roadway serving as the urban service area boundary, the study will examine the financial, environmental and physical impacts of providing urban services to land on both sides of the right-of-way. Based upon the study results, the existing urban service area designation and land use plan designation for lands within the corridor will be assessed, and necessary changes will be identified. Any identified changes shall address the need to reduce the size of the Urban Service Area boundary depicted on the Future Land Use Map in order to compensate for any recommended expansion of the Urban Service Area boundary to discourage the proliferation of urban sprawl, to ensure the separation of urban and rural land uses and to maintain the relationship between the needs of the projected population and the land uses depicted on the Future Land Use Map. Such changes shall then be considered by the Board of County Commissioners as proposed comprehensive plan amendments. In April 1993, staff completed the corridor study mandated by Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 (see attachment 2). Based on that study, a land use designation -amendment request was initiated by the county. That amendment request involved expansion of the USA to include all land within a quarter of a mile from roadways for which utility line installation is programmed to be completed by 1995, as well as the fast growing 58th Avenue corridor which was designated a high priority in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37. As proposed, that amendment would also have changed the land use designation of the land added to the USA from AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre). On April 22, 1993, the Planning hearing to consider that land i public hearing, concerns wer increase in density. Citing Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to Commissioners transmit to DCA expand the USA, but which would of the subject property. and Zoning Commission held a public se designation amendment. At that raised regarding the proposed these concerns, the Planning and recommend that the Board of County a land use amendment that would not change the land use designation On June 22, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners considered the land use designation amendment request to expand the USA and redesignate land from AG -1 to R. At that time, the Board voted not to transmit the proposed amendment to DCA for its review; instead, the Board directed staff to research the issue further and to schedule a Board workshop to discuss the issue in more detail. In taking this action, the Board indicated that it wanted to revisit the comprehensive plan's utility provisions in general, rather than focusing only on USA expansion. In a staff report for a July 27, 1993 Board w3rkshop, staff identified Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.9 as prohibiting extension of water and sewer services outside of the USA. At that workshop, the Board directed staff to initiate a comprehensive plan text amendment, revising 85 APR 12 1994 FOOK 99 176 F, BOOK 92 F',vJF 177 APR 12 1994 Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Po icy*Z.9 to allow utility service to lots located within a quarter o#.a mile of the USA. As will be discussed in the next section of this staff report, DCA has identified another plan policy that, according to DCA, prohibits extension of'water and sewer services outside of the USA. Of the 700+ policies of the comprehensive plan, these are the only three that prohibit extension of water and sewer services -outside of the USA. Future Land Use Element As part of its process,. DCA reviews proposed amendments for consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the county's comprehensive plan and identifies any inconsistencies in an ORC Report. Although not identified by staff in the staff report for the transmittal public hearing, Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1 was cited by DCA as prohibiting the extension of water and sewer services outside of the USA. For this reason, DCA has determined that, to allow the extension of water and sewer services outside of the USA, Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1 also must be amended. Therefore, DCA's position is that, in their current form, the proposed amendments to the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub - Elements are inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1. This inconsistency was the basis of an objection to the proposed amendment. To address this inconsistency, DCA has suggested revisions to Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1 (see attachment 3). The revisions proposed by DCA would expressly allow extension of water and sewer service outside of the.USA under the same conditions as those specified in Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.9. These additions have been added to the proposed amendment and will be discussed in greater detail in the analysis portion of this staff report. Capital Improvements Element As part of the Capital Improvements Element (CIE) of the comprehensive plan, the county adopted a Capital Improvements Program (CIP). As amended, the CIP now addresses the 1992-1997 period. Since it is already 1994, the county must revise its CIP to reflect the appropriate time period. While some of the improvements identified and budgeted in the current CIP have already been accomplished, other improvements need to be re-evaluated in terms of costs, revenues, and prioritization. At the time of plan adoption, it was known that the CIP would become outdated each year; therefore, one of the policies of the CIE (policy 1.1), as adopted, requires annual evaluation and update of the CIP. Also, state regulations mandate that the CIE be amended if conditions change to warrant it. The CIP is an important part of the Capital Improvements Element. Since the CIP incorporates improvements reflected in other plan elements, and estimates and projections reflected in other portions of the Capital Improvements Element, revisions to the CIP require amendment to the CIE as a whole: The Capital ImprovdMents Element, as proposed for revision, is on file at the Board office. 86 M M _ I M M ANALYSIS This section includes a response to DCA's objections. It also includes an analysis of the proposed changes by element, including a discussion of the consistency of the amendments with the comprehensive plan. Summary of Changes to Address DCA'S Obiections As transmitted to DCA, the proposed amendments to the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Elements would have allowed centralized utility service to lots outside of the USA, where any portion of the lot is located within one quarter of a mile of a USA boundary. DCA's position is that, while allowing centralized utility service to lots bordering, but outside of, the USA is acceptable, the one quarter mile standard is in excess of that needed to accomplish the county's stated purpose and could lead to the intrusion of development into; agriculturally designated areas. To address this concern and still allow centralized utilities service to -certain lots, DCA recommends that plan policies be revised to expressly include the following: 1. Centralized utilities service to lots outside the USA shall be limited to lots east of I-95; 2. Centralized utilities service to lots outside the USA shall be limited to lots that front a road that serves as a USA boundary; 3. Centralized utilities service to lots outside the USA shall not extend more than 500 feet from the centerline of a road that serves as a USA boundary; 4. Centralized utility line extensions to lots outside the USA shall be limited to laterals and minor lines connecting homes to main lines; and 5. The provision of centralized utilities service to land outside the USA shall not justify an increase in density. According to DCA, these recommendations will help to preserve agricultural uses, and provide a safeguard against urban sprawl. In analyzing DCA's proposed policy changes, staff identified the property that could be affected. Even with a reduction in the maximum utility line extension distance from a quarter mile to 500 feet, staff feels that few parcels will be affected. Consequently, staff feels that accepting DCA's proposed changes is appropriate. DCA also recommended changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1. This policy deals with the provision of public services and facilities. While DCA reads this policy to prohibit the extension of utility lines outside of the -urban service area, staff disagrees. The policy prohibits only the provision of public services and facilities to agriculturally designated lands when those facilities or services would induce or encourage development. As structured, the originally proposed changes to the plan would not have induced or encouraged development of" agriculturally dedignated lands because the density of the lands would not change and existing parcels could be developed with wells and septic tanks. APR 12 1994 87 aoaK 92 F-ar,F 178 92 APR 1Z 1994 According to DCA, the proposed changes to policy 6.1 would ensure that the plan would maintain its internal consistency by referencing Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.9 within Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1. Staff's position is that incorporating the referenced changes in policy 6.1 would clarify the intent of the policy. For that reason, staff feels that it would be appropriate to make the referenced changes to policy 6.1. As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this staff report, DCA's ORC Report did not contain any objections to the Capital Improvements Element changes in the proposed amendment. Potable Watei The corridor analysis prepared by staff pursuant to the requirements of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 contained several important findings and conclusions. First, the analysis found that it was necessary to use the roadways programmed for utility line installation to accommodate the lines because other rights-of-way were already too crowded. Second, the analysis found that it would be cost effective if utility service were made available to those lands adjacent to roadways serving as utility corridors. This report, however, noted that comprehensive plan policies currently prohibit provision of utilities service outside the USA. Consequently, staff sought to address this issue through a comprehensive plan amendment expanding the USA to include those lands adjacent to roads serving as utility corridors. Since land within the USA qualifies for urban development, USA expansion is usually accompanied by a land use map change redesignating land added to the USA. For that reason, such a land use map change was part of the comprehensive plan amendment expanding the USA. In preparing the corridor study and developing the associated comprehensive plan amendment recommendations, staff focused primarily on USA expansion and land use redesignation. There arer. however, other mechanisms by which service can be provided to land adjacent to roadways serving as utility corridors. One such mechanism is to modify three policies of the comprehensive plan. By so doing, the issue of providing utility service to land adjacent to roadways serving as USA boundaries where those roads also accommodate major utility lines can be resolved. The proposed amendment revises the referenced policies to allow the limited expansion of utility services outside of the USA only for those parcels fronting roads which serve as a USA boundary (see attachment 3). With this approach, the issue of utility service extension to lands adjacent to roads serving as USA boundaries and having utility lines within their rights-of-way can be resolved. At the same time, the geographic scope of the utility service extension can be limited, and any expansion would necessarily occur in a logical and rational manner. In accordance with several comprehensive plan policies, only agricultural land use designations may exist outside the USA. Therefore, the effect of the proposed amendment would be to allow owners of agriculturally designated land fronting roads which serve as a USA boundary to obtain centralized utility services. Agricultural land uses in affected areas include groves, pastures, and agricultural businesses such as packinghouses. Much of the 88 affected land, however, is not in agricultural production. It is, instead, characterized by large lots with single houses. Since the proposed amendment does not change USA boundaries, no land would be redesignated, and the existing agricultural designation would be retained for the subject properties. There are several benefits to maintaining the current agricultural designation of affected land. The first benefit is the discouragement of urban sprawl. In contrast to expanding the USA and redesignating land, the proposed amendment will not alter the county's approved residential allocation ratio. Second, the amount and density of residentially designated land will more closely match the amount needed, based on population projections. Finally, maintaining the agricultural designation of affected land will preserve agricultural uses and open space in the county. Capital Improvements Element In revising the Capital Improvements Element, staff used much the same methodology as it employed in preparing the original element. This involved coordinating with the budget and finance departments to obtain data on past revenues and expenditures as well as projected future revenue and expenditure amounts. Then, each county department was contacted to determine the status of its CIP. For each department, information on completed projects, proposed projects, costs, revenues, prioritization, and other factors was collected. Based upon these data, planning staff revised the various tables and the text of the CIE. The result is an accurate and up-to-date CIP with revisions having been made in the CIE generally to demonstrate internal consistency and financial feasibility. CIE Table 13.23 lists all programmed capital improvements for fiscal years 1993-94 through 1999-2000 for each comprehensive plan element. The updated version of this table reflects minor changes needed to maintain adopted Levels of Service (LOS). These include new Drainage Element capital improvements in Gifford, the St. Sebastian River flood plain, and the 12th Street sublateral culvert, as reflected in Table 13.23. Revisions to Table 13.23 indicate an emphasis in wastewater service expansion in three areas within the USA. Programmed expansion of the West County Wastewater Treatment Plant collection system will better serve the area south of S.R. 60 and west of 43rd Avenue. Expansions are also programmed for the South County and Sea Oaks Wastewater Treatment Plants. These expansions will increase service to the areas south of S.R. 60 and east of 43rd Avenue, and on the barrier island, respectively. The updated Table 13.23 shows new expansion of utility lines providing potable water to the north county and to the western y portion of the--S.R. 60 Corridor. Regarding the Solid Waste Element, there are no new capital improvements programmed. As before, landfill construction remains, by a large margin, the greatest expenditure. Regarding the Recreation and Open Space Element, changes to Table 13.23 are more significant. Due to a weaker than expected overall economy, previous revenue projections have been lowered. Therefore,- four recreation and -open space projects -that had been programmed for fiscal years 1993-94 and 1994-95 have been rescheduled for no earlier than 1995-96. The delayed projects are West Wabasso Park Phase I, Dale Wimbrow/Donald McDonald Park Phase I, Oslo Landfill Site, and Round Island Park Oceanside. -These APR 121994 89 mof 9? F' =1 9 BOOK 92 Pfti E 181 APR 121994 delays will not cause the county's LOS for parks and recreation to be lowered. In the Conservation Element, Table 13.23 reflects the passage, in November 1992, of a referendum authorizing the sale of $26 million in bonds. The revenue from the sale of these bonds is to be used for the acquisition of environmentally important land, and may be leveraged with up to $20 million in cost -share matching funds. Capital improvements to county maintained roads are generally funded by traffic impact fee revenue. Some expenditures are also funded by the State of Florida, developers, and other local governments. Table 13.23 lists new projects, including intersection improvements. and road widenings, programmed throughout the county. The only other capital improvement is the new county courthouse, which is presently under construction. Table 13.23 shows that the county now plans to spend $7.5 million in fiscal year 1993-94 to complete this facility. Generally, this CIP indicates expansion of existing facilities in order to maintain LOS standards as the County's population increases, rather than major new initiatives. In updating the CIP, revisions must be made to other portions of the CIE. The county does not have an alternative. However, changes may be made to the revisions as proposed. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the "comprehensive plan may be amended only in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to section 163.3177(2).F.S." The goals, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. Specifically, policies are the courses of action or ways in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal or objective. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Most important with respect to comprehensive plan amendments is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to approve an amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved comprehensive plan, or • an oversight in the approved comprehensive plan, or • a substantial change in circumstances. The following table shows how the subject comprehensive plan amendments relate to Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. M M Correct.a Mistake SS & PW: Policy 5.9 FLUE: Policy 6.1 Correct an Oversight X X M Change in Circumstance X CIE: CIP & other portions of the CIE X ****************************************************************** SS: Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element PW: Potable Water Sub -Element FLUE: Future Land Use Element CIE: Capital Improvements Element ° Sanitary Sewer and Potable Water Sub -Elements, and Future Land Use Element Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed amendment meets two of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's criteria. When the comprehensive plan was adopted on February 13, 1990, the boundaries of the USA were established along major roads because roadways are easily identifiable on maps. At that time, the county did not consider the economic feasibility of providing utility service to both sides of roads whose rights-of-way contain utility lines. This fact constitutes an oversight and meets the second criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. There has also been a change in circumstances. Since adoption of the comprehensive plan, the utilities master plan has been revised. This revision includes changes to the county's proposed utility collection and distribution systems in order to provide service to residentially and commercial/industrially designated areas in the county. While the utilities master plan identifies the location of all existing water and sewer lines, the most important part of the plan is its program to install utility lines needed to serve areas within the approved USA that are not presently served. Since the revision of the utilities master plan constitutes a change in circumstances, this meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. ° Capital Improvements Element Revisions to the CIP and the CIE are necessary to reflect changes in circumstances. In that period since the CIE was last revised, capital improvements have been completed; others have been added; revenue projections have changed, and priorities have been modified. These circumstances warrant the amendment. - Consistency with Other Policies of the Plan The table below lists those other policies of the plan which are consistent with each of the proposed comprehensive plan amendments. Other Plan Policies Consistent with Proposed Amendments SS & PW Policy 5.9, & FLU Policy 6.1: FLU Obj. 1, 1.37, 2.9, ED Obj. 1, & Obj. 7 CIE: CIE 1.1, 1.2, 1.3,"1.41 1.10, 1.11, 1.IZ & FLU 11.3 SS: Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element PW: Potable Water Sub -Element FLU: Future Land Use Element CIE: Capital Improvements Element ED: Economic Development Element 91 APR 121994 i APR 121994 boas 92 F-ar 133 ° Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Elements, and Future Land Use Element - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 requires the County to complete a study identifying programmed water and sewer infrastructure improvements. Where utility lines exist, or are programmed to be installed within the right-of-way of roads serving as USA boundaries, the study had to examine the financial, environmental and physical impacts of providing urban services to both sides of the right-of-way. The completed study is included as part of this staff report. Based on the study, the county must identify and assess necessary changes to the comprehensive plan. The study concluded that, based on the Utilities Master Plan, USA expansion is warranted. Based on that conclusion, staff prepared a comprehensive plan amendment to expand the USA. As previously indicated, the Board of County Commissioners voted not to transmit the proposed amendment to the state for its review. After receiving public comment, the Board determined that the issues raised in the corridor study could be better addressed through a comprehensive plan text amendment. The proposed amendment implements Future Land Use Element Policy 1.37 by addressing the issue of utilities service to both sides of roads serving as USA boundaries. - Future Land Use Element Objective 1 Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have an efficient land use pattern that reduces urban sprawl. One reason that urban sprawl is considered an undesirable land development pattern is that sprawl development is expensive and inefficient to serve with infrastructure. In contrast, land adjacent to utility lines can generally be served efficiently. The proposed amendment will allow the provision of urban services to land adjacent to utility lines, thereby increasing the efficiency of urban service provision. For that reason, the proposed amendment implements Future Land Use Element Objective 1. - Future Land Use Element Policy 2.9 Future Land Use Element Policy 2.9 states that the expansion of public services and facilities shall be based on existing and future land uses and the availability of other services and facilities. As previously indicated, the proposed amendment does not redesignate any land. Therefore, the amendment will not affect existing or future land uses. The present land use designation of affected properties permit agricultural uses and residential uses with a density of up to 1 unit/5 acres. These uses will still be permitted and there will be no increase in density or new uses permitted. The proposed amendment will merely allow a limited portion of the development that is presently permitted to receive centralized utility services. Additionally, other public services and facilities such as police, fire, and emergency medical services, as well as roads and schools are readily available to areas affected by the propo-hed amendment. For these reasons the proposed amendment is not inconsistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.9. 92 - Economic Development Element Objective 1 Economic Development Element Objective 1 states that the county will reduce its unemployment rate. The proposed amendment will allow the most efficient and economically feasible delivery of water and sewer service to the County's commercial/industrial nodes. The availability of water and sewer service at these nodes will make the nodes significantly more attractive to potential new employers. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Objective 1. - Economic Development Element Objective 7 Economic Development Element Objective 7 states that, by 1995, the county will upgrade its water and sewer facilities to provide adequate capacity for future economic growth. By delivering water and sewer service to the County's commercial/ industrial nodes, the county is providing adequate capacity to accommodate future economic growth. The proposed amendment will ensure that water and sewer service is efficiently and economically provided to these nodes. Therefore, the proposed amendment implements Economic Development Element Objective 7. ° Capital Improvements Element - Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.21 1.3, 1.41 1.11 and 1.12 Capital Improvements Element Policies 1.1, 1.21 1.3, 1.4, 1.11 and 1.12 require the County to maintain and implement a capital improvements program which is evaluated and updated annually. These policies also describe how the county will evaluate and prioritize capital improvements. By updating the CIP in accordance with these requirements, the proposed amendment is consistent with these policies. - Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.10 Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.10 states that the county shall include all capital expenditures in excess of $25,000 in its schedule of improvements. The proposed amendment identifies all capital expenditures in excess of $25,000. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.10. - Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3 (Hurricane Evacuation Time Analysis) Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3 requires the county, as part of its annual CIE review, to assess the impact of new development on hurricane evacuation times. This assessment meets that requirement. Hurricane evacuation is addressed within the Coastal. Management Element of the County's Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in that plan element, the county displayed clearance times of less than 12 hours for category 3-5 storms. This was based upon the 1988 update to the Treasure Coast Hurricane Evacuation Study. The Coastal Management Element also noted that the replacement of the Merrill Barber Bridge could reduce estimated evacuation times below 12 hours. Since construction of the new bridge has begun (with the corresponding increase from 2 to 4 lanes), the capacity enhancement of the evacuation system is now closer to being completed. 93 APR 1219940 I APR 12 M4 BOOK 92 u,,�'185 On the demand side, estimates and projections are more difficult to determine. Not only does growth on the unincorporated county portion of the barrier island affect hurricane evacuation; growth in Vero Beach, Indian River Shores, and Orchid affect evacuation times. Even growth and development in Brevard and St. Lucie Counties affect evacuation times in Indian River County. It is anticipated that, between the 1991 update of the CIP and the present, the population of the barrier island portion of the county (both incorporated and unincorporated areas) increased by only 1044 residents. This is based upon 1990 census data and county projections. Based upon the estimated increase of barrier island residents, the impact on evacuation times will be minimal. Therefore, it is staff's position that no additional capital improvements are necessary to accommodate hurricane evacuation needs. The above Hurricane Evacuation Time Analysis satisfies the requirements of Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 11.3. Based on the analysis performed, staff's position is that the proposed amendment is consistent with all comprehensive plan goals, objectives and policies. With respect to this request, the Board of County Commissioners has three alternatives. The alternatives are: 1. Deny the request. 2. Approve the request. 3. Approve the request with changes. CONCLUSION As indicated in this report, the originally proposed amendments have been modified to address the objections raised in RCA's ORC Report. Even with these changes, the original intent of the amendments will be maintained. Staff's position is that these proposed amendments to the county's comprehensive plan will enhance the plan by providing for the efficient provision of utility service to lands within and adjacent to the USA, and by updating the CIP as required. As has been demonstrated, these amendments will maintain the plan's internal consistency. For those reasons, staff feels that the proposed amendments should be adopted. RECOMMENDATION The staff recommends these amendments to attachment 3. that the Board of County Commissioners approve the comprehensive plan as identified in 94 kk ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 94-13, amending the text of the Capital Improvements Element, the Future Land Use Element, the Potable Water Sub -Element, and the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element of the Comprehensive Plan with the changes recommended by staff in Attachment A to the ordinance, to comply with the comments of the Florida Department of Community Affairs. ORDINANCE NO. 94-13 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT, THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT, AND THE SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July, 1993 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 14, 1993 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on December 7, 1993, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS; the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and APR 12 1994 95 Bou 2 Fr4jf 16' APR 121994 ORDINANCE NO. 94- 13 MOK 92 FAU 187 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on December 20, 1993, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on February 28, 1994, and WHEREAS, Indian River County revised this comprehensive plan amendment in response to the ORC Report and pursuant to F.S.163.3184(7), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on April 12, 1994, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment t The amendments to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 are hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan C Revision to Policy 5.9 of the Potable Water Sub -Element, as shown on Attachment A. c Revision to Policy 5.9 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, as shown on Attachment A. c Revision to Policy 6.1 of the Future Land Use Element, as shown on Attachment A. c Update of the Capital Improvements Element, as shown on Attachment A. SECTION 3. Codification The provisions of this ordinance may be incorporated into the County Code and the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or other appropriate word, and the sections of the ordinance may be renumbered or relettered to accomplish such intentions. 96 M M M ORDINANCE NO. 94- 13 SECTION 4. Repeal of Conflictina Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 5. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTION 6. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the sixth day of April, 1994 for a public hearing to be held on the 12th day of April, 1994 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams ye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIANIRIYER COUNTY BY: 7 - John jj,,,Tippin, izman ATTEST BY: .Ji3Y -K-.-Baj � ,`V Clerk APR 121994 97 . �00W 92e r, 188 APR 12 1,594 BOOK 92 FAGS 189 Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this 15th day of April , 1994. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 21st day of April , 1994, at 10:00 a.m. %XJ9X7&X#fi and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY WilJj G. Collins II, Robert M. Keat Community Deve u\v\j\cpa7-93.ord y County Attorney DX�ctor Indian Rivet 02 AMgr. ATTACHMENT A REVISIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9: Consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan, provision of centralized potable water service shall be limited to areas within the Urban Service Area, and to areas where the county has legal commitments to provide facilities and services as of the date of adoption of this plan. Centralized potable water service shall be allowed outside of the 2010 Urban Service Area to serve any lot located east of I-95, where the entire lot or a portion of the lot fronts on a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Boundary as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.34). The density of such land shall be as shown on the Future Land Use Map, and the provision of centralized potable water service shall not be justification for an increase in density. In addition, potable water line extensions shall be limited to lateral and minor lines connecting land uses to main lines. In no case shall centralized potable water lines be permitted to extend more than 500 feet from the centerline of a roadway which is the Urban Service Area boundary. Centralized potable water service shall also be allowed outside of the 2010 Urban Service Area to serve a development project that meets the criteria of policies of the Future Land Use'Element for: c clustering of residential development within agricultural areas; C clustering of residential development within privately owned upland conservation areas; or G clustering development within mixed use districts. 98 Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.9: Consistent with the policies of the Future Land Use Element of this plan, provision of centralized sanitary sewer service shall be limited to areas within the Urban Service Area, and to areas where the county has legal commitments to provide facilities and services as of the date of adoption of this plan. Centralized sanitary sewer service shall be allowed outside of the 2010 Urban Service Area to serve any lot located east of I-95, where the entire lot or a portion of the lot fronts on a public roadway which serves as an Urban Service Boundary as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (Figure 2.34). The density of such land shall be as shown on the Future Land Use Map, and the provision of centralized sanitary sewer service shall not be justification for an increase in density. In addition, sanitary sewer line extensions shall be limited to laterals and minor lines connecting land uses to main lines. In no case shall centralized sanitary sewer lines be permitted to extend more than 500 feet from the centerline of a roadway which is the Urban Service Area boundary. Centralized sanitary sewer service shall also be allowed outside of the 2010 Urban Service Area to serve a development project that meets the criteria of policies of the Future Land Use Element for: o clustering of residential development within agricultural areas; c clustering of residential development within privately owned upland conservation areas; or c clustering development within mixed use districts. Future Land Use Element Policy 6.1: Indian River County shall not provide public services or facilities which would induce or encourage the development of agriculturally designated lands except to provide for the health, safety and welfare of existing residents. This policy, however, shall not preclude the county from providing utility services to a lot or a portion of a lot which fronts on a .public roadway that serves as an urban service boundary as long as the provision of utility service is consistent with Potable Water Sub -Element Policy 5.9 and Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Policy 5.9. FLORIDA COMMUNITIES TRUST (FCT) CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEMENTS FOR STATE COST -SHARE TO ACQUIRE PRANG AND LOST TREE ISLANDS The Board reviewed memo from Environmental Planning Chief Roland DeBlois dated April 5, 1994: APR 121994 99 wix 92 190 I APR x.21994 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator 800K 92 PACF 191 RbUert M. Reatifi4et CP Community DeveloDi for Roland M. DeBloiCP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: April 51 1994 RE: Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Conceptual Approval Agreements for State Cost -Share to Acquire Prang and Lost Tree Islands It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of April 12, 1994. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS In August, 1993, county staff, as authorized by the Board of County Commissioners and endorsed by the County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (LAAC), submitted an application to the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) program for 40% acquisition funding of the Lost Tree Islands and Prang Island sites. Funding Approved On January 6, 1994, the FCT Governing Body held a public hearing in Tallahassee regarding third -year -cycle FCT grant applications. The purpose of the hearing was to finalize the scoring and ranking of each of 31 submitted projects. As a result of the scoring, the Prang Island site ranked 4th, and the Lost Tree Islands ranked 9th out of the total 31 projects, both solidly within the State's funding range. Conceptual Approval Agreements Since the January 6th FCT hearing, FCT staff have visited the island sites with county staff to verify site conditions as represented in the project applications. In accordance with State procedures, the next step is for the FCT Governing Body and the County Commission to execute a "Conceptual Approval Agreement" for each project. Because these projects are located within the City of Vero Beach ( both Prang and Lost Tree) and the Town of Indian River Shores (Lost Tree), the City and Town Councils must also execute the agreements for full approval. FCT staff have transmitted the attached draft Conceptual Approval Agreements to county staff relating to the subject properties. These Agreements were approved by the FCT Governing Body at its meeting on March 4, 1994, and are presented herein for the Board's consideration. - 100 M ® M ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The agreements consist largely of standard language and conditions pursuant to Rule 9R-4, Florida Administrative Code, which sets forth Florida Communities Trust program procedures. The agreements consist of seven main sections, as follows (paraphrased): I. General Conditions II. Requirements Prior to Initiation of Negotiations III. County Obligations Relating to Project Plan Approval IV. Project Site Acquisition Requirements V. Obligations as a Condition of Project Funding VI. Obligations Relating to Use of Bond Proceeds VII. Site Specific Nanagement Plan Conditions The General Conditions section of the agreements contains standard language pertaining to timing and coordination of steps between the County and FCT. Requirements Prior to Initiation of Negotiations outlines a number of steps and time frames including the requirement that the County provide resolutions to FCT, with information confirming such things as the property owners being willing sellers, and the County's ability to provide the local match. Under this section of the agreements, the County has the opportunity to choose whether the County or FCT will be the responsible party for all negotiation and acquisition activities. These activities include overseeing appraisals, surveys, title reports, and environmental audits. The execution of a multi-party agreement is required only if the*County opts to be the responsible party for negotiation and acquisition activities. If the County opts for FCT to be the responsible negotiating party, then the land acquisition consultant contracted to assist with the overall county environmental land acquisition program will not be involved with acquisition activities relating to these projects. It is staff's position that the County should opt to have FCT conduct negotiation and acquisition activities for the Prang and Lost Tree Islands projects. Under this option, the need for FCT sufficiency review of County acquisition activities would be eliminated, since FCT would be overseeing the activities directly. Also, County CCNA procedures for selecting firms (such as surveyors) would not apply, and therefore such activities would occur more expeditiously. Under the FCT negotiation option, the County would be kept apprised along each step of the acquisition process, and the Board would still have the final say regarding County approval or denial of an acquisition. County Obligations as a Condition of Project Plan Approval outlines County documents required prior to FCT disbursement of State funds, including a statement of total project costs, a signed agreement for acquisition, and a management plan consistent with the criteria and conditions within the Conceptual Approval Agreements. Acquisition Requirements relates to State requirements regarding transfer of title procedures. — Obligations as a Condition of Project Funding ensures that any use of the islands once acquired will be consistent with the adopted management plan, or, if changes are proposed, that FCT approval is first obtained. 101 92 PAGE 192 APR 121994 I k APR 121994 NOK 92 F-,ku 191. 9, Obligations Relating to the Use of Bond Proceeds requires the County to notify FCT if any use of the islands is proposed that may affect State bond proceeds used in acquiring the property, with respect to legal and tax consequences. Site Specific Management Plan Conditions reflect information presented to FCT in the County's grant applications, relating to proposed site improvements and use. Proposed improvements include a limited boat dock, nature/walking trail, picnic facilities, informational displays, and primitive camping. Removal of nuisance exotic plants (Brazilian pepper, Australian pine) and replacement with native vegetation is also a described management plan condition for each project.. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman. to execute the attached Conceptual Approval Agreements, and authorize staff to contact the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores to request their execution of the agreements. Staff also recommends that the Board opt to have FCT be the responsible party for all negotiation and acquisition activities associated with the Prang and Lost Tree Islands projects. William Koolage, 11 Vista Gardens Trail, understood that the subject islands were isolated and the owners could not do anything with them. Director Keating responded that he understood that the owners must obtain a State lease over sovereignty lands to build bridges to the islands, and right now there is a prohibition on the State allowing leases for those type facilities. Furthermore, the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores are involved and would prohibit connection of any bridge from the mainland to those islands. So, there are those constraints on development. He clarified that staff's recommendation is to have Florida Communities Trust (FCT) be the responsible party for all negotiation and acquisition activities, but the County will have the option at every stage of the process to stop the process. There is no obligation on the County at this point to purchase the properties. There will be costs for surveying, appraisals and title work but not an appreciable amount. Commissioner Macht pointed out that there is nothing to prohibit development of those islands if they are accessed by water, so there is capacity for development. Whether it is practical is another matter. 102 � _ s ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the Conceptual Approval Agreement with Florida Communities Trust for cost -share acquisition of the Lost Tree and Prang Islands and authorized staff to contact the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores to request their execution of the agreements. ^XECUTED - CONCEPTUAL APPROVAL AGREEMENT 5 0 O ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD The Board discussed the matter of taking title to the properties, and Director Keating agreed that could be decided at a later date. APPROVAL OF RENEWAL OF EMS ALS CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR INDIAN RIVER SHORES DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SAFETY The Board reviewed memo from Emergency Services Director Doug Wright dated April 5, 1994: TO: Board of County Commissioners TSROUGB: Jim ChandleF, county Administrator FROM: Doug Wright; Director Department of Emergency Services DATE: April 5, 1994 -SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal of EMS ALS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Indian River Shores Department of Public Safety to Provide PreHospital Emergency Medical Services It is respectfully requested the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at _ the next scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On April 21, 1992, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved an EMS Advanced Life Support Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indian River Shores. This certificate was necessary in order to comply with Indian River Code of Laws and Ordinances as specified in Chapter 304 as an EMS ALS Provider. The Town of Indian River Shores determined in 1990 that the municipality would continue with the public safety concept for emergency services and opted not to participate in the emergency services referendum which established an Emergency Services Special 103 APR 12 1994 a� K U4 PACE IN POOK 92 F,,,UF 195 APIA 121994 District. As a result of this action, the Town must apply to the County and State HRS/EMS office for an Advanced life Support license as a separate entity. An application for the certificate has been submitted by the Town. Staff has reviewed the application and certifies that all requirements of Chapter 304 of the County Code has been met which would justify the renewal and issuance of the referenced certificate. The service area for this EMS ALS provider would be confined to the municipal limits of the Town of Indian River Shores, except when assistance is requested in a mutual aid situation. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Indian River County Code in Section 304.07 provides for routine renewal of the EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity on application by a current certificate holder. This can be accomplished without a public hearing if the Board has no reason to believe that the public health, safety, and welfare require it. Staff submits that there is no reason to hold a public hearing and absent that requirement, requests the Board to issue and renew the certificate for the Town routinely. RECOMMMMATION Staff respectfully recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve and renew the EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indian River Shores. Department of Public Safety to be effective for a period of two years from the date of Board approval. This provider, as with all others, will continue to be subject to the authority of the state statutes, administrative rules, and as provided by Chapter 304 of the Indian River Code of Laws and Ordinances. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved renewal of the EMS Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for the Town of Indian River Shores Department of Public Safety for a period of two years. COPY OF CERTIFICATE IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COURTHOUSE PROJECT - ADDITIONAL SECURITY CAMERAS The Board reviewed memo from General Services Director Sonny Dean dated March 30, 1994: 104 r � � DATE: MARCH 30, 1994 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTO DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICE SUBJECT: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COUNTY ADDITIONAL SECURITY CAMERAS BACKGROUND: PROJECT The Sheriff has requested additional security cameras and monitors be installed in the new courthouse that will, according to his analysis, allow the elimination of three staff positions that will be required to maintain security in the facility. Using figures furnished by the Sheriff, this equates to approximately $108,867 in salary and benefits during the first budget year. Estimated cost to add this equipment and necessary wiring was estimated by our audio/visual contractor, not to exceed $45,000. Staff recommends a change order to the contract with Precision Contracting Services, our audio/visual contractor, to install the above mentioned equipment at a cost not to exceed $45,000 and authorize the Chairman to execute the appropriate documents. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved a change order to the contract with Precision Contracting Services to install additional security cameras and monitors in the new courthouse at a cost not to exceed $45,000, as recommended by staff. AMENDMENT 3 TO CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD CONSULTANT SERVICES RANKING. VERO LAKE ESTATES, MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE OF SURFACE WATER (MSSW) PERMITTING The Board reviewed memo from Coastal Engineer Don Donaldson dated March 29, 1994: �1 APR 1.21994 BOOK 92 PAGr196 APR I 1994 FOOK 92 PA ,7 TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director FROM: Don Donaldson, P.E. Coastal Engineer — t - SUBJECT: Consultant Services Ranking Vero Lake Estates, MSSW Permitting DATE: March 29, 1994 Indian River County solicited Proposals from interested consultants to provide professional engineering and land surveying services for the permitting of -drainage improvements in the Vero Lakes Estates Subdivision. A general description of the scope of work includes but is not limited to the following: The engineering design and MSSW permitting for retrofitting the Vero Lakes Estates backbone drainage system; including detention facilities, conveyance. ditches and water quality best management practices. Ten (10) proposals were received and reviewed by the selection committee. The selection committee consisted of Roger Cain, Don Donaldson, and Dave Cox. The committee short-listed three firms and interviewed the short listed firms. The resultant ranking of firms by the selection committee is as follows: 1. Carter and Associates, Inc. 2. Knight, McGuire and Associates 3. Coastal Technology Corporation The committee recommends that staff be authorized to negotiate a contract with the highest ranked firm. If staff is unable to negotiate a satisfactory contract with the first ranked consultant, County staff will terminate negotiations with the first ranked consultant and undertake negotiations with the second ranked consultant and so forth until a satisfactory contract is agreed upon. Funding is from Account #185-214- 541-033.13 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously authorized staff to negotiate a contract with the highest ranked firm, as recommended by staff. 106 MARCH OF DIMES - SEBASTIAN WALK AMERICA The Board reviewed memo from Interim Chief Traffic Engineer Jeanne Bresett dated March 28, 1994: TO: ja►nes E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director - FROM: Jeanne Breset Interim Chie ffic Engineer SUBJECT: March of Dimes Sebastian Walk America DATE: March 28, 1994 The March of Dimes is planning the 3rd Annual Walkknerica in Sebastian on April 23, 1994. The walk will begin at 8:30 am and be completed by 11:00 am. Approximately 300 participants are. expected. The walk will begin at Riverview Park and use Indian River Drive north to Roseland Road , one block west to Old Dixie Highway, south to Davis Street, east to Indian River Drive and south back to the park. Mr. Warren Buck, Division Director, March of Dimes is requesting that Indian River Drive be closed to all but local traffic for the entire event. Indian River County Sheriff's Deputies will man the north/south closing points on Indian River Drive. City of Sebastian Police and Indian River Radio Club members will man closing points on the connecting streets along the event route. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The request for approval from the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners to hold the 3rd Annual WalkAmerica in Sebastian on Saturday, April 23, 1994 and close a portion of Indian River Drive from Riverview Park to Roseland Road from 8:30 am to 11:00 am is the proposal before the Board at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request provided that emergency access is maintained at all times and based upon the success of the last .two, years events due to organized traffic control. The March of Dimes will need to provide Indian River County with an insurance policy holding the County harmless and also secure an Indian River County right-of-way permit. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams the Board unanimously approved the 3rd Annual WalkAmerica in Sebastian on Saturday, April 23, 1994, as set out in staff's memorandum. 107 �� �,� �r.1�� APR 12 1994 BOOK A I APS `� 1994 800K 20 `AUE 199. BARBER AVENUE WIDENING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS - AMENDMENT NO. 3 The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry Thompson dated April 4, 1994: TO: James B. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.B., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.R.,p j� Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Barber Avenue Widening and Drainage Improvements Amendment No. 3 DATE: April 4, 1994 FILE: 37thAmn3.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS R. F. Lenz Company is under contract with Indian River County to provide professional engineering and surveying services for widening improvements on 37th Street (Barber Avenue) from Indian River, Boulevard to US 1. The attached Amendment provides for modifying the plans and specifications to include a closed stormwater collection system within the existing ditch located adjacent to the northern edge of the pavement. Eliminating the open ditch on the north side of the road will make it possible to delete the proposed curb and add four foot wide paved shoulders on both sides of the road. Compensation for preparation of plans and specifications will be on a lump sum basis in the amount of $21,565. Compensation for acquiring and/or modifying permits will be on an hourly rate basis using rates established in the Agreement up to a not -to -exceed amount of $7,890. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative #1 Approve the attached Amendment No. 3 in the amount of $29,455. Alternative #2 Deny approval of the Amendment and bid the project as it is currently designed without paved shoulders. Staff recommends approval of Alternative #1. Funding is from Account No. 111-214-541-033.19. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Amendment No. 3 to the contract with H. F. Lenz Company in the amount of $29,455, as recommended in staff's Alternative #1. CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 3 IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD 108 A INTERSECTION IMPROVEMENTS AT 10TH COURT AND 37TH STREET The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry Thompson dated April 4, 1994: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Qj Capital Projects Manager SUBJECT: Intersection Improvements at*10th Court and 37th Street DATE: April 4, 1994 FILE: 10thCt.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Attached is an Agreement for construction of roadway widening and drainage improvements on 10th Court at 37th Street. The Agreement provides for the Developer, Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., to construct improvements on 10th Court north of 37th Street, on Indian River Memorial Hospital Driveway and along the north and south side of 37th Street. The County will reimburse the Developer for the cost of widening and drainage improvements on 10th Court north of 37th Street and on the north side of 37th Street. Indian River Memorial Hospital has deposited $18,576.02 with the n County for construction of signalization at the intersection of 10th Court and 37th Street. -The proposed widening and drainage improvements must be completed before the County can install the signalization. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute the attached Agreement. Agreement between Indian River County and Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement with Indian River Memorial Hospital, Inc., for construction of roadway widening and drainage improvements on 10th Court at 37th Street. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD ,p APR 1 Z 1994 109 BOOK 9 [':Ut.900 too, 92 ;AUS291 APR 1 Z 1994 SANDRIDGE GOLF COURSE NEW 18 AMENDMENT NO. 7 The Board reviewed memo from Capital Projects Manager Terry Thompson dated March 28, 1994: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.R. j' � Capital Projects Managef'"'"' SUBJECT: Sandridge Golf Course New 18 Amendment No. 7 DATE: March 28, 1994 FILE: Golfamn7.agn DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Rimley-Horn & Associates, Inc. is under contract with Indian River County to provide professional surveying, civil and structural engineering services in all phases of the Sandridge Golf Course New 18. The attached amendment provides for the following design services: A. Preparation of a detailed plan to address hydrologic enhancement of an existing 1.6 acre wetland. B. Preparation of a modification application to the Consumptive Use Permit (CUP) to eliminate the requirement to construct an earthen structure in the Lateral "G" canal and to eliminate reference to Hobart Swim Lake for primary irrigation. C. Preparation of construction drawings and detailed Specifications for a wet well and intake structure for the existing diesel stormwater pump in the Lateral "G" canal. The SJRWMD has issued the County a noncompliance letter for the Management and Storage of Surface Waters (MSSW) permit because they feel the hydrological enhancement of an existing 1.6 acre wetland has not been successful. Item A is required to bring the project into compliance with the MSSW permit. Items B and C are needed to bring the project into compliance with the CUP. All the conditions of the CUP must be met before any ground water can be withdrawn from the irrigation wells. Services for Amendment No. 7 will be performed on an hourly rate basis using rates established in the Agreement up to a not -to - exceed amount of $14,565. This, added to the current contract amount of $117,423, will result in a new contract amount of $131,988. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached Amendment No. 7. Funding is from Account 418-000-169- 018.00. 110 � � s Commissioner Adams led discussion regarding the reasons for the corrections and who was responsible for mistakes. Discussion ensued, and Public Works Director Jim Davis suggested deferring the item for one week until the designer - and appropriate staff can present more detailed answers to the Board's questions. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously tabled discussion of this item for one week when Staff will provide more details. REQUEST BY ROBERT CAIRNS TO CONSTRUCT STORM GROVE ROAD WEST OP OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY TO LATERAL "G" CANAL The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated April 4, 1994: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Direct SUBJECT: Request by Robert Cairns -to Construct Storm Grove Road West of Old Dixie Highway to Lateral "G" Canal RE: Letter from Robert Cairns to Jim.Davis Dated March 25, 1994 DATE: April 4, 1994 Robert Cairns, a property owner of 42.9 acres of land surrounded by the Hawk's Nest -Golf Course, is requesting that the County proceed to construct approximately 900' of Storm Grove Road (57th Street) between Lateral "G" canal and U.S. 1. The existing County right-of-way was purchased in 197% and when Hawk's Nest Golf Course was developed in the mid 19801s. An agreement was also established in 1985 for the developer of Hawk's Nest to fund the construction of 57th Street along the golf course frontage east of Lateral "G" canal. A letter of credit in the amount of $81,837.45 , which in 1991 was replaced by a mortgage on the property as collateral, was given to the County to secure the road construction funding. No bridge spanning the canal is being requested nor considered at this time. The Bent Pine Golf Club will not be affected. 111 APIA 121994 BOOK FA; X02 5m. 92 inUF 2,03 AVK 1;6 1994 ALTZMTIM ANS ANALYSIS The 42.9 acre Vero Sand Pines parcels have frontage on County dedicated road right-of-way. Funding for construction of 57th Street to the Vero Sands Pine parcels is available from the Hawk's Nest developer. The Vero Sand Pines developer has a 24' easement through the golf course, but this easement is not adequate to meet County development code requirements and a 20' wide road with utility accommodation, drainage, etc. cannot be built in a 24' easement. The easement would also disrupt the 11th and 18th holes of the golf course. The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Proceed with design and construction of that portion of Storm Grove Road east of Lateral "G" canal. This alternative would allow the developer to develop the Vero Sand Pines property and access a dedicated County right-of-way. The Hawk's Nest Golf Club contribution ($81,837.45) would be utilized and the agreement between the developer of Hawk's Nest and Indian River County would be implemented. The existing railroad crossing would be relocated to 57th Street. Alternative No. 2 Do not proceed with construction of Storm Grove Road east of Lateral "G" canal. The Vero Sand Pines property would be rendered essentially without adequate access, unless the 24' wide easement is approved for access. In addition, the Hawk's Nest road construction funds would remain unused. Alternative No. 3 Request the developer, Vero Sand Pines, to proceed to design the Storm Grove Road extension east of Lateral "G" canal and enter into a developers agreement which would make available the Hawk's Nest escrow funds for the project construction. County staff would assist the developer, but not manage the entire project. The Public Works Department would approve all design. Alternative No. 3 is recommended. Commissioner Bird led discussion regarding the relocation of the FEC Railroad crossing at Hawks' Nest and its effect on the residents. He was concerned because he recalled that the crossing was improved and developed by the original developers of Hawks' Nest. Commissioner Eggert was concerned because she is in favor of 53rd Street being our east -west roadway in that part of the county rather than Storm Grove Road, which is 57th Street. Director Davis pointed out that he needs more information from the county thoroughfare plan model before he meets with representatives of the FEC Railroad to discuss the crossing. The model is expected to be completed in about a month. 112 Commissioner Macht pointed out that we must decide if we are going to complete Storm Grove Road from Old Dixie to 58th Avenue, because that determination is necessary for the developing neighborhood from both community planning and engineering standpoints. He also pointed out that a railroad crossing is paid for and belongs to the people of Indian River County. Chairman Tippin predicted that we will have problems getting two railroad crossings so close together. Director Davis advised that it is possible to get crossings at 53rd and 57th Streets because the North Relief Canal severs the land mass, and we cannot completely cut off Hawks' Nest and leave them landlocked. Further discussion ensued regarding the railroad crossing at Hawks' Nest. Commissioner Macht felt that the Board needed more information and he preferred to defer making a decision. Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins II explained the background of the agreement between the County and Vero Sand Pines, and the involvement of Hawks' Nest, but Commissioner Macht preferred to have all the details in writing to clear up the issues that were raised. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the.Board unanimously deferred this item until the county thoroughfare plan model is completed and staff presents more details. Attorney Chuck NeXinnon, of McKinnon Stewart Nall & McKinnon, representing the members of the Hawks' Nest Club, noted that the Board raised many of the issues that concern the owners at Hawks' Nest. He requested that he be notified of the consultant's report and that he be allowed to discuss the issues. REQUEST FROM ROBERT CAIRNS FOR COUNTY TO ACQUIRE ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY ALONG NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF BAYTREE BY SPECIAL ASSESSMENT The Board reviewed memo from Public Works Director Jim Davis dated April 4, 1994: 113 APR 19 1044 BOOK M BOOK 92 rn-295 APR 121994 TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Directo SUBJECT: Request form Robert Cairns for County to Acquire Road Right -of -Way along North Property Line of Baytree RE: Letter from Robert A. Cairns to Jim Davis Dated March 25, 1994 DATE: April 4, 1994 Approximately -135 acres of land are located between Sea Oaks and Marbrisa, that are currently undeveloped and have no connection to State Road AIA. The owners of approximately 110 acres (81%) of this land are petitioning the County to acquire a road right-of-way by special assessment funding as shown on the County Thoroughfare Plan. The tight -of -way (60' in width) would provide a connection for the subject property to State Road AIA, thereby releasing Jungle Trail`s demand to service traffic from over 1000 potential units. The County staff recognized this problem in :the mid 19801s, and designated certain "subdivision feeder" roads on the County Thoroughfare Plan. All, costs would be assessed to the benefitted property. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The alternatives are as follows: Alternative No. 1 Approve the request and authorize staff to begin survey and right-of-way negotiations. Once contracts are executed by the sellers, the County can prepare special assessment resolutions and conduct a public hearing to consider implementation of the right-of-way acquisition. An assessment roll would be prepared at that time. All costs would be assessed to benefitted owners, even if eminent domain is necessary. Alternative No. 2 Deny the request and either require the developer to independently acquire the right-of-way or approve access. onto Jungle Trail when development site plans are submitted. t� ylYi:A hp •int- Alternative No. 1 is recommended. No funding is to be considered at this time. 114 SEA OAKS PMS Ppm I P6 413 ! iky CA Z RNS TRUST 67 RES p TO RZVER AuT ��iovTLofo ' �,�,�d7 4ctl( I Pa�t�P/ P .dR 5 ow r 't&wool M 0.8 aa. y _ IftaN fs R 020 f0 RIVER b 3334 • ' %a. i A=RICO a_Tn MARZSA1 s �1 Z Rw Z N sas• 0 oc�AN ' a as sT duo to KIM aAY rn x ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the request from Robert A. Cairns and authorized staff to begin survey and right-of-way negotiations as set out in Alternative No. 1 of staff's memorandum. GIFFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AERATION MODIFICATION The Board reviewed memo from Utility Services Director Terry Pinto dated April 4, 1994: APR 12-1,994 115 I goo 9 207 APR l Z 1994 DATE: APRIL 41 1994 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRA' FROM: TERRANCE G. DIRECTOR OF PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMENP. . AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINE BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY VERVICES SUBJECT: GIFFORD WASTEWATER TREATMENT FACILITY AERATION MODIFICATION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -17 -CS BACKGROUND In the past five years of operation of the facility, the staff of the Department of Utility Services has noticed the high energy cost resulting from an inefficient type of aeration system (i.e., coarse bubble diffuser) used in the plant. Camp Dresser and McKee Inc., who have an agreement with the County for continuing wastewater services, evaluated all of our facilities to achieve the most economical operational cost. CDM's evaluation report concludes that replacement of the coarse bubble diffuser aeration system with a fine bubble system will produce a cost savings of approximately $17,000.00 per year, along with the installation of a recirculation pump and mixer. (See attached CDM report.) ANALYSIS The staff of the Department of Utility Services has invited three suppliers in the relevant trade to evaluate and submit proposals for staff evaluation. Three proposals have been submitted to the County and are as follows: Company Name Items Included in the Proposal Cost Envirex, Inc. Material plus freight of aeration system only Jacobs Group, Inc. Material plus freight and installation of aeration system and removal of the existing system, pump and mixer R.A. Litkenhuas Material plus freight, and Associates installation of aeration system, and removal of the existing system, pump and mixer ---------------------------------------------------- $65,000.00 75,973.00 69,843.00 After negotiating with each one of them, Camp Dresser and McKee has recommended R. A. Litkenhaus and Associates, as the best choice for the County. Envirex, Inc., is low, however, their submittal does not include the installation of the aeration system. Also, the pump and mixer material and installation are not included in the price. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Service Board of County Commissioners approve and execute A. Litkenhaus and Associates, to replace and system. 116 Services recommends that the the agreement with R. install the aeration ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the agreement with R. A. Litkenhaus and Associates to replace and install the aeration system at a cost of $69,843.00, as recommended by staff. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD PROPOSED RESOLUTION REGARDING UNFUNDED MANDATES ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 94-51 calling attention to the effect of unfunded mandates on local government and urging Congress to reduce these burdens on local citizens. RESOLUTION 'NO. 94-51 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CALLING ATTENTION TO THE EFFECT OF UNFUNDED MANDATES ON LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND URGING CONGRESS TO REDUCE THESE BURDENS ON LOCAL CITIZENS. WHEREAS, unfunded mandates on state and local governments have increased significantly in recent years; and WHEREAS, federal mandates require cities and counties to perform duties without consideration of local circumstances, costs, or capacity, and subject local governments to civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance; and WHEREAS, federal mandates require compliance regardless of other pressing local needs and priorities affecting the health, welfare, and safety of our citizens; -and WHEREAS, excessive federal burdens on local governments force some combination of higher local taxes and fees and/or reduced local services on citizens and local taxpayers; and WHEREAS, federal mandates are too often inflexible, one -size -fits -all requirements that impose unrealistic time frames and specify procedures or facilities where less costly alternatives might be just as effective • and 117 APR 12 1994 APIR 12 1994 RESOLUTION NO. 94-51 50oK 92 fau 2-09 WHEREAS, existing mandates impose harsh pressures on local budgets and the federal government has imposed a freeze upon funding to help compensate for any new mandates; and WHEREAS, the cumulative impacts of these legislative and regulatory actions directly affect the citizens of our county; and WHEREAS, the International City Managers Association, the National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities, and the U.S. Conference of Mayors, in conjunction with other state and local government representatives have begun a national' public education campaign to help citizens understand and then reduce the burden and inflexibility of unfunded mandates, beginning with a National Unfunded Mandates Day on October 27, 1993, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida endorses the efforts of national, state, and local organizations to fully inform our citizens about the impact of federal mandates on our government and the pocketbooks of our citizens; Section 2: We shall redouble our efforts to inform and work with members of our Congressional delegation to educate them about the impact of federal mandates and actions necessary to reduce their burden on our citizens; Section 3: We shall urge our citizens to support Congressional action that will bring about an end to federal unfunded mandates. 118 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Adams and seconded by Commissioner Eggert and, 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 Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 12th day of April, 1994. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY ITS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS By John W. Tippin, 'Chairman I DISPLAY ADVERTISING FOR PUBLIC WORKSHOPS . Commissioner Eggert reported that she received complaints that people cannot see the small legal notice for special workshops and she suggested that we insert a small display ad in the newspaper for major workshops. It was the consensus of the Board that we will advertise our major workshops in a display ad in the newspaper. There being no further business, the Board adjourned at 2:00 p.m. ATTEST: J. rton, Clerk 119 APR 12 1994 hn W. Tipphf,-tfiairmari 500K 940 f -mu 71®