The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About6/13/1995= MINUTEffl1kTTACI-IE17= BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TUESDAY, JUNE 13,1995 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (Dist. 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (Dist. 1) Richard N. Bird (Dist. 5) Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Carolyn K. Eggert (Dist. 2) John W. Tippin (Dist. 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board **************************************************************************** 41111M.113 1 Al "11151; IZ1,0T$T4 1 Ci 3. PLEDGE OF AT-LEGIANC - James E. Chandler 4. AMMONS to 4ERGENCY1TEMS 1. Item 13-A, discussion regarding the DEP Permit process on wetlands mitigation. 2. Item 13-E, inquiry regarding ex parte communications legislation. None 6. APPROVAL OF M iUT . A. Special Meeting of May 15, 1995 B. Regular Meeting of May 16, 1995 1 � �Y ►11 A. Received & Placed on File in Office of Clerk To the Board: * Report of Convictions, May 1995 * Delta Farms Water Control District Budget FY 1995-96 * St. of Fla. Operational Compliance Audit of the District Board of Trustees Indian River Community College, 7/1/93 - 6/30/94 9:05 A.M. 7. CONSENT AGENDA ( on 'd 1• B. Proclamation Designating June 19-25, 1995 As Amateur Radio Week C. State Revenue Sharing Application (memorandum dated June 5, 1995) D. Request for Approval of Extension Addenda To Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Acqui- sition Agreements for Prang and Lost Tree Islands LAAC Sites (memorandum dated June 7, 1995) E. Award Bid #5070 / 58th Ave. Water Main (memorandum dated June 1, 1995) F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 (memorandum dated June 6, 1995) G. Semi -Annual Bond Review (memorandum dated June 1, 1995) �. 01 to) 04 � / : ►lu i �Y � I None 1. County Initiated Request to Amend the Future Land Use Element, the Housing Element, and the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan (memorandum dated May 30, 1995) 2. County Initiated Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan To Redesignate Approx. 36.5 Acres From M-1 to C/I; And to Amend the Comprehensive Plan To Redesignate Approx. 36.5 Acres From C/I to PUB (memorandum dated May 31, 1995) 3. County Initiated Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 298 Acres From M-2 and C-2 to C-1, and to Rezone from RS -1 and RM -6 to CON -1 (memorandum dated May 22, 1995) wnTmornriam 4. Wabasso Industrial Groves, Inc., and Others Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 15 Acres From C/I to M-1, And to Rezone That 15 Acres From IL to RM -8; To Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 8.8 Acres From A-1 to CL; To Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 0.7 Acres From M-1 to CA, and to Rezone that 0.7 Acres From Rm-6 to CL; and to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 5.5 Acres From M-1 to CA, and to Rezone that 5.5 Acres From RM -6 to CG (memorandum dated May 30, 1995) 5. Countryside Mobile Home Park, Resolution #85-61, Between Realcor Assoc. And Indian River County (memorandum dated June 6, 1995) None i 1 1.Y 6 06 LI KI Y:: 1 tw2ji Willow Street Paving and Drainage Improvements (memorandum dated June 7, 1995) U D1 ': Z14 N 6 DI �Y IFA a u: 11Y :_ A. Community Development Citrus Highway Corridor Planning and Design Report (memorandum dated June 1, 1995) Purchase of Certain Equipment and Furniture for E911 Communications Center (memorandum dated June 6, 1995) WINNERT .� North Indian River County Library - Parking Lot Expansion (memorandum dated June 5, 1995) D. Leisure Services None None F. Personnel None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd 1 G. Public Works Built Resolution & Assessment Roll for Paving and Drainage Improvements to: 1 st Place Between 27th Ave. & 32nd Ave. In V.B. Homesites S/D (memorandum dated May 30, 1995) H. Utilities- 1. tilities-1. Artificial Wetland Project Additional Services (memorandum dated June 1, 1995) 2. Water Main Replacement Project - Heritage Estates / Colonial Terrace (memorandum dated June 6, 1995) 3. North Beach R.O. Plant - Underground Fuel storage Tank Removal and Replacement (memorandum dated May 9, 1995) 4. Emergency Water Main Relocation 43rd Ave. And 5th St., SW (memorandum dated June 6, 1995) 12. COUNTY ATTO NF.Y None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Kenneth R. Macht B. Vice Chairman Fran B Adams C. Commissioner Richard N. Bird D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggee E. Commissioner John W Tippin 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS A. Emergency Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District 1. Purchase of Property North of Landfill (memorandum dated May 25, 1995) 2. Certificate of Substantial Completion (memorandum dated May 25, 1995) 1 1181-1401u I WO 11 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 x408 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. BOOK 95 PA441 June 13, 1995 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John W. Tippin. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and P. J. Jones, Deputy Clerk. Chairman Macht called the meeting to order, and Administrator Chandler led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Macht requested the addition of Item 13-A, discussion regarding the DEP permit process on wetlands mitigation. Commissioner Tippin requested the addition of Item 13-E, an inquiry regarding ex parte communications legislation. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously added the above items to the Agenda. APPROVAL OF AI NUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 15, 1995. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of May 15, 1995, as written. JUNE 139 1995 1 The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 1995. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 16, 1995, as written. CONSENT AGENDA A. Reports Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the Board: 1. Report of Convictions, May, 1995 2. Delta Farms Water Control District Budget FY 1995-96 3. State of Florida Operational Compliance Audit of the District Board of Trustees, Indian River Community College, 7/1/93-6/30/94 B. Proclamation Designating Tune 19-25. 1995 as Amateur Radio Week PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Indian River County has more than 300 licensed Amateur Radio operators who have demonstrated their value in public assistance by providing emergency radio communi- cations; and WHEREAS, these Amateur Radio operators donate their services free of charge to the County, in the interest of the citizens of the county as well as the world; and WHEREAS, the Amateur Radio operators are on alert for any emergency, local -or worldwide, and practice their communication skills during the American Radio Relay League's Field Day exercise; and WHEREAS, this year the Amateur Radio Field Day will take place on June 24-25, 1995: JUNE 139 1995 2 F Sao 95' fACE343 NOW, THEREFORE; BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners that the week of June 19 - 25, 1995 be designated as AMATEUR RADIO WEEK in recognition of this Dated this 13 day of June, 1995, important preparedness exercise. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN VER COUNTY, FLORIDA �taG enneth R. Macht, Chairmarl C. State Revenue Sharing Application The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 5, 1995: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 5,1995 SUBJECT: State Revenue Sharing Application FROM: Ed Fry, Finance Director Attached to this memorandum is the State Revenue Sharing application that must be filled in, signed, and returned to the State by June 30, 1995. This application must be completed and filed on a timely basis in order for the County to receive State Revenue Sharing funds. For the 1994 fiscal year, the County received $2,104,814.00 in State Revenue Sharing funds. As of May 31, 1995, the County has received $1,486,951.00. JUNE 139 1995 3 The Sheriff and the Fire Chief have completed and signed the appropriate sections of the application. The County has complied with all of the requirements set forth in the application and has filed all reports that are required to be filed with the State. All sections of the application have been completed and the application has been signed by the Chief Fiscal Officer. requested Action Request the Board of County Commissioners to authorize the Chairman of the Board to sign the State Revenue Sharing application. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved an Application for Revenue Sharing, as recommended by staff . APPLICATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD D. Florida Communities Trust Acquisition Agreements for Prang and Lost Tree Islands LAAO Sites - Extension Addenda The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 7, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE: a\ca. Community Developu FROM: Roland M. DeBlois,T XICP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: June 7, 1995 RE: Request for Approval of Extension Addenda to Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Acquisition Agreements for Prang and Lost Tree Islands LAAC Sites It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of June 13, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS on May 23, 1994, the Board approved Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Conceptual Approval Agreements to cost -share acquire the Prang and Lost Tree Islands LAAC sites. In these two Agreements, the County opted to identify the FCT as the lead agency to undertake pre-acquisition activities and negotiations. These Agreements had an original expiration date of December 4, 1994; which date was extended to June 4, 1995 by subsequent addenda. Last month, staff requested second extensions to the referenced Conceptual Approval Agreements in order to allow completion of pre-acquisition activities (title report, boundary survey, appraisals) and management plan drafting prior to the agreements' expiration (see attached). The FCT Governing Board, at its meeting of May 19, 1995, approved the.requested extensions. Staff now requests that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached Addenda to Conceptual Approval Agreements which will extend the Agreements until December 4, 1995, for purposes of allowing completion of pre-acquisition tasks and conceptual management plans. JUNE 139 1995 4 Da©K 95 PAGE 345 Proiects Status As mentioned, the County opted to have the FCT take the lead in pre-acquisition tasks and negotiations relating to the Prang Island and Lost Tree Islands projects. An appraisal map of the Lost Tree Islands project has been completed, as well as a boundary survey of Prang Island(s). Appraisals of the Lost Tree Islands project are completed and are undergoing FCT sufficiency review. Appraisals of the Prang island(s) project will be forth coming shortly. RECONM=ATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached agreement addenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Addendum II to the Conceptual Approval Agreement, as recommended by staff. ADDENDUM IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD E. Bid #5070 - 58th Avenue Water Main The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 1, 1995: DATE: June 1, 1995 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Directors General Services FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manager SUBJ: Award Bid #5070/58th Avenue Water Main Utilities Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bid Opening Date: May 24, 1995 Advertising Dates: May 3, 10, 17, 1995 Advertisement Mailed to: Twenty Six (26) Vendors Replies: Nine (9) Vendors Statement of "No Bids" -0- VENDOR BID TOTAL CORRECTED TOTAL Timothy Rose Contracting $117,929.00 Ft Pierce, FL Driveways, Inc $132,546.06 Titusville, FL Derrico Construction $133,135.00 Melbourne, FL Strickler Brothers $139,956.00 Ft Myers, FL JoBear, Inc $140,714.00 Palm Bay, FL JUNE 139 1995 5 Tri -Sure Corporation $141,175.00 Auburndale, FL Speegle Construction $143,000.00 Cocoa, FL Treasure•Coast Contracting $147,966.00 $147,965.00 Vero Beach, FL R.R. Contractors $150,532.50 Pt St Lucie, FL TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $117,929.00 SOURCE OF FUNDS Utilities Assessment Fund 472-000-169-231.00 ESTIMATED BUDGET $141,317.00 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Timothy Rose Construction as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting specifications as set forth ,l in the Invitation to Bid. . In addition, staff requests Board approval of the attached Agreement as to form, when all requirements are met and approved by the County Attorney. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Agreement and awarded Bid #5070 to Timothy Rose Construction' in the amount of $117,929, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD F. Budget Amendment 019 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 6, 1995: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 6, 1995 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 019 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director IV DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. The Main Library has received the Florida History Genealogy Vital Resources grant in the amount of $18,750. This budget amendment allocates the funding. JUNE 139 1995 6 Au Ll m®K 95 PAGE347 2. The Board of County Commissioners approved to contribute $2,500 each for the Fourth of July Celebrations for the City of Sebastian and the City of Vero Beach/Indian River County. 3. At their February 7, 1995 meeting, the Board of County Commissioners approved to amend the Supervisors of Elections budget in the amount of $6,847. (See attached memo) 4. This entry allocates the pass through grant funds received to date for the Federal Transit Administration Section 9 grant. Indian River County Council on Aging, Inc. is the subgrantee. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 019. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Budget Amendment 019, as recommended by staff. TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 019 of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Bair OMB Director DATE: June 6. 1995 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/FL. Genealogy Res. Grant 001-000-334-068.00 $18,750 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Main Library/Subscriptions Microforms 001-109-571-038.35 $18,750 $0 2. EXPENSE M.S.T.U./Reserve for Contingency 004-199-581-099.91 $0 $5,000 M.S.T.U./Recreation/City of Vero Beach 004-108-572-088.11 $2,500 $0 City of Sebastian 004-108-572-088.52 $2,500 $0 3. EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Supervisor of Elections 001-700-586-099.11 $6,847 $0 Reserve for Contingency 001-199-581-099.91 $0 $6,847 4. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/Section 9 Federal Tran.Co. 001-000-331-041.00 $81,870 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Council on Aging 001-110-564-088.32 $81,870 $0 JUNE 139 1995 7 G. Semi -Annual Bond Review The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 1, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director Vx-- ' FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Managel.� DATE: 1 June 1995 SUBJECT: Semi -Annual Bond Review Please consider this item for the Board of County Commissioners' June 13, 1995, consent agenda. Background Chapter 137.05, Florida Statutes, requires the Board of County Commissioners to review the bonds of County officers twice annually. The Board last reviewed the bonds on January 17, 1995. Analysis We have reviewed copies of the bond for each Commissioner and Constitutional Officer and, upon review, found them to be sufficient in keeping with the statutory requirements. Recommendation Following review, no further action is required of the Board. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the bond recommendations of staff. PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE HOUSING ELEMENT AND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION 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: JUNE 139 1995 8 Ic %1�nAO P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COI IN -1-Y OF INDIAN RIVER Pros Sour a( 9TATF, OF FWRIDA Aldose the undersigned authorityy personally appeared JJSrhuns,nm. Jr. who an nnlh says that ie is Ansiness Manager of len Vern Ilene -It Press-3ournnl.newspaper published at Vrm Hench is Indian Itiver County. Florid:A . that )y S1Ag_A-VAk?&#V,1A-_ .33"Ar'R/Z was published In sold mw.vspajx-r in the issur(s) 44 I Q� Sworn to and suller•rihed before me this of A.1) Z.day +� C. 4's rie� - 1i4 -- subleat Property my C1111010 r* " liushiess Mannger .loin 79. rIN7 : tfo. CC:I1CG77 RAImMAr: �p41.NJ41, nnrnMrvl'rf411:, QAr N 1 YnW her r ..«.....n l .p .opq A. 1411/ s1to• p, `G . Or PIR ' r____ ��a.a— 1(.x101517 +.�VOFERFLOP`� ;s' L-2 !Nfi nA1e1A11AC r4liWOM ff Boob 95 PAGE 349 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT I a tY — cn t-. - --� ^ltubleel Pnoverty Cn M-1 -- subleat Property ° Ei ;s' L-2 N I rf I + : i er Property cn [7 IL-2 < Ie" tr" Cil Irl M -f' i .:4 ; M-1 l , 'folk of - — _° C/1 The Board of County Comntssbners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal N change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and to Tchonas �te"" le of the Comprehensive Plop. A public hearMg on (Fro proposal will be held on aylane 13, 1995, a1 s05 o.m. M the County C2a,d sion Chambers of the County Admin- T-" uilding, located o1 1840 25th Street, Veroh, Florida. At IMs public hears toe Board el Cohrroly Commissioners will consider authorie hansmittal of these amendmlegnfs to the Stale Deparlment•of Conmmnlity AFfahs For their . The eamendments are 6r (:luded b ijees posed ordhlaehee entitled. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FU- TURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE HOUSING El- EMENF OF THE COMPREIMNSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 11-298 ACRES ALONG THE RJDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 91H STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; AMFNDINC THE FU= TUBE LAND 115E ELEMENT BY REDUCING THE 9TH STREET, S.W. IOSLO ROAD)14 74TH AVE- NUE COMMERCIALANOl/ST1IAl NODE FROM 1.1-630 ACRES TO t•/-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 31-95 COMMER- CIAL/NNDUSTRIAl. NODE FROM +1-732 ACRES TO 1-1-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU- TURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING if IF LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/45 ACRES AT TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE FROM CA TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LMA USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 0-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, +/-178 FFFT EAST OF U.S. 01, FROM M-1 TO CA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE [IEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 87ND STREET, } /-150 FEET FAST OF U.S* si FROM M-1 TO C/1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE IAN USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-5.5 ACRES NEAR It IF SOUTHEAST COR- NER OF C.R. 510 AND 46TH AVENUE FROM M -I TO CAI AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERAIMITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties mar 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 7pubitc of the Commmity Devel- opment DeparMbM.located an the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1188y4y0 251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the haus of 8,30 a.m. and 5100 p.m. on week - NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. Anyone who may wishro oppwoI any decision which may be erode at this meeting will need to that at a verbatim record of t e proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the oppeal will be based. Anyone who needs o special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Amerl- cans with Disabilitbs Ad (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 of bast 48 hours In ad- vances of moiling. (nc$pn River County Board of County Commissioners fly--s-Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. JUNE 13, 1995 9 7-71 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 30, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE N. obert M. I g, AIC Community Deveippment ftrector THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP ; •a Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachteaiow� Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 30, 1995 RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: CPTA 95-01-0184 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 13, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive pian. As required by state law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing. needs and desires. For those reasons, the county has initiated this amendment. After reviewing the plan, staff determined that several elements need to be revised. The affected elements are the Future Land Use Element, the Housing Element, and the Traffic Circulation Element. The proposed additions and deletions to the plan are shown on attachment 2. In this attachment, deletions are indicated by strike throughs, while additions are shown as underlined. Maps and Tables are labeled as either existing or proposed. On April 27, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed text amendment to the State' Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to DCA for their review. 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 tow va JUNE 139 1995 10 500K 95 PAGE 1351 the plan needing amendment and to present justification for the amendment requests. Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27 describes the intended uses of land within the PUB, Public Facilities, land use designation. The proposed amendment would modify Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27 to specifically state that certain landfill related activities are one of the uses permitted within the PUB land use designation. The proposed amendment is intended to ensure that all landfill related activities are consistent with the comprehensive plan. Housing Element Indian River County participates in the State Housing Initiative Partnership (SHIP) Program designed to increase the affordability of housing in the county. Housing that qualifies as affordable is defined in state law. A definition of affordable housing that is consistent with the state's definition has been incorporated into the county's Affordable Housing Incentive Plan. Currently, the comprehensive plan's definition of affordable housing differs slightly from the state's definition. The plan's definition includes the cost of utilities as part of the cost of housing, while the state's definition does not. The purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the comprehensive plan's definition of affordable housing to be consistent with state law and the county's Affordable Housing Incentive Plan, thus helping to ensure that the county can continue to participate in various state funded affordable housing programs. Traffic Circulation Element The proposed amendment to the Traffic Circulation Element is to: • update the data and analysis, Table 4.1, and Policy 2.1 to reflect the best available data; • update Policies 8.3 and 8.5 to reflect the formation of -the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO); and • incorporate the proposed Citrus Highway on the County Future Traffic Circulation Map and in the Recommended Roadway Needs Plan. - Data and Analysis, Table 4.1, and Policy 2.1 The Comprehensive Plan's Traffic Circulation Element defines minimum roadway levels of service (LOS) based on several sources of data. One of those sources is the Florida Department of Transportation's (FDOT) Generalized Daily Level of Service Maximum Volumes for Florida's Urban/Urbanized Areas. Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.1 provides that data. Policy 2.1 determines how that data will be used to calculate roadway capacities. Since the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, FDOT has revised that data. Therefore, one purpose of the proposed amendment is to modify the Traffic Circulation Element's data and analysis, Table 4.1, and Policy 2.1 to reflect the latest and best available data. Another purpose for these revisions also deals with Presently, LOS standards differ between state roads roads. The proposed amendment to Policy 2.1 will county using the state road LOS standard for all JUNE 139 1995 SOS standards. and non -state result in the county roads. This revision reflects the similarity between state and county roads in terms of roadway design and capacity. - Policies 8.3 and 8.5 Another change affecting the Traffic Circulation Element has taken place since plan adoption. Due to population growth, a portion of the county now meets the definition of an urban area and, therefore, is now served by a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO). For that reason, another portion of the proposed amendment is to modify Traffic Circulation Element Policies 8.3 and 8.5, dealing with coordination between governments at all levels, to reflect the existence and activities of the MPO. - Citrus Highway (County Road 609) The Citrus Highway is a proposed two-lane roadway to be located within a corridor -traversing Martin, St. Lucie, and Indian River Counties. Beginning at S.R. 710 (the Beeline Highway) in Martin County and extending north through St. Lucie County to C.R. 510 (Wabasso Road) in Indian River County, the highway is to provide a roadway to serve large citrus hauling trucks traveling from groves to packinghouses and from packinghouses to markets. It is anticipated that the diversion of this heavy truck traffic will relieve present and projected congestion on U.S. 1 and several east -west corridors (e.g. S.R. 601 S.R. 68, and S.R. 70). ° Citrus Highway Amendment History The fact that the Citrus Highway was included in FDOT's Florida Transportation Plan, but not in the county's comprehensive plan, was first identified by the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the agency which reviews. the plans of state agencies as well as local governments. In an August 14, 1992 letter, a copy of which was sent to county planning staff, DCA notified FDOT that the Citrus Highway was not included in Indian River County's Comprehensive Plan. In response, the county initiated an amendment in January 1993 to update its comprehensive plan to include the Citrus Highway. On April 22, 1993, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit that proposed amendment to DCA for their review. At its meeting of June 22, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners considered the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation and voted 5-0 to transmit that proposed amendment to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The county received that report on October 11, 1993. In that ORC report, DCA noted that a Corridor Planning and Design Report (CPDR) had not been completed. DCA's position was that the results of the CPDR were needed to support the justification for the Citrus Highway as well as the selection of a particular route. For that reason, the county withdrew the proposed Citrus Highway amendment. With the recent completion of the CPDR, staff has again initiated a request to incorporate the Citrus Highway into the county's comprehensive plan. The CPDR determined that the project. is justified and feasible. That report recommends 82nd Avenue as the best alignment for the Citrus Highway in Indian River County. JUNE 139 1995 12 F_ o Existing Conditions Presently, 82nd Avenue is a two-lane road classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. From the St. Lucie County line to 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road), 82nd Avenue has approximately 60 feet of public road right-of-way. South of Oslo Road, 82nd Avenue is not built, except for the southern 2800 feet along the eastern boundary of the Fly In Ranches Subdivision. Eighty-second Avenue is paved from Oslo Road to 26th Street, -and unpaved north of 26th Street. From Oslo Road to S.R. 60, 82nd Avenue has approximately 80 feet of public road right-of- way. From S.R. 60 to 69th Street, 82nd Avenue has approximately 30 feet of public road right-of-way. From 69th Street to C.R. 510, 82nd Avenue has no public road right-of-way, although there is some canal right-of-way that is used for public access. This segment of 82nd Avenue is programmed for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. Land uses surrounding 82nd Avenue consist mostly of agriculturally zoned citrus groves and vacant land. However, 82nd Avenue runs through, or along the border of, some residentially designated areas in the southern part of the county. Additionally, 82nd Avenue passes through commercial/ industrial nodes on 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and S.R. 60. A small percentage of the vacant land bordering 82nd Avenue may contain environmentally valuable scrub or pine forest. ANALYSIS Following a discussion of the consistency of the proposed amendments with the comprehensive plan, this section will present an analysis of the reasonableness of each of the proposed amendments. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN As part of staff's analysis, 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 only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F.S." The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify the actions which the county will take. in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability to these proposed amendments are the following policies and objectives. Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating any comprehensive plan amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that at least one of three criteria be met in order to approve a comprehensive plan amendment. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances. JUNE 13, 1995 13 M M Based on its analysis, staff believes that the proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Element meets the second criterion, while the proposed amendments to the Housing and Traffic Circulation Elements meet the third criterion. - Future Land Use Element When the comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the intended uses for the PUB land use designation were defined in Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27. Although the land containing the landfill was correctly designated PUB, Policy 1.27 did not specifically state that landfills were one of the intended uses in PUB designated areas. While the policy lists public utilities, which can include landfills, the best alternative would have been to specifically state that landfills and related activities are intended uses in the PUB land use designation. Therefore, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27's omission of landfills as an intended use. for the PUB designation constitutes an oversight in the approved plan. For that reason, the proposed amendment meets Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's second criterion and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. Housing Element With respect to the provision of affordable housing, several changes have occurred since comprehensive plan adoption. These changes include the introduction of several state funded programs to provide affordable housing. These programs use a specific definition of affordable housing that differs from the county's existing definition. To continue to participate in these programs, the county must amend its definition of affordable housing to match the state's definition. The creation of several state funded affordable housing programs and the adoption by the state of a definition of affordable housing that differs from the county's constitute a substantial change in circumstances. For that reason, the proposed amendment meets Future .Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Traffic Circulation Element ° Data•and Analysis, Table 4.1 and Policy 2.1 The proposed amendment addresses changes to data from FDOT's Generalized Daily Level of Service Maximum Volumes for Florida's Urban/Urbanized Areas. Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.1 is comprised of this data. Policy 2.1 also incorporates this data. Therefore, to be correct, Table 4.1 and Policy 2.1, as well as the data and analysis section, must be updated. The changes to data from FDOT's Generalized Daily Level of -Service Maximum Volumes for Florida's Urban/Urbanized Areas constitute a substantial change in circumstances. For that reason, the proposed amendments to the data and analysis, as well as to Policy 2.1 and to Table 4.1 of the Traffic Circulation Element,meet Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. ° Policies 8.3 and 8.5 Presently, Traffic Circulation Element Policies, 8.3 and 8.5, dealing with coordination of transportation planning, do not JUNE 139 1995 14 ma % raM4 r mention the MPO. The proposed amendment will revise these policies to include the MPO in all transportation planning. The formation of an MPO constitutes a substantial change in circumstances. For that reason, the proposed amendments to Traffic Circulation Element Policies 8.3 and 8.5 meet Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's third criterion and are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. ° Citrus Highway (County Road 609) Since the comprehensive plan was adopted, there has been a substantial change in circumstances regarding the Citrus Highway. At that time, there were no formal plans for a Citrus Highway. Subsequent to plan adoption, however, the citrus industry approached FDOT and representatives of Indian River, Martin, and St. Lucie Counties, regarding the need for a multi -county roadway to serve the citrus industry. FDOT and county representatives determined that such a roadway may provide multiple benefits by getting citrus trucks off other arterial roads and on the Citrus Road. Based upon the initial determination of potential benefits, FDOT programmed a CPDR study for the Citrus Highway. The completed CPDR has determined that the proposed Citrus Highway is justified and that 82nd is the best alignment in Indian River County. These actions constitute a substantial change in circumstances affecting the Citrus Highway and meet the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. At least one of the Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 criteria is met by each proposed amendment. Therefore, all proposed amendments are consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. Consistency with Other Comprehensive Plan Policies and Obiectives While Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is of special relevance to all comprehensive plan amendments, other objectives and policies are particularly applicable to the Housing Element amendment and the Traffic Circulation Element amendment dealing with the Citrus Highway. Housing Element Housing Element Objectives 1 and 4; and Policies. 1.5, 4.2, 4.4, and 5.1; as well as Economic Development Element Objective 8; and Policies 8.1 and 8.3; all dealing with the provision of affordable housing in the county are particularly applicable to the Housing Element portion of this request. By modifying the comprehensive plan's definition of affordable housing, the proposed amendment will ensure that the county can continue to participate in several state funded programs that promote housing affordability in the county. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with the referenced objectives and policies. - Citrus Highway (County Road 609) Objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan which are particularly applicable to this amendment are Traffic Circulation Element Policy 1.1, Economic Development Element Policy 3.4, Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6, and Ports, Aviation, and Related Facilities Element Objective 3. JUNE 139 1995 15 M Traffic Circulation Element Policy 1.1, Economic Development Element Objective 4, Future Land Use Element Objective 3 all relate to LOS standards on roads within the county. These policies and objectives state that the county must take steps to maintain a specified minimum level of service on all roads within the county. By removing many large, slow, citrus hauling trucks from other arterial roads, the Citrus Highway will increase the level of service of these roads. Therefore, this amendment is consistent with these comprehensive plan objectives and policies. Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county shall encourage expansion of existing businesses. The Citrus Highway will provide for the expansion of the citrus industry by providing more efficient movement of citrus from groves to packinghouses and consumers. Therefore, this amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy 1.1. Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6 states that the county shall encourage the FDOT to reallocate budgeted appropriations for traffic facilities in Indian River County. Since this amendment facilities the construction of an FDOT funded traffic facility in Indian River County by incorporating the Citrus Highway into the county's comprehensive plan, the amendment is consistent with Capital Improvements Element Policy 1.6. While the referenced objectives and policies, including Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3, are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed changes to the Future Land Use, Housing, and Traffic Circulation Elements are consistent with the comprehensive plan. ANALYSIS OF REASONABLENESS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Future Land Use Element Prior to the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, Indian River County did not have a PUB land use designation.- At that time the land containing the landfill was designated for agricultural uses. The fact that the PUB designation was given to the landfill when the plan was adopted indicates that such a use was always intended for the PUB land use designation. A major concern regarding landfills is compatibility with surrounding areas. In this case, the proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities between land uses. Currently, there are five tracts with the PUB designation in the county. The largest of these tracts, located in the southwest part of the county, is approximately 327 acres in size and contains the county landfill and a correctional facility. The landfill comprises approximately 227 acres of this site. In contrast, the largest of the four remaining PUB designated sites is approximately 66 acres in size, which is too small to support a landfill. Additionally, the existing and planned developments on the four smallest PUB designated sites indicate that they will not become landfill sites. Therefore, the proposed amendment will ensure the continuation of the existing landfill, but will not facilitate the conversion of other PUB designated areas to landfill sites. For this reason, the proposed amendment will not increase incompatibilities between land uses. MIAMW 17 JUM 139 1995 i6�' `c 7 By specifically stating that the landfill and related activities are uses intended for the PUB land use designation, the proposed amendment adds clarity and certainty to Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27. The proposed changes ensure that the landfill and related activities may continue and expand within the current PUB designated landfill area. Housing Element The proposed amendment is for minor modifications to the county's definition of affordable housing. The only substantive change to the definition would be the deletion of the cost of utilities from the cost of_housing. The adoption of the proposed amendment would result in the county and the state using a similar definition of affordable housing. For that reason, the proposed amendment works to ensure that the county can continue to participate in state funded affordable housing programs. Traffic Circulation Element. - Citrus Highway (County Road 609) After examining the economic, social, environmental, and physical impacts of the proposed Citrus Highway, the CPDR concludes that it is both needed and feasible. That report has determined that 82nd Avenue is the best route for that road in Indian River County. The proposed Citrus Highway will provide several benefits. First, it will serve the citrus industry by providing more efficient movement of citrus from groves to packinghouses and then to consumers. Second, the highway will remove many large, slow moving citrus hauling trucks from U.S. 1. Presently, there are not deficiencies on U.S. 1 in Indian River County. According to Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.7.3, however, the entire length of U.S. 1 in Indian River County and parts of Old Dixie Highway, 27th Avenue, and 58th Avenue will be deficient by 2010, if no improvements are made. The CPDR has addressed the environmental impacts of the proposed highway and determined that they would be minor. While the proposed route does not cross any wetlands, there would be a small impact on some native upland plant communities. - Changes to Data and Analysis, Table 4.1, and Policies 2.1, 8.3 and 8.5 Other proposed changes to the Traffic Circulation Element are minor. The proposed amendment will update Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.1 by replacing existing data with the latest and best available data. The proposed changes to Policy 2.1 will incorporate that new data into LOS calculations. Using the latest and best available data ensures accurate modeling for long range transportation planning. Roadway capacities derived from FDOT level of service tables are used in the roadway needs analysis described in the Traffic Circulation Element. In fact, FDOT capacities were used in the recent MPO roadway needs analysis, which the MPO will likely adopt in June 1995. In the next comprehensive plan amendment cycle (July 1995), staff will significantly revise Tables 4.7.1, 4.7.2 and 4.7.3 and the data and analysis section to reflect the MPO's adopted Long Range Transportation Plan and the use of the revised LOS standards. JUNE 139 1995 17 M M M The proposed changes to Policy 2.1 will provide for the use of state road LOS standards for all county roads. That change reflects the fact that state and county roads are designed and operate similarly. Additionally, the proposed change will increase efficiency in administration. Finally, changes to the Traffic Circulation Element involve policies 8.3 and 8.5. The intent of these policies is to ensure intergovernmental coordination in transportation planning in the county. The proposed changes work to accomplish that task by incorporating the formation of, and the existing transportation planning responsibilities of, the MPO into these policies. CONCLUSION The proposed amendments will enhance the plan by updating the Housing and Traffic Circulation Elements to reflect new conditions and information. .The proposed changes to the Future Land Use Element add accuracy and clarity to the comprehensive plan. Also, the analysis demonstrates that these amendments maintain the plan's internal consistency. For these reasons, staff supports the adoption of the proposed amendments. Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment. Director Keating advised there are three sections to this amendment to the Comp Plan: (1) the Land Use Amendment which would amend the allowable -activities under the PUB (public) category to specify that landfill activities are allowed; (2) the Housing Amendment which would change the definition of affordable housing to correspond with definitions used by the State and SHIP; and (3) the Traffic Amendment which would (a) reflect the formation of the MPO Advisory group, (b) change the roadway level of service determinations, update the revisions of the State's minimal roadway capacity with all roadways to be assessed under the State road categories; and (c) incorporate the proposed citrus highway corridor on the County's thoroughfare plan. All three amendments contain minor text changes only. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-68, approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. JUNE 139 1995 18 Bou 95 PAGE 358 F - BOOK 95 PAGE -359 RESOLUTION NO. 95-68 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January, 1995 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 27, 1995 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 13, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Future Land Use Element, the Housing Element, and the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. JUNE 139 1995 19 RESOLUTION NO. 95-68 The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Tippin and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 13th day of June 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IND:einneth R CO LORIDA BY: R. Mac t, Chairman ATTEST: effre�yK ton, Clerk PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 36.5 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 36.5 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB The hour of 9:05 A.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows• JUNE 139 1995 20 BOOK , 95 pAG • O P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 t,'011N'1'Y OF INDIAN RIVEIt Prrgo 3ournal STATR Ur rLoni DA flo4ore the untleraigned authority pens. nally npltenretl J.J. Srhttntann. Jr. who on antis says that lie Is Tfusittess MannKrr of the. Vera Ifenrh Pula-Journsil, a newsliaper lntblisluni at Vero !teach in Indian Inver County. Florida. that was publislietl in said�neewspaper In the issuc(s) AN 19A) "A: Rworn to anti suirwribed before me this tiny of AJ) °SPF` C• `Ic '•. 'S qb JL • myelslw twoes : .Las/ 79.1997 tb. CC.'M14r 7t nA•. A/ w. lt•1 .' liusinnm Wringer MAMMA n •a91N A N . W.IA/1V VI INV x:, stA/NIk,.L. U, C-—- 1 P.k-o7a.Inti f r,re•..w. Ib.rN.w (t.iall../7 s►a.,,r naalAlur. mylArx/* BOOK 95 PACE 361 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT • • r — M-1 9uftlecl Property e»r Cn , «fit» O r:/M, IL-2 -2 N Subkct Amw C/fiI tri ail M-f:a, ' M-1 j L`/1 The Board of County Commissbners of Indian River Count', Florida, will consider a propose) to charge Aro use of land wMlln the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and to Mie text of dro Comprehensive Pion. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tues ,lune 13, 1995, at 105 a.m. M the County Commission Chambers of thg County Admin- istration Building. located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Coo-- ssioners will consider authorizing dee transmitted of these amendments to he State to d s on l• of erar pity Affairs for their review. The proposed amendments are in- tAN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FU- TURE (AND USE ELEMENT, ITE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE HOUSING EL- EMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAPD USE DESIGNATION FOR 11-298 ACRES ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 9TH STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; AMFNDMG THE Ftk TUBE LAND USE ELEMENT BY REDUCING THE 9TH STREET, S.W. IOSLO ROAD) & 74TH AVE- NUE COMMERCIAUMDUSTRIAL NODE FROM 1./-630 ACRES TO +1-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 6 1-95 COMMER- j CIALANDUSTRIAt NODE FROM +1-732 ACRES TO t1-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU - TORE LAND USE ELEMENT BY OIANG94G TI IF LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR f-1-15 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST COINER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE FROM C/1 TO M -I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAPD USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, +A178 FFFT EAST OF U.S. 01, FROM M-1 TO C11; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +A0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SDE OF 87ND STREET, 11-150 FEET EAST OF U.S: til FROM M -I TO C/1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAPD USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE t" USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-5.5 ACRES NEAR TIE SOUTHEAST COR- NER OF C.R. 510 AND 46TH AVENUE FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties tlppear and be heard of the public hearing regarding the approval of 'these proposed C==Plon Amendments. The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public of the Community Devel- opment Department,locafed on the second Poor of the County Admirdslrotion Building located at d1�8y4s0, 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8+30 a.m. and SOD p.m. on week - NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. Anyone who may wish to=l any decision which may be made of this meeting will need to ensure drat a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based. Ariyorro wIro needs o special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Amed- cans wide OhabiRNes Ali (ADA) Coordinator of 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in ad- vance of meeting. Indipn River Cotmly . Board of County Commissioners By--s-Kenneth R. Mach#, Chairman Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use and rezoning the property. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end, but the applicant can resubmit after one year. JUNE 139 1995 21 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 31, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D3PWTMENT HEAD -CONCURRENCE Obert M. at g, A Community De pmen Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP 4g -j2 Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Plane r, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 31, 1995 RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 36.5 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 36.5 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LURA 95-01-0188 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 13, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to redesignate approximately 36.5 acres from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, while simultaneously redesignating 36.5 acres from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, to PUB, Public Facilities. The subject tracts are under separate -ownership. In contrast to node expansion, this request will not increase the amount of C/I designated land. Rather, this request will slightly reconfigure- two nodes. The proposed amendment will shift 36.5 acres from the 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) & 74th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node, to the S.R. 60 & I-95 Commercial/ Industrial Node. The property to be redesignated to C/I is located at the northwest corner of S.R. 60 and 98th Avenue: This property, owned by George Lambeth, will be referred to as Subject Property 1. The request involves 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. A concurrent rezoning of Subject Property 1 is not part of this request. - The property to be redesignated to PUB is located between 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and 13th Street S.W. (Kelly Road), on the east side of the 82nd Avenue right-of-way. This property, acquired by Indian River County's Solid Waste Disposal Districtw(SWDD) in 1994 for future landfill expansion, will be referred to as Subject Property 2. The request involves changing the land use designation of this tract from C/I to PUB. A concurrent rezoning of Subject Property 2 is not part of this request. booK 95 PAC€ as JUNE 139 1995 BOOK 95 PACE 363 The purpose of this request is to redesignate Subject Property 2 to reflect its current public ownership, as well as to facilitate the development of an industrial park on and around Subject Property 1. The creation of such a park implements policies of the county's Overall Economic Development Plan and of the Economic Development Element of the county's comprehensive plan. On April 27, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-1 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 they voted to recommend transmittal of the request, several members of the Planning and Zoning Commission expressed concern over the possibility that Subject Property 1 could be developed with C/I uses other than an industrial park. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to DCA for their review. Existing Land Use Pattern - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 and adjacent -properties to the north and west are zoned A-1 and contain citrus groves. Land to the south of the site, across S.R. 60, is zoned CG, General Commercial, and contains vacant rangeland. Land to the east of the site, across 98th Avenue, contains the Vero Tropical Gardens subdivision. That subdivision was platted prior to the existence of zoning regulations in the county and is still mostly undeveloped. Land to the east of Subject Property 1, within 450 feet of S.R. 60, contains undeveloped piney flatwoods and is zoned CG. The balance of the land east of the site is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre) and contains scattered single- family houses. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 and properties to the north and east consist of citrus groves. Abutting the site on the west is a wooded area; the county landfill borders the site on the south. A CG, General Commercial, zoning district exists in the southeast corner of 82nd Avenue and Oslo Road. That district extends 700 feet east of the 82nd Avenue right-of-way and 200 feet south of Oslo Road. Approximately 1 acre of Subject Property 2 is within that CG zoned area. The remainder of Subject Property 2, as well as all surrounding land, is zoned A-1. Future Land Use Pattern -Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 and adjacent lands to the north and west are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county's future land use map. East of the site, land more than 450 feet north of S.R. 60 is also designated M-1. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. Land to the south, across S.R. 60, and to the east within 450 feet of S.R. 60 is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node. This designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. JUNE 139 1995 23 - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 and properties to the north, east and west, are also designated C/I. Properties to the south are designated PUB, Public Facilities, on the county's future land use map. The PUB designation is intended for public facilities and services. Environment - Subject Property 1 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 Flood Zone A, with a.presently undetermined minimum base flood elevation requirement. This indicates that the property is within the 100 year floodplain. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 is also a citrus grove.* No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. The site is not within a flood hazard area. Utilities and Services Water lines extend to both subject sites from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, while wastewater lines extend to the sites from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System —Subject Property 1 Both S.R. 60 and 98th Avenue abut Subject Property 1. West of I- 95, S.R. 60 is classified as a principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of S.R. 60 is a two-lane paved road with approximately 200 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of S.R. 60 is currently programmed for expansion to four lanes by 2010. The site also has access to 98th Avenue. North of S.R. 60, 98th Avenue is an unpaved local road. - Subject Property 2 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and 13th Street S.W. (Kelly Road) provide access to Subject Property 2. Oslo Road is a two-lane paved road with 60 feet of existing public road right-of-way and is classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Oslo Road is programmed for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. The portion of 13th Street S.W. that abuts the site is a two-lane unpaved road with 30 feet of existing public road right-of-way and is classified as a collector on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of 13th Street S.W. is programmed for expansion to 60 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. Currently, 82nd Avenue does not extend south of Oslo Road, although 60 feet of undeveloped public road right-of-way does extend from. - Oslo Road, south to I-95. Extension of 82nd Avenue south of Oslo JUNE 139 1995 24 DooK 95 FACE 364 BOOK 95 PAGE 365 Road is not programmed at this time. A comprehensive plan amendment that would designate 82nd Avenue as the route of the proposed citrus highway through Indian River County, however, is currently in the adoption process. That amendment would program 82nd Avenue, south of Oslo Road, as a two lane arterial road with 110 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. 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; and • potential impact on environmental quality. Discussion -of Node Reconfiguration - Standard of Review Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve an increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes. 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 no change in overall land use density or intensity. 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. Another consideration involves the purpose of the county's three C/I nodes along I-95. In contrast to other nodes which are located and sized based on market area, these nodes were established for economic development purposes to attract industry and manufacturing employment to the county. Since these nodes, in aggregate, serve the entire county, they function as one node with a countywide market area. For that reason, shifting land between these nodes without updating the projections, need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan is acceptable. JUNE 139 1995 25 M M M - Land Use Efficiency The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/ industrial nodes. The node containing Subject Property 1 has access to both S.R. 60 and I-95, while the node containing Subject Property 2 focuses principally on Oslo Road and has no access to I- 95. Several factors indicate that the demand for commercial/ industrial designated land is greater at the S.R. 60 & I-95 Node than at the Oslo Road Node. The most important of these factors involves the county's efforts to attract industry and increase employment. Businesses considering locating or relocating in Indian River County have repeatedly indicated a preference for the S.R. 60 & I- 95 Node. These businesses cite the central location, the proximity to other businesses and population, and the easy access to major roads. In contrast, the Oslo Road Node is relatively isolated from business and population centers, and has less access to major roads. Other factors also suggest that the proposed node reconfiguration is more logical and efficient than the existing configuration. These factors include: • population growth along the S.R. 60 Corridor and in the northern portion of the county; • recent developments in the S.R. 60 & I-95 Node (including a retail center that is anticipated to soon surpass DRI thresholds); • future landfill expansion; and • the land owners' proposed use of the subject properties. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is logical and rational, and will facilitate efficient land use. Concurrency of Public Facilities Both sites comprising this request are 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(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not increase land- use intensity are exempt from concurrency requirements. For the subject request, the amount of land to be removed from a C/I node is equal to the amount of land to be added to another C/I node. Therefore, this land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation changes would not increase the potential land use intensity that the sites could accommodate. JUNE 139 1995 26 BOOK 95 PACE 366 BOOK 95 PAGE 367 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 The proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 1. Since this property abuts commercially designated land to the south, the proposed redesignation would result in a continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. Industrial development on subject Property 1 would generate demand for nearby housing. While the properties to the north and west are currently -zoned and used for agricultural purposes, they are residentially designated and could be converted to residential uses. Currently under the same ownership as Subject Property 1, residential development on those properties would likely be planned to meet the housing needs of nearby commercial/industrial development. If those properties converted to a residential zoning or use, several LDR provisions would work to mitigate the potential impacts on those properties from industrial development on Subject Property 1. One of those provisions would require that, in conjunction with industrial development of Subject Property 1, a Type "A" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque feature would need to be installed along its northern and western borders. Additionally, at ±37 acres and ±38 acres respectively, the size of the parcels north and west of Subject Property 1 indicates that, if warranted, additional buffering and/or separation can be added. The primary impacts of industrial development on Subject Property 1 would be on the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision along the east side of 98th Avenue. Despite being platted in 1960, this subdivision remains largely undeveloped. There are -also several factors that indicate that industrial development on Subject Property 1 would not be incompatible with residential development in the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision. In contrast to the properties to the north and west of Subject Property 1, the Vero Tropical Garden properties are relatively small in size and, therefore, do not have the option of providing additional buffering. They do, however, have the advantage of an additional 100 feet of separation due to canal and road right -of= way. LDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts on these properties from industrial development on Subject Property 1 include a Type "A" vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque feature, and a required 25 foot front yard. To minimize the mixing of residential and commercial traffic, access to industrial development on Subject Property 1 would be required to be from S.R. 60. Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as well as landscaping of parking lots, and open space. For these reasons, increase potential Subject Property 1. ,JUNE 139 1995 M staff feels that the proposed amendment will not incompatibilities associated with development of 27 M -Subject Property 2 Because development in the area is dominated by the landfill, agriculture, and various industrial uses, impacts on surrounding property is not a major concern for this.property. The impacts of development of Subject Property 2 are anticipated to be similar under either the existing C/I or the requested PUB land use designations. The most likely use of the site, under the requested PUB land use designation, is for landfill expansion. Some activities associated with commercial/industrial uses are also associated with public facilities uses, particularly landfill uses. Examples of such uses include heavy equipment operation, repair, and storage. In fact, in terms of impacts on surrounding areas, there is sometimes no difference between landfill uses and C/I uses. For these reasons, staff feels that Subject Property 2's proposed land use designation would not increase potential incompatibilities with surrounding areas. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments.must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future'Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their.densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutiny. In this case, the subject request is for a minor node reconfiguration. With respect to Policy 13.3, staff feels that the proposed land use amendment meets the policy's third criterion. For typical JUNE 139 1995 28 BOOK 9 R 5001 95 PAGE -369 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 owners' _ expectations for use of their properties and to overall land use efficiency. As noted previously, the county recently purchased Subject Property 2 for future landfill expansion. Since such a use does not require a C/I land use designation and because there is a demand for the C/I designation on Subject Property 1, the proposed node reconfiguration would increase overall land use efficiency. Staff's position is that the purchase of Subject Property 2 for future landfill expansion constitutes 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 1.17 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17 states that the industrial land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for manufacturing, assembly, materials processing, and similar uses. Fronting a major road, adjacent to C/I designated land, and within the urban service area, Subject Property 1 is appropriate for industrial uses. The proposed amendment would allow industrial development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.17. - 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 S.R. 60 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 - JUNE 139 1995 29 M M 7� 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 removes an equal amount of land from one node as is 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. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27 states that the Public Facilities designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for public facilities and services. Since Subject Property 2 is within the urban service area and is programmed for public facility use (landfill), the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27. - Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county shall encourage the attraction of new industries and businesses, including clean "high tech" industries. The proposed amendment will move C/I designated land from an area to be developed with public uses to an area that is attractive to clean "high tech" industries. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy 1.1. - Economic•Development Element Policy 6.2 Economic Development Element Policy 6.2 states that the county shall evaluate the configuration of nodes to ensure they can properly provide for growth. Since the proposed amendment reconfigures the two subject nodes to better provide for growth, the proposed amendment implements Economic Development Element Policy 6.2. 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 Since both subject properties are presently used for groves and therefore have been disturbed, development of those sites under either the existing or the requested land use designations would have no significant negative environmental impacts. JUNE 139 1995 30 Do®K 95 PAGE 370 BOOK pAGE.171 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. The proposed changes increase land use efficiency and implement economic development policies without increasing the amount of C/I designated land. For these reasons, staff supports the request. RECONMENDATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment. Director Keating reviewed the proposed amendment and advised that the 36.5 acres SWDD recently purchased for expansion of Landfill wi11 be redesignated from C/I to PUB. The George Lambeth 36.5 acre property in the SR -60/I-95 commercial node will be redesignated from M-1 to C/I. Staff has worked with the Council of 100 and the Chamber of Commerce regarding a commercial/industrial park and it was determined that this node is the most desirable area for such a park. This property is in the urban service area and will expand the commercial -node. There will be no rezoning at this time and the County -owned property will retain its agricultural zoning. Staff felt that a concurrency analysis was not necessary at this time as this is a reoriented use only and does not change the overall density of the node. Commissioner Eggert wanted to assure north county residents that the County is processing ways to meet requests from that area for expansion. Commissioner Adams questioned how the property was chosen and why the County initiated the process. Director Keating explained that usually the applicant owns both pieces of property; however, in this case the County and the Council of 100 had diligently searched for an appropriate property and a willing owner to meet all the criteria in becoming a portion of the Commercial/Industrial Node. Commissioner Eggert commented that this action will meet the objectives of the Economic Development Plan. Chairman Macht felt this is a great idea and certainly meets the objectives the Board had in mind when it made the financial commitment to extend the utility lines to the node. He expressed his hope for greater employment opportunities to be occasioned by the hoped-for development. JUNE 139 1995 31 M M M The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Sam Culberson of 736 Eugenia Road advised that he owns some land across SR -60 and favors the office/ industrial park. Mr. Culberson had no problem with the zoning but wanted to express a concern. He and his neighbors have approximately 92 to 95 acres available within the node area with approximately 800 feet fronting on SR -60 and there is no infrastructure in place for development. When the Chamber of Commerce tries to bring industry here, there should be some infrastructure to show without having to advise prospective purchasers there will be a wait of 1 to 2 years. They would like to see some progress with the roads and other infrastructure. Sam Rohlfing of 2310 98th Avenue advised that she is a County employee who took time off to attend the meeting. Mrs. Rohlfing read a letter signed by 4 families living on 98th Avenue: June 12, 1995 Dear Board of County Commissioners, This letter is written in the name of those of us who live along 98th Avenue, across the street from what is being considered for a zoning change, via a change in the COMP Plan, to be re -zoned C/I in order to build an industrial park. Although at the initial P and Z public hearing Thursday April 27, the ultimate planned use of this property was not "officially" to be mentioned, it was, most specifically mentioned: the owner and developer, as well as Chamber of Commerce Executive. Director and other Chamber representative, were on hand in support of the ultimate use of this parcel as an industrial park - a project Mr. Norton said had been planned for years, while an appropriate site was being sought. At that meeting I, Sam Rohlfing, voiced concern that such a development would significantly impact the living conditions and quality of life of those' of us who currently reside along the east side of 98th Avenue. During that initial hearing, the property on the east side of 98th was described, by Planning Staff, as an -"undeveloped, vacant -subdivision." No mention was made of the fact that several families actually do reside there. We feel this was a misrepresentation of the status of the "undeveloped" subdivision, Vero Tropical Gardens. While, technically, the subdivision is undeveloped, nevertheless, there are families who own land and have built homes there, and who now face so -far unknown impact from the hoped-for eventual use of the property in question. It istour understanding. that, begause Indian River County already has sufficient acreage designated C/I, a "swap" must be accomplished in order to re -zone this property.and change the Comp plan. We who live along 98th Avenue have questions about how this requested change will affect our`home$ and our lives. We have families, children, pets. We moved, some of us as 'long as 9-10 years ago, to this area because it was away from everything;•because it was.country, because our children and pets could have a bit of space to run and be safe; because there was no noise from nearby business, no*dust from commercial traffic, no bright lights to block out our view of the night sky. JUNE 139 1995 32 dooK PAcE3 ( BOOK 95 PACE 373 We now wish to know how you, the County Commission, will be.able to help us maintain our quiet, humble, country lifestyle; we don't have money to back our desires and concerns, but we do have rights as citizens and as residents with homes and families. How will this affect our' -property values? Will you ensure that -there will be acceptable buffers between our homes and front yards and heavy industrial activity? Will. we be required to pay for road paving and/or other such "improvements," whether we want them or not? Can we be assured that our road will not be used as an access road for the industrial park? ,.Whi;le ;we are realistic. enough.. -to assume,:thi,s.:project, backed as it is by great ;political desirability, the Chamber of Commerce, the future good health pf .M.1p county's tax .base, and 1ots • of,,Rwney.,�:..wi11. be successful, we stili hope to make you aware enough of our existance that you will do what you can, and urge these developers and planners to do what they can, to ensure this 4. pFojert will .be. „- right,;ir.Qm tY�e..sta�t -.,a .gopd ,neighbor.- . , ..,fit. was a] so mentioned .a.t.. th*_• April;;27 . meeting: ,tha.t•, • even;; though the cdrren.ot request' is only to'change a few acres,*that the entire grove area is a couple of h4!jdred acres which..ie already. be;ng:.planned;;as A. very,..1arge:,.industrial park.* Does this mean it could all be turned into:a Holiday Inn and fast food restaurants?.:. We ask for your protection. Please don't let us be completely forgottten.. in. this.. sweeping;, plan.. Si ere , S m„ Rohlfing a S tt Ellis, 2310 9&th .Avenue ~1 R. o e- Luc s an�ael Luc�2200 98th Ave. es Blown th Ave (Marg ret Chir, 2190 98th Ave. Mrs. Rohlfing then inquired whether she and her neighbors would have to pay for roads for this development and whether 98th Avenue would be used as an access road for an industrial park. Chairman Macht questioned staff as to a transition zone from the industrial property to the residential property. Director Keating advised that development might be beneficial to these property owners because access for the industrial park will be SR -60. Also, staff is working on the SR -60 corridor plan which could include recommendations forresidential/commercial buffers. Linda Lindsey of 2195 47th Terrace, representing the Vero Beach -Indian River County Chamber of Commerce, advised she has worked with the property owners and the owner of the property to be redesignated is the only one so far to express an interest in the development. She emphasized that the type of park they are interested in would be very attractive and upscale. Dana Howard of 2055 DeLeon Avenue, representing the Council of 100, advised that this is not really a design at all but a very preliminary proposal. He is a past chairman of the Council and has JUNE 139 1995 33 M 1 worked with the committee for 4 or 5 years but they have not had a landowner who expressed any interest in such a project. The Council is certainly in favor of the redesignation. Commissioner Eggert emphasized that transmittal to the DCA for their comments does not mean the project has been approved, although she is certainly in favor of such a project in that general area. This is simply the first step. Commissioner Bird felt all the safeguards are not yet in place but this is only the f irst step in a long approval process. He believed there must be a certain amount of trust and faith and we are dealing with a family who has been here a long time and whose word can be accepted. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-69, approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. RESOLUTION NO. 95- 69 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. _ WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 1995 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 27, 1995 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 5 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and JUNE 139 1995 34 Boo 95, FACE 374 Boa 95 PAGE 375 RESOLUTION NO. 95-69 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 13, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 36.5 acres located at the northwest corner of 98th Avenue and S.R. 60 from M- 1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node; and to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 36.5 acres located on the south side of Oslo Road, east of 82nd Avenue, from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, to PUB, Public Facilities. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Tippin and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 13th day of June 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: N enneth R. Macht, Chairman ATTEST: /� Je rey n, Clerk JUNE 139 1995 35 PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY INITIATED _REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 298 ACRES FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1 AND TO REZONE FROM RS -1 AND RM -6 TO CON -1 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 (.OItN I'Y OF INDIAN RIVER .4PATIr OF FLORIDA Pt'oo r^� �01t1'nt1( Flefore the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J. Sehurna nr, Jr. who an oslh rays flint Ire is Buslow" Manager or lite Vern llear•h Prm-Journal, a newspaper published al Vern peach in Indian Itiver County, Florida; that NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT . ' . mIirZnir4wp- - 5.7 E was published in said newspaper in the iaaue(s) of -1: /99 0 ansa Sworn to soul ruitserlbell before nm this r•/I//w. day .OSt�P �:�oT�gr .c .laia?9. ons) , No =V07t n OF FLS DA..1) Hushoess Mitunper NAPA r: m-Iw a 11. Nrnntn r� es x:, std -0 1 k -1.l. Ur I:..wr,-uw 1 .p .k. ". r-st r__'.. n.N.. w W..,ro 0"-V 0111.0 an- coo - JAG - I n•JAG-I pus Subjeet Properly _ -- ei y•1 L-2 . : C/1 r L �1 1; � C/I , IL-2 ken sr ��t Worry w.. \ c^ :e j PV 4 NISubject \j�l Property Cn M-1 The Board of County Commissloners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to charge the use of lend within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and to � Mxf oI the Comprehensive Mon. A public hearing on Ilre proposal wi0 be held on a"d i�portmenf• of Commrmify Affairs (or their review. The proposed amendments are M - proposed ordhronce enNlled, AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FU. TURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE HOUSING EL- EMENT OF It* COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAID USE DESIGNATION FOR 11-2" ACRES ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 911H STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C- 1; AMFNDING THE FU= TUBE LAND USE ELEMENT BY REDUCING TIE 9TH STREFT, S.W. (OSLO ROAD) Nl 74TH AVE- NUE COMMERCIA1.11NDUSTRIAI NODE FROM 11-630 ACRES TO •F•1-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAM USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 NL 1-95 COMMER- CIAL/IdDUSTRIAI NODE FROM +1-732 ACRES TO f 1-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU- TURE LAND 115E FLEMENT BY CHANGING It IF LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES AT TIIE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE FROM CA TO M -I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, +1-178 fFFT EAST OF U.S. a1, FROM M -I TO CA; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE EIEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, 41-150 FEET EAST OF U.S: •1 FROM M-1 TO CA; AMENDING THE rUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAtZ USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-5.5 ACRES NEAR Tiff SOUTHEAST COR- NER OF C.R. 510 AND 46TH AVENUE FROM M-1 TO CA; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties Dory�r a ppeor and be heard of the public hearing regarding the approval of (hese proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan amendment oppkallons may be inspected by the "publk of the Communtly Devel- opmsM DepartmeM,located on the second Row of the County Administration Building located of d1�8y4s0 251h Street, Vere Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8130 a.m. and 5,00 p.m. on week - NO FINAL ACTION WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. 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 mode which includes the testimony and evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact rhe county's Ameri- can with Disabilities Act "Al Coordinator of 567-8000 extension 223 of least 48 hours In ad- vance of -astir, indipn River County Board of County Commissioners By--s-Kenneth R. Mochl, Chairman ,TUNE 139 1995 36 n SOOIC 95 PAGE 376 6 moi 95 mt 377 Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on the current land use amendment request. If the Board approves _the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use and rezoning the property. If the Board denies the- transmittal of an- application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end, but the applicant can resubmit after one year. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 22, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DTMENT HEAD -CON URRENCE 7J., , 49 -,�ff ofla Robert M. eat g, A Community Developmeitf Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S•11. Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 22, 1995 RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 298 ACRES FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1, AND TO REZONE FROM RS -1 AND RM -6 TO CON -1; PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LURA 95-01-0183 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 13, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a county initiated request to change the land use designation of approximately 298 acres from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) and C-2, Privately Owned Wetland and Barrier Island Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero density), and to rezone the property from RS -11 Single -Family Residential District (up to 1 unit/acre), and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density). Surrounding•the Florida Medical Entomology Laboratory north of 9th Street, S.E. (Oslo Road), and east of U.S. #1, the subject property includes over two miles of shoreline along the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon. On August 21, 1991, Indian River County and JUNE 13, 1995 37 the St. Johns River Water Management District purchased the subject property, with each party acquiring an undivided one-half interest. The subject property is generally known as the Oslo Riverfront Conservation Area. The County and the District have subsequently developed and adopted a management plan for this environmentally important site. That plan calls for the land to be used for resource management and passive/non-consumptive recreation. Furthermore, that plan states that in early 1995, the county will initiate a land use amendment and rezoning request to designate the property as conservation land. The purpose of this request, in addition to meeting that commitment, is to secure the necessary land use designation' and zoning to ensure that the subject property's environmental significance will be preserved, and that the future use of the site will be consistent with the site's management plan. On April 27, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6-0 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. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject request is to be transmitted to DCA for their review. Existing Land Use Pattern - Consisting primarily of wooded areas and wetlands, the subject property is presently undeveloped. As depicted in attachment 4, nearly the entire site is zoned RS -1 in the county zoning atlas. The exceptions are two small RM -6 zoned areas, abutting the South Vero Square Shopping Center, in the southwest portion of the site. North of the eastern portion of the subject property is undeveloped RS -1 zoned land owned by the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD). This. IRFWCD land is estuarine wetland associated with the South Relief Canal at its connection to the Indian River Lagoon. The northern portion of the site's western boundary borders the Vista Royale Condominium project. This development is moned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre). The portion of this development actually abutting the subject property consists of a golf course and a wastewater treatment plant. To the north of the west portion of the subject property is the Forest Park subdivision of single-family lots. This subdivision is zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/ acre). A tract of RS -1 zoned land consisting of a freshwater wetland has been preserved to meet Forest Park's stormwater retention and open space requirements. This tract is located between the subject property and the northern part of the subdivision. South of the Forest Park Subdivision, the western boundary of the subject property abuts the South Vero Square Shopping Center which is zoned CG, General Commercial District. The subject property has approximately 568 feet of frontage on Oslo Road, between the South Vero Square Shopping Center and the Entomology Lab (a research building associated with the University of Florida)•: In this area, land on both sides of Oslo Road, to a depth of 250 to 330 feet, is zoned RM -6. The remainder of the southern boundary of the subject property abuts RS -1 zoned land containing the Entomology Lab. JUNE 139 1995 38 800K 95 mu 95 fAu 379 Much of the Indian River Lagoon shoreline, including parts of the subject property, contains environmentally important estuarine wetlands that are currently zoned RS -1 in the county zoning atlas: According to county Land Development Regulations-(LDRs), however, estuarine wetlands are deemed to be zoned Con -2, Estuarine Wetlands Conservation District (up to 1 unit/40 acres). The boundaries of estuarine wetlands are determined by a site specific environmental survey.. Future Land Use Pattern Site specific surveys have determined that approximately 233 acres on the eastern portion of the- subject property are estuarine wetlands, and therefore, would be designated C-2. Conservation -2, on the future land use map. Other estuarine wetlands, including land along the Indian River Lagoon both north and south of the subject property, and the land between the Forest Park Subdivision and the subject property also retain the C-2 land use designation. The C-2 designation allows conservation use, recreational use,.and ,residential use with densities of up to 1 unit/40 acres on site. The western 65 acres of the subject property, the Vista Royale Development, the Forest Park Subdivision, the Entomology Lab, and land south of the subject property are designated M-2, Medium - Density Residential -2, on the future land use map. ' The M-2 designation allows residential use with densities of up to 10 units/acre. Land containing the South Vero -Square Shopping Center, west of the southwest part of the subject property, is designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, on the future land use map. The C/I designation allows commercial and industrial uses. Environment The subject property consists of ±40 acres of mature coastal/ tropical hammock, ±24 acres of scrubby flatwoods, 1 acre of isolated fresh water wetlands, and ±233 acres of impounded estuarine wetlands. Most of the wetlands on the site are within an "AE" 100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevation requirement of 5 feet NGVD. Most of the site's uplands, however, are not within a'flood hazard area. According to a plant inventory of the subject.property, conducted by the local Eugenia Chapter of the Florida Native Plant Society, the coastal/tropical hammock has obtained its mature, climax stage of growth. Some of the large live oaks dominating the canopy of the hammock are hundreds of years old, and are capable of living for many years to come. Approximately 20 rare plant species have been identified on site, including Simpson's Stopper, Coral -Root Orchid, and Whisk Fern. On the southwest corner of the property near Oslo Road and the South Vero Square Shopping Center, nuisance exotic Brazilian pepper has recently been cleared with county mitigation funds. Brazilian Pepper currently exists along impoundment dikes, while Australian pines exist on the property bordering the Forest Park Subdivision. The site is also home to many animal species, including several that are listed as threatened or endangered. Among the listed animals found on the site are the Eastern Indigo Snake, Gopher Tortoise, Atlantic Salt Marsh Water Snake, Bald Eagle, and Wood Stork. JUNE 139 1995 39 M M Besides the environmental characteristics, there are also archaeological resources on the site. A 1992 county -wide archaeological survey conducted by The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy, Inc. identified three significant intact archaeological sites on the subject property and on the adjacent Entomology Lab property. Utilities and Services Potable water is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, while wastewater service is available from the City of Vero Beach Wastewater Treatment Plant. Transportation System The property has access to U.S. #1 via a 100 foot wide strip between the South Vero Square Shopping Center and The Forest Park Subdivision. Classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of U.S. #1 is a 4 -lane road with approximately 160 feet of existing public road right-of-way. , This segment of U.S. #1 is programmed for expansion to 6 lanes by 2010. The property also has frontage on Oslo Road, west of the Entomology Lab. Although the future roadway thoroughfare plan map depicts Oslo Road, west of U.S. #1, -as an urban principal arterial roadway, the portion of Oslo Road adjacent to the subject property is a 2 - lane paved local road with approximately 100 feet of existing public road right-of-way. East of the Entomology Lab, Oslo Road is unpaved. There are no plans to expand this segment of Oslo Road. 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 and rezoning requests, this review is undertaken as part of the conditional concurrency determination application process. As per section 910.07 of the County's LDRs, 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 Conservation land use amendment requests, the most intense use JUNE 139 1995 40 BOOK 95 PAGE380, boo K 95 PAGE 381 (according to the County's LDR's) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: ±298 acres ±233 acres of C-2, Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres on site; TDR up to 1 unit/acre) and ±65 acres of M-2. Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) 3. Maximum Number of Units with Existing Land Use Designation: 883 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C-1, Conservation -1 (zero density) 5. Maximum Number of Units with Proposed Land Use Designation: 0 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 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. Compatibility with the Surrounding Area Under the requested C-1 designation,, -there will be no development on the subject property except for minor facilities associated with passive recreation activities. For that reason, the subject request will enhance compatibility between development on the site and surrounding land uses. If the site were to take advantage of the Planned Development (PD) and TDR provisions of the LDRs, the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation would be 883 units. Without the PD and TDR provisions, the -most intense use of the site under the existing land use designation would be 655 units. Furthermore, under the existing land use designation nearly all development would have to take place in the ±65 acre upland portion of the subject property. That portion of the site abuts the Forest Park single-family subdivision and the South Vero Square Shopping Center. In contrast, development under the requested land use designation would be limited to conservation uses and recreational uses. In terms of traffic, noise, and aesthetics, the impacts of these uses will be significantly less than development under the existing zoning district. •In fact, the recreational uses allowed under the requested zoning district would serve as an amenity for nearby residential uses. For these reasons, staff has determined that this requested zoning district will be compatible with the surrounding area. JUNE 139 1995 41 r Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment and rezoning 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 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 and rezoning decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment and rezoning 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 third criterion. On February 13, 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was in private ownership. At that time the site was correctly designated as M-2 and C-2. Since then, the site has been purchased for conservation purposes by Indian River County and the St. Johns River Water Management District. The' acquisition of the site by public agencies constitutes a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 states that the Conservation land use designations are applied to lands which play a vital or essential role in the normal functioning of ecosystems, or merit preservation as vestiges of once common county ecosystems. As an important part of the Indian River Lagoon Estuary ecosystem, the subject property meets both these criteria. For this reason, the ,.request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4. - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5 Future Land Use. Element Policy 1.5 limits the C-1 land use designation to publicly owned land with conservation and/or recreational uses. Since the site is publicly -owned, and uses will be limited to conservation and recreation, the property is eligible for the C-1 land use designation. For this reason, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5. JUNE 139 1995 42 Do®K 95 PAGE -382 r 95 .YALE 33 . - Future Land Use Element Objective 8 Future Land Use Element Objective 8 states that the county will preserve and protect archaeologically significant sites. The subject property contains three archaeologically significant sites. Since the proposed amendment works to ensure the preservation of the subject property, the request implements Future Land Use Element Objective 8. - Future Land Use Element Objective 15 Future Land Use Element Objective 15 states that the county shall encourage land uses which complement and enhance the Indian River Lagoon. By prohibiting development on the subject property, except for that which is associated with passive recreational uses, the proposed amendment will implement Future Land Use Element Objective 15. - Conservation Element Policy 6.3 Conservation Element Policy 6.3 involves the need to acquire and properly maintain Coastal/Tropical Hammock. While public acquisition of the Coastal/Tropical Hammock on the site has been accomplished, the proposed amendment will work to ensure the continued preservation of the hammock. For that reason, the proposed amendment is consistent with Conservation Element Policy 6.3. 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 The site's existing land use designations. offer limited environmental protections, particularly for the M-2 designated uplands. Residential development on the ±65 acre upland portion of the subject property would be required to preserve only 15 percent of the site, or 9.75 acres. In contrast, under the proposed amendment the entire site would be preserved, and development would be limited to conservation and compatible passive recreational uses. Although the site is publicly owned and could be developed as a public park und6r the existing land use designations and zoning districts, the proposed amendment provides the site with additional protection from development.. By prohibiting most types of development on the site, the proposed request will ensure that the environmental quality of the site will be preserved. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is anticipated to positively impact the environmental quality of the subject property. CONCLUSION Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, will cause no adverse impacts on the provision of public services, and will positively impact the environment. For these reasons, staff supports the request. JUNE 13, 1995 43 RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment. Director Keating explained this amendment regarding the Oslo Riverfront property which consists of tropical hammocks, freshwater wetlands, scrubby flatwoods and impounded estuarine wetlands. The amendment will change the land use to a conservation designation, representing publicly -owned conservation property, which would be in compliance with the management plan for this property. This would be the same designation as St. Johns Marsh in the western part of the county. Commissioner Bird inquired whether the County could get mitigation credit and create a land bank for taking this amount of land and removing residential zoning in order to preserve it. Director Keating advised that staff has been working toward this end. The Board recently approved a resolution to the Department of Transportation requesting that the DOT consider properties on the County's environmentally sensitive lands acquisition list for mitigation. He also stated that staff will be bringing a LAAC recommendation to the Board regarding the Wabasso Scrub property within the next several weeks. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service will then receive a request to consider the scrub on that property as mitigation for the CR -512 project. Commissioner Bird felt that governmental agencies should be giving the County mitigation credit as this is 65 acres of upland that we are taking out of the system. There should also be some credit given for the 650 residential units being taken -out of the system as we may need some flexibility in the residential section in the future. He also believed that credit should be given for the wetland being created out of old pastureland at the Landfill. Director Keating advised that staff keeps spread sheets with running totals on how much density has increased or decreased since the Comp Plan was approved. Commissioner Tippin felt the agencies involved should be told at every opportunity what this County has done and continues to do with regard to environmentally sensitive issues such as saving millions of scrub jays. He believed that bonuses should be given - to the County for the reduction by 600 to 700 units for human beings. Chairman Macht commented that each of these purchases is also removed from the tax rolls and added to the burden of the taxpayers. JUNE 139 1995 44 ®��s �� PAGE •J GOOK 9e5 FAGE 3$5 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-70, approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. RESOLUTION NO. 95- 70 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 1995 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 27, 1995 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 13, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S., 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. JUNE 139 1995 45 RESOLUTION NO. 95-70 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) and C-2, Privately Owned Wetland and Barrier Island Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation -1 (zero density) for approximately 298 acres located at along the Indian River Lagoon, north of 9th Street, S.E. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert and seconded by Commissioner Tiepin and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht AyP Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams AyP Commissioner Richard N. Bird AvP Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert AMP Commissioner John W. Tippin AyP The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly` passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 13th day of June 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, RIDA BY: �Qenneth R. Mac t, Chairman ATTEST: Zie,ffrey K. B , Clerk max �6 JUNE 139 1995 46 Fir- I BOOK 95 FACE 38 7 PUBLIC HEARING - WABASSO INDUSTRIAL GROVES, INC. AND OTIEINRS REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1. AND TO REZONE THAT 15 ACRES FROM IL TO RM -8; TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.8 ACRES FROM A-1 TO CL; TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 0.7 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CL; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 5.5 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG The hour of 9:05 A.M. having passed, the County Attorney announced that this public hearing has been properly advertised as follows: � �16�jn� P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 '01lfV9'V OF INDIAN RIVEII, 13011rit1l 'rA'rr, OF FLORIDA IA46rr the undersigned authority personally nplx•nml J.J. ehnmann, Jr. who on Oath says tint lac is Ausille" MannBer Of the 'ern Ilearh Press-.Irwrnal, a newspaper published of Vero Itench in :xllnn Itlw•r County, Florida; that gas publlsitlrl In srdd newspaper in the Issue(s) vorn to and sulsseribed before nm this /r%ON• day of A. ••gyp G. ' *COMM r"ib"s .io lllnlshx•ss Manager inn 79.Iglp i t . on CC.' M?p p 1101flMA41.R191�v:IM.W.t�Mt'�egx:. file a r u..w Ur P .k - 7q. loop +'p�'•.�°i'wx �G.� off! f +r...•.... lure.... r r.]n.•./7 s OF FW4404CA 44-" . w.s.r nuln+auc :.IyiAr JUNE 139 1995 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE AND CHANGE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT . M-1 -- 9nbpeel Properly ' glib - sps t I .2 — gP►oPeOy r` -;L a ' z ►PsLa r t C/1 t; C/1 M- 1-�•ip R. 'c M2 � !L - RT lostIO or C11 The Board of Connnty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of kind within the unincorporated po►tlom of Indian River County and to change Ale text of the Caonn1pprrehensive Man. A public hearing on the proposal wIR be held on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, a19r05 a.m. in the Conmty Commtssian Chambers of rhe County Admin- ishotion BuRdilg, boated of 1840 25th Sneer, Vera Beach, Florida. At Ihts public hearing the 8oa►d el County Cornmissbners wiA consider outhorizirng the lronsmiltol of these amendments to ihs Slats Depsartmsnt•ol Commnmiry Alfai►s for their review. Ttne proposed amendmenh are in- cluded 1n dne,p►oposed o.dinorncs errtitledr AN ORDNANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF It* FU- IFURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE HOUSING EL- EMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 11-298 ACRES ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 91H STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; AMFNDING THE FU-- TURE LAND 115E ELEMFNT BY RFDUCING THE 91'H STREET, S.W. (OSLO ROAD) d 74TH AVE- NUE COMMERCIAIIINDUSTRiAI NODE FROM 1.1-630 ACRES TO 1-/-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 8 1-95 COMMER- CIAL/RJDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-732 ACRES TO 1-1-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU- TURE LAND USE FLEMENT BY CHANGING It IF LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES AT TIIL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE FROM C/1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4./-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET. +1-178 FFFT EAST OF U.S. 0I, FROM M -I TO CJi; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ItEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUT14 SIDE OF 87ND STREET, 1 /-150 FEET EAST OF U.S: est FROM M-1 TO C/1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAtZ USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-5.5 ACRES NEAR Tf IL SOUTHEAST COR- NER OF C.R. 510 AND 46TH AVENUE FROM M -I TO CA; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Ingested parties may appear and be heard at the public hewing regarding the approval of d►sse proposed Comprehensive Man Amendments. The plan amendmeations may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel- opment Departmen1.1;=1 the second floor of the County Administration Building located at e188y4�0 251h Street. Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8t30 a.m, and 5t00 p.m. on week- N(S FBJ/U ACTION Will BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. Arryone who may wish to peal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure Ihal o verbatim record of the proceedings is made which Includes the lestfmorryand evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Amed- cans with Disabilities Ad (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 of least 48 hours in ad- vance of meeting' Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Kenneth R. Macht. Chakmon 47 �Subject Property of M-1 A M-1 -- 9nbpeel Properly ' glib - sps t I .2 — gP►oPeOy r` -;L a ' z ►PsLa r t C/1 t; C/1 M- 1-�•ip R. 'c M2 � !L - RT lostIO or C11 The Board of Connnty Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of kind within the unincorporated po►tlom of Indian River County and to change Ale text of the Caonn1pprrehensive Man. A public hearing on the proposal wIR be held on Tuesday, June 13, 1995, a19r05 a.m. in the Conmty Commtssian Chambers of rhe County Admin- ishotion BuRdilg, boated of 1840 25th Sneer, Vera Beach, Florida. At Ihts public hearing the 8oa►d el County Cornmissbners wiA consider outhorizirng the lronsmiltol of these amendments to ihs Slats Depsartmsnt•ol Commnmiry Alfai►s for their review. Ttne proposed amendmenh are in- cluded 1n dne,p►oposed o.dinorncs errtitledr AN ORDNANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF It* FU- IFURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT, AND THE HOUSING EL- EMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 11-298 ACRES ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 91H STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1; AMFNDING THE FU-- TURE LAND 115E ELEMFNT BY RFDUCING THE 91'H STREET, S.W. (OSLO ROAD) d 74TH AVE- NUE COMMERCIAIIINDUSTRiAI NODE FROM 1.1-630 ACRES TO 1-/-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 8 1-95 COMMER- CIAL/RJDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-732 ACRES TO 1-1-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU- TURE LAND USE FLEMENT BY CHANGING It IF LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES AT TIIL SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE FROM C/1 TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 4./-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET. +1-178 FFFT EAST OF U.S. 0I, FROM M -I TO CJi; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ItEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +1-0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUT14 SIDE OF 87ND STREET, 1 /-150 FEET EAST OF U.S: est FROM M-1 TO C/1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAtZ USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-5.5 ACRES NEAR Tf IL SOUTHEAST COR- NER OF C.R. 510 AND 46TH AVENUE FROM M -I TO CA; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Ingested parties may appear and be heard at the public hewing regarding the approval of d►sse proposed Comprehensive Man Amendments. The plan amendmeations may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel- opment Departmen1.1;=1 the second floor of the County Administration Building located at e188y4�0 251h Street. Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8t30 a.m, and 5t00 p.m. on week- N(S FBJ/U ACTION Will BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. Arryone who may wish to peal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure Ihal o verbatim record of the proceedings is made which Includes the lestfmorryand evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Amed- cans with Disabilities Ad (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 of least 48 hours in ad- vance of meeting' Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Kenneth R. Macht. Chakmon 47 Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on the land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 90 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use and rezoning the property. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end, but the applicant can resubmit after one year. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 30, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator AR NT HEAD CONC CE ber M. R a i , AIC Community Develoje nt UDrector THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICD (&-a Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Y'/y Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: May 30, 1995 RE: WABASSO INDUSTRIAL GROVES, INC., AND OTHERS REQUEST TO AMEND THE. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15 ACRES FROM C/I TO M-1, AND TO REZONE THAT 15 ACRES FROM IL TO RM -8; TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 8.8 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 8.8 ACRES FROM A-1 TO CL; TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 0.7 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 0.7 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CL; AND TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 5.5 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND TO REZONE THAT 5.5 ACRES FROM RM -6 TO CG. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 95-01-0199 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of June 13, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to change the land use designation and zoning of four separate tracts of land, each under separate ownership. The request involves redesignating an approximately 15 acre tract of land from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, to M-11 Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), while simultaneously redesignating approximately 15 acres from.M-1 to C/I. The land to be redesignated from M-1 to C/I consists of three distinct tracts. JUNE 139 1995 48 uo w4hs In contrast to node expansion, this request will not increase the amount of C/I designated land in the county. Rather, this request will slightly reconfigure the two nodes bordering C.R. 510 along U.S. #1. The proposed amendment will shift 9.5 acres from the U.S. #1 and C.R. 510 (North) Commercial/ Industrial Node, to the adjacent U.S. #1 Commercial/Industrial Node, C.R. 510 to Hobart Road (77th Street). Another 5.5 acres will be shifted to create a slightly altered configuration of the U.S. #1 and C.R. 510 (North) Commercial/Industrial Node. The property to be redesignated from C/I to M-1 is located at the southwest corner of 87th Street and 55th Avenue. This property, owned by Wabasso Industrial Groves, will be referred to as Subject Property 1. In addition to changing the land use designation of this tract from C/I to M-1, the request involves rezoning Subject Property 1 from IL, Light Industrial District, to RM -81 Multiple - Family Residential District (up'to 8 units/acre). The first property to be redesignated to C/I is located on the north side -of 82nd Street, approximately 178 feet east of U.S. #1. This property, owned by Hobart Landing II Joint Venture, will be referred to as Subject Property 2. The request involves changing the land use designation of this tract from M-1 to C/I, and rezoning the property from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to CL, Limited Commercial District. The second property to be redesignated to'C/I is located on the south side of 82nd Street, approximately 150 feet east of U.S. #1. This property, owned by Earring Point Groves, Inc., will be referred to as Subject Property 3. The request involves changing the land use designation of this tract from M-1 to C/I, and rezoning the property from RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to CL. The final property to be redesignated to C/I is.located near the northeast corner of 85th Street and 46th Avenue. Owned by N.B. Ryall, Rachel Ryall, and Kennedy Groves, Inc., this property will be referred to as Subject Property 4. The request involves changing the land use designation of this tract from M-1 to C/I, and rezoning the property from RM -6 to CG, General Commercial District. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission hearing on this request, the configuration, although not the acreage, of Subject Property 4 has, at the applicant's request, been slightly changed from the original configuration. When this request was originally submitted, Subject Property 4 consisted of 2 tracts, a northeastern one and a southwestern one. Subject Property 4, as originally submitted, is depicted on attachment 5, while the current configuration is shown on attachments 3 and 4. The applicant changed the configuration of Subject Property 4 in response to public comment. At the Planning and'Zoning Commission public hearing, several owners of residential property to the east raised objections to the redesignation of the northeastern tract of Subject Property 4. For that reason, the applicant has eliminated the northeastern tract, and moved those 0.7 acres to the southwestern tract. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning and land use designation to allow commercial development on subject properties 2, 3 and 4. JUNE 13, 1995 49 On April 27, 1995, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment, with the exception of the northeastern tract of Subject Property 4, to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not the subject land use amendment is to be transmitted to DCA for their review. The Board will consider the associated rezoning request at the final adoption hearing for the land use amendment. Existina Land Use Pattern - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 is zoned IL and, except for approximately 1.6 vacant acres in the northwest part of the site, consists of an abandoned citrus grove. Land to the east, across 55th Avenue, is also zoned IL and contains Ron's Island Court Mobile Home Park, a legally established non -conforming use. The John's. Island Club - West Golf Course, abutting the site on the north, as well as the wooded area to the west, are zoned RM -6. South of the western portion of the site, on RM -6 zoned property, is another legally established non -conforming mobile home.park. East of that mobile home park and south of Subject Property 1 is a vacant wooded area. The northern part of that area is zoned IL, while the southern part is zoned CL. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 is zoned A-1. Except for 1 storage, buildinq in the northwest corner, the site consists entirely of abandoned citrus grove. RM -6 zoned land borders the site on all sides except for the west, which is zoned CL. A square shaped parcel containing a single-family house abuts the southeastern portion of Subject Property 2 on two sides. To the south of Subject Property 2, across 82nd Street, are several single-family houses. Currently vacant, land to the west of Subject Property 2 was formerly the site of the Classic Gardens Nursery. Groves border the -site on the north and east. - Subject Property 3 Zoned RM -6, Subject Property 3 -contains a grass lawn and two large oak trees. North of Subject Property 3, across 82nd Street, is Subject Property 2, an abandoned citrus grove in the A-1 zoning district. Land east of Subject -Property 3 is zoned -RM -6 and is developed with single-family houses. Land south and west of Subject Property 3 is zoned CL and is developed with retail uses. - Subject Property 4 Subject Property 4 and properties consist of .citrus groves. Land family house. Subject Property 4 east are zoned RM -6, while land to JUNE 13, 1995 50 to the north, south and east to the west contains a single and properties to the south and the northwest is zoned CG. BOOK � PACE TJU Ma 95 ila-391 Future Land Use Pattern - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 and adjacent properties to the east are designated C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, a land use designation which permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land abutting the site on the north is 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 bordering the site to the west is designated L-2, Low -Density Residential -2, on the county's future land use map. Land south of the western part of Subject Property 1 is also designated L-2. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. The remaining properties to the south are designated C/I. - Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 and all surrounding properties, except those to the west, are designated M-1. Land to the west is designated C/I. - Subject Property 3 Subject Property 3 and properties to the north and east are designated M-1. Properties to the south and west are designated C/I. -Subject Property 4 _ Subject Property 4 and adjacent lands to the south and east are designated M-1. Land to the northwest, is designated C/I. Environment - Subject Property 1 Located on the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, the site contains no wetlands. While most of Subject Property 1 consists of an abandoned citrus grove, there are approximately 1.6 acres of scrubby flatwoods in the southwest part of the site. This portion of Subject Property 1 may contain gopher tortoises which are listed by the state as a species of special concern. - Subject Property 2 Consisting of an abandoned citrus grove, Subject Property 2 is a disturbed site containing no wetlands or native upland plant communities. Subject Property 3 Consisting of a grass lawn with two large oak trees, Subject Property 3 is a disturbed site containing no wetlands or native upland plant communities. - Subject Property 4 Subject Property 4 is currently used for agricultural purposes, being a citrus grove. No wetlands or native upland ,plant communities exist on site. JUNE 139 1995 51 M M M Utilities and Services - Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 is within the Urban Service Area (USA) of the County; however, water and wastewater lines do not extend to the site. - Subject Properties 2, 3 and 4 Although located within the USA, water and wastewater lines do not extend to these sites. Wastewater service from the North County Wastewater Treatment Plant, however, is available since lines run along Old Dixie Highway, within one quarter of a mile from each site. By the beginning of 1996, water lines are planned to extend along U.S. #1, from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant to C.R. 510. With the completion of that project, water service will be available to these sites. Transportation System - Subject Property 1 Fifty-eighth Avenue borders Subject Property 1 north of C.R. 510. Classified as a collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 58th Avenue is a two-lane unpaved road with 50 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This segment of 58th Avenue is not currently programmed for expansion. The site also has access from 55th Avenue which is a 2 lane paved local road with 50 feet of existing public road right-of-way. - Subject Properties 2 and 3 Subject Properties 2 and 3 have access from 82nd Street which is a 2 lane unpaved local road with 70 feet of existing public road right-of-way. Subject Property 2 also has access from 81st Place which is a 2 lane paved local road. - Subject Property 4 Subject Property 4 has access from 46th Avenue which is a two-lane unpaved local road with 25 feet of existing public road right-of- way. ANALYSIS AND ALTERNATIVES In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. Following a discussion of plan amendment review standards, the analysis will include a description of: • concureency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. Plan Amendment Review Standards Unlike most land use designation amendment requests, this request does not involve a net increase in land use intensity. As proposed, the request involves a minor reconfiguration, rather than an expansion, of commercial/industrial nodes. JUNE 13, 1"5 52 506K 95 MCE.39 500K 95 PAGE 393 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 no change in overall land use density or intensity. 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. Concurrency of Public Facilities All four tracts comprising this request are 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 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 1, the portion of the proposed amendment to be residentially designated, is as follows: 1. Size of Area.to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: JUNE 139 1995 53 M M ±15 acres C/I,- Commercial/ Industrial Node 150,000 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). - M 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 120 units 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 Properties 2, 3 and 4, the commercial/ industrial portion of the proposed amendment, is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: ±15 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: M-10, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 120 units 4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial/ Industrial Mode 5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 150,000 square feet. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). 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. 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 Surroundina Area - Subject Property 1 The proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 1. In fact, the proposed amendment would enhance the site's compatibility with the existing residential development abutting the site along 58th Avenue. Currently, residential and industrial zoning districts abut the site's northern and western borders as well as the westernmost Portion the southern border. The proposed amendment will simply reduce the length of and move the location of the border where the two zoning districts abut. Furthermore, at ±15 acres the site is large enough for residential and/or institutional development to buffer itself from adjacent industrial uses. JLWE 139 1995 54 BOOK 95 PAGE394 30OK 95 PACE -395 For these reasons, the proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 1. - Subject Property 2 The proposed amendment is not anticipated to increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 2. Since the site abuts C/I designated land on the west, the request is for an extension of an existing land use designation pattern. The primary impacts of commercial development on the site would be on the surrounding residentially designated and zoned properties, particularly on the parcel that -borders the site on two sides. The active citrus groves to the north and east of Subject Property 2 range in size from approximately 8.5 acres to approximately 62 acres. If converted to residential uses, the resulting developments would be large enough to provide adequate buffers and to orient residences away -from Subject Property 2. The parcels fronting on 82nd. Street are smaller. The parcel that borders the site on two sides is approximately 1 acre in size. Five of the six lots on the south side of 82nd Street are approximately one quarter of an acre in size, while the sixth is approximately 0.42 acres in size. Five of those lots contain single-family residences. Several factors, however, can work to mitigate potential impacts on those properties. The first factor is required setbacks and buffers. Where commercial development on the site abuts single- family residential development, the commercial development must provide, at a minimum, a 25 foot wide front yard or a 10 foot wide side yard, and a type B landscaped buffer with a 6 foot high opaque feature. Additionally, building coverage for commercial development on the site would be restricted to a maximum of 40% of the lot, while a minimum of 25% of the site must be open, or green space. Through the site planning process for commercial development, the required open space can often be located adjacent to bordering residential areas. To take advantage of access from U.S. #1, and to reduce road paving costs, commercial development on Subject Property 2 would be particularly likely to be developed in this way. Finally, LDR chapter 926 requires perimeter landscaping, as well as landscaping of parking lots, and open space. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is not anticipated to increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 2. - Subject Property 3 Commercial development on Subject Property 3 is not anticipated to increase potential incompatibilities. with surrounding property. The proposed amendment is to allow for the continuation of the existing land use designation from the west. Because the request is to move the location of the boundary between the commercial/ industrial and residential land use designations, the primary impacts of commercial development on the site would be on the two parcels abutting Subject Property 3 on the east. The eastern boundary of Subject Property 3, running from 81st Street to 82nd Street, is approximately 300 feet long. That boundary is shared with two parcels, each approximately 150 feet deep and developed with a single-family house. JUNE 139 1995 55 M M M _I M Currently, the northern of these two parcels is surrounded by residentially designated land. Adoption of the proposed amendment would result in C/I designated land to the west (Subject Property 3), abutting the parcel, and to the north (Subject Property 2), across 82nd Street. The southern parcel that abuts Subject Property 3 on the east currently faces a commercial development on C/I designated land to the south, across 81st Street. Adjacent land to the east, west, and north is presently residentially designated. Adoption of the proposed amendment would result in a second side of this parcel being designated C/I. Each of the previously mentioned factors that work to mitigate potential incompatibilities also apply to Subject Property 3. These factors include required buffers and setbacks, and the fact that commercial development on Subject Property 3 will likely locate buildings closer to U.S. #1 and open space in the eastern portion of the site. There is another factor that suggests that commercial development on Subject Property 3 will locate on the western portion of the site. Since Subject Property 3 and adjacent land to the east are under the same ownership, combining those parcels is possible. Such a parcel combination would eliminate the parcel boundary and, therefore, the need for required side yards. Given the narrow shape of Subject Property 3, such a parcel combination is the most efficient and likely development pattern for the site. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is not anticipated to increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 3. - Subject Property 4 Commercial development on Subject Property 4 would be compatible with surrounding areas. Since this property abuts commercially designated land to the northwest, the proposed redesignation would result in a continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. While the properties to the south and east used for groves, they are zoned RM -6 and residential uses. Given the current zoning zoning requested for Subject Property 4, Property 4 would be required to install a T with a six foot opaque feature along it.4 borders. are currently vacant or could be converted to of this land and the CG development on Subject ype C vegetative buffer i southern and eastern If surrounding residentially designated properties were converted to residential uses, the resultant developments would be large enough to provide adequate buffers and to orient residences away from Subject Property 4. The most severe impacts of development of Subject Property 4 would be on adjacent land, currently owned by the applicant, to the south and east. Finally, by adding depth to the existing C/I designated area, the proposed amendment works to limit strip commercial development on C.R. 510. For these reasons, staff feels that the proposed land use designation for Subject Property 4 would cause minimal impacts and result in development compatible with the surrounding area. JUNE 13, 1995 56 �( { I 3009 95 EASE 397 Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the -land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2)F.S." Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies. - Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are: • a mistake in the approved plan; • an oversight in the approved plan; or • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of. scrutiny. In this case, the subject request is for a minor node reconfiguration, and this proposed reconfiguration will not change overall land use intensity. With respect to Policy 13.3, staff feels that the proposed Jand 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 owners' expectations for use of their properties. These expectations are based in part on trends in the vicinity of their properties. Recent development activity in proximity to the subject property has changed market forces affecting the properties. Population growth has continued on the north barrier island, and the Disney Company's proposed 500+ unit Resort Development at the intersection of C.R. 510 and S.R. AlA is under construction. 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 and near C.R. 510. To accommodate the increase in demand for'C/I designated land in that part of the county, without increasing the amount of C/I designated land, nearby C/I nodes can be adjusted. JUNE 139 1995 57 Since the owners of Subject Property 1 do not intend to develop that land with C/I uses, Subject Property 1 can be removed from the node and an equal amount of C/I designated land can be added nearby to meet new demand. Therefore, land use efficiency is increased. Staff's position is 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 1.13 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the Medium -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 1 is located within the urban service area, and is suitable for medium -density urban residential development. The proposed amendment would allow such development on Subject Property 1. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13. - 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. Adjacent to commercially designated land; near .major roads, and within the urban service area, Subject Properties 2, 3 and 4 are appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development on Subject Properties 2, 3 and 4. 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. By adding depth to the existing commercial/ industrial areas associated with Subject Properties 2, 3, and 4, the proposed amendment works to limit strip commercial development along U.S. #1. For these reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21. JUNE 139 1995 58 b00K FACE - 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 nodes containing Subject Properties 21 3 and 4 do not meet this standard. The intent of this policy, however, is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. Since there would be no increase in the amount of C/I designated land associated with this amendment, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23's 70% developed standard does not apply to this.amendment. _ - Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24 Future Land Use Policy 1.24 states that any property redesignated commercial through a land use plan amendment shall revert to its former designation if construction on the site has not commenced within a two year period, unless such timeframe is modified by the Board of County Commissioners as part of a development agreement. This policy decreases land speculation, and helps ensure that demand for additional C/I designated land is present before requests to expand nodes are approved. This policy also allows for the correction of nodes mistakenly expanded in the absence of demand for more C/I designated land. - Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 Economic Development Element Policy 1.1 states that the county shall encourage the attraction of new businesses. The proposed amendment will move C/I designated land from an area where it is unlikely to be used to an area where it will be developed. Since Subject Properties 2, 3 and 4 are located in fast growing areas which are attractive to commercial businesses, the proposed amendment is consistent with Economic Development Element Policy 1.1. While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality County environmental permitting requirements, including wetland regulations and the 10%-15% native upland plant community set-aside requirement, are the same under either commercial/ industrial or residential land use designations. Only Subject Property 1 contains environmentally significant land. Although most of that site consists of abandoned citrus groves, and therefore has been disturbed, there are approximately 1.6 acres of scrubby flatwoods on the site. Due to the presence of the scrubby flatwoods,'development of Subject Property -1 under either the existing commercial/ industrial or the requested residential land use designation would be subject to the county's 10%-15% native upland plant community set-aside requirement. Compared to commercial/ industrial use, however, residential development may be more likely to preserve the native habitat areas for their aesthetic value. JUNE 139 1995 59 M M M M M Additionally, Subject Property 1 may contain protected gopher tortoises. For this reason, an environmental survey would be required prior site development. Any gopher tortoises determined by the survey to exist on the site would have to be relocated prior to site development. As with other environmental regulations, these provisions apply under both the commercial/industrial and the residential land use designations. Since Subject Properties 2 and 4 have been used for citrus groves, and therefore have been disturbed, development of those sites under either the existing residential or the requested commercial/ industrial land use designation would have no significant negative environmental impacts. Since Subject Property 3 has also been disturbed, development of that site, regardless of the land use designation, would also have no significant negative environmental impacts. For these reasons, the proposed land use amendment would have no significant detrimental effects on the environment at any of the subject sites. CONCLUSION As proposed, the land use designation changes at each of the subject sites are consistent with the comprehensive plan, are not anticipated to increase potential incompatibilities with 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. RECONNENDATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit this request to DCA and request DCA and all reviewing agencies to conduct a full review of the amendment. Director Keating stated that this is the most complex of the amendments and reminded the Board that rezoning of the properties in question is not under consideration today. Property Number 1 is in the node and is to be removed from the node and redesignated from C/I to M-1. This is a 15 acre parcel which is proposed to be used for a church. The properties to the west and to the north of this property are already designated residential. Director Keating continued the other properties are being added to a node. Property Number 2 is 8.8 acres east of US #1, north of 82nd Street, to be redesignated from M-1 to C/I. Property Number 3 is a .7 acre parcel south of Property Number 2 to be redesignated from M-1 to C/I. Property Number 4 is an extension of property to the north that was redesignated about 1 year ago from M-1 to C/I. This redesignation will add 5.5 acres to the south of the previously redesignated parcel. JUNE 139 1995 60 % na 95 TALE 401 Director Keating stated these properties are old groves, with the exception of Property Number 3, and that each property redesignation would be an expansion of the existing node, with no increase in density or intensity. The overall acreage is not being increased and the redesignations will result in a better and more useful pattern of development. Commissioner Eggert questioned the use of the parcels directly to the west of the .7 acre parcel, and Director Keating responded that property is designated residential. Commissioner Eggert then questioned what change, if any, there would be in the traffic on CR -510, and Director Keating responded that there would be additional traffic but there is existing capacity on CR -510. Commissioner Eggert felt this is a good area for commercial development. Chairman Macht inquired whether the applicant had legal rights to the additional .7 acres, and Director Keating stated that there is no legal right, that this is a policy decision by the Board. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board chose the number of acres for the node and the applicant would not have a right to go beyond .that number. He added that a small variance would be acceptable legally without violating the rules. Commissioner Bird felt that the .7 acres is a very small parcel, probably only 30 or 40 feet, and the applicant owns the surrounding property. Director Keating explained that a Type C buffer between commercial and residential would be required at the time of rezoning. Chairman Macht requested that it be entered into the record that the Board has received 63 letters in opposition to the redesignation. LETTERS IN OPPOSITION ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attorney Vitunac explained that a Florida court held that small scale Comp Plan amendments and rezonings are more like judicial actions than legislative actions and, therefore, the Commissioners are sitting as judges and are not allowed to receive evidence other than at this public hearing. However, the letters may properly now be made available for the Board and the public to read. JUNE 139 1995 61 The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett of 756 Beachland Boulevard, representing the applicants, Wabasso Industrial Grove, Inc., Hobart Landing II Joint Venture, Earring Point Groves, Inc., N. B. and Rachel Ryall, and Kennedy Groves, Inc., stated that the Planning & Zoning Commission had not been concerned about the size of the property. Their concern was that the original .7 acres stuck out to the east. Adding the .7 acres on the south side of Property Number 2 only adds 40 feet and has no impact on the node. Property Number 1 does not need a commercial designation but Properties 2, 3 and 4 do need the added depth and size. The Comp Plan calls for a certain amount of commercial acreage but the configuration is not precise. The applicants worked very closely with staff, addressed the Planning & Zoning Commission's objections and adopted their recommendations. As staff pointed out, wastewater capacity is available to these properties and waterlines will be available.in 1996. There will be no impact on the level of service because the redesignations are a wash. Dr. Lewis' and Dr. Gorsuch's property is east of the redesignated parcels 800 feet. There is a body of water, some very tall vegetation, -a road, some wetlands and an orange grove between their property and the redesignated parcels, which is a very extensive buffer. Only 300 feet are required for a mining operation and you could put 2 mines in that area. Attorney Vitunac stated that since there is a court reporter, the witnesses should be sworn. He further advised that Attorney Barkett could swear that the testimony he had already given was the truth. Chairman Macht asked everyone else who intended to speak on this issue to rise and be sworn in. John Krupp of 4335 82nd Street appeared and stated that he is also representing Marvin Cadenhead who owns 2 lots at the end of 82nd Street. He stated that he lives on the south side of Harris Road, at the end of the road, and will be impacted by this redesignation. They cannot afford to hire an attorney but have been living in this area for 10 years. This will be the third zoning on this particular property and they do not want increased traffic and lighting in their neighborhood. JUNE 139 1995 62 Bd®K 95 Put 403 Jeff Aikens of 8605 55th Avenue stated that the church has been mentioned many times but the Planning & Zoning Commission had advised they could not tell anyone what is going on that property. His property is zoned commercial and he would be against a church in the commercial area as he feels development will be discouraged. Attorney Warren W. Dill of 9025 US #l, representing Steven Lewis and Heidi Gorsuch of 8680 Shore Lane, advised that Dr. Lewis's and Dr. Gorsuch's property is 400 to 500 feet from the property to be redesignated, close enough to be impacted. If the redesignation is approved, his cl=ients will be able to see and hear the development, as well as being subject to the increased traffic impact. Therefore, they are affected persons pursuant to Florida Statutes, which gives them the right to participate. He expressed his regret that his clients were unable to attend the meeting due to pressing family matters. Attorney Dill then read the following letter dated May 22, 1995, addressed to Chairman Macht from Steven Lewis: OCTOR ' C L I N I C1 ASTHMA, ALLERGY AND IMMUNOLOGY MICHAEL WEIN, M.O. ANATOMIC PATHOLOGY May 22, 1995 STEVEN H. LEWIS. M.D. CARDIOLOGY JANET E. ANDERSON, M.O. A. JAMES BRADLEY.M.DI Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman DERMATOLOGY Indian River County Commissioners PATRICK T.OTTUSO.M.D. 1840 25th Street FAMILY PRACTICE_ DONALD D. GOLD. M.D. Vero Beach, FL 32960 JOSEPH A. HRA. M.O. GARY R. SILVERMAN, M.D. SCOTT A. SANFORD. M.O. Dear Mr. DONALD J. MORRIS. M.D.Macht: ROBERT L. MOORE. M.O. GYNECOLOGY I would like to bring to your attention an issue which deeply L. KENT MERRILL, M.D. AUDREY L. RICHARDS. M.D. concerns me. This issue will be before you on your June INTERNAL MEDICINE 13th commission meeting, however, due to an importidtivk*,� RALPHBRUCE.GROSSMAN,M.D. matter, both my wife and 1 will be unable to attend that JEFFREY M. GROSMAN, M.D. • STEPHEN G. RITTER. M.D. session of the county commissioners meeting. INTERNAL MEDICINE ENDOCRINOLOGY JOHN E.CARROU-M.D. The pertinent issue pertains to the* rezoning of the portion PAUL EAM COMR.TONNER,M.D. of property currently designated RM -6 to INTERNAL MEDICINE commercial/industrial next to and south of highway 510 on GASTROENTEROLOGY the mainland immediately west of the 510 bridge. This GREGORY D. MACKAY. M.D. MARC D. NEW. M.D. section of property is designated subject property 4 in the INTERNAL MEDICINE current land use rezoning proposal. HEMATOLOGY -ONCOLOGY MICHAEL S. ZIMMER, M.D. INTERNAL MEDICINE In that I might appropriately express my concerns, 1 wish to NEPHROLOGY explain the history surrounding this land use designation ARTHUR L. GLASER. M.D. change so I may effectively communicate my sentiments. INTERNAL MEDICINE PULMONOLOGY MICHAEL P. TONNER. M.D. In 1994, 1 purchased my home at 8680 Shore Lane which is NEUROLOGY approximately 400-600 feet from subject property 4. When I TAMER HUSAINY, M.D. purchased my home, I did my homework. I investigated the OBSTETRICS•GYNECOLOGY property surroundinghome and found that it was all KATHARINE S. LUM. M.D. Pro P y m Y ALLEN P.FRIEDENSTAS.M.D. designated RM -6 or conservation. There was absolutely no STEVEN H.LEWIS,M.D. surrounding commercial or industrial property. I consulted OPHTHALMOLOGY the current land use maps and found this to be the case. NANCY ANN TANCHEL. M.O. P ORTHOPEDIC SURGERY These maps were designated 20/10, and I assumed that they SETH COREN.M.D. appropriately represented their designations. GUY H. HICKMAN. M.D. DANIEL W. BENSON, M.D. JUNE 139 1995 63 My wife and I surmised that this was bad luck on our part, but we would learn to live with this small eight acres of neighboring commercial property and recognized by virtue of it's size its probable limited impact. This did not stop my concern, however, and based on these concerns, I again contacted the planning office and asked if some additional buffer requirements might be imposed so as to mitigate the presence of commercial development. It is notable that this commercial property so zoned immediately abuts a small sliver of RM -6 which is immediately adjacent to an extensive area of wetlands. The wetlands contains many endangered species including wood storks, rosetta spoonbills, little blue herons, indigo snakes, and is a documented rookery for protected snook and tarpon. We have also witnessed an extraordinary diversity of wildlife in this area Including enormous flocks of heron which migrate and roost as well as a family of sea otters that live in this very area. With these concerns and my expressed desire ito perhaps impose an enhanced buffer (currently only required as type C) , I was informed that county standards did not permit such enhancement because the property was bordering on not conservation, but residential. it should be noted that this small silver of residential measures only approximately 50 to 150 feet. Interestingly, I was assured by staff (please see enclosed letter) that no additional lands would be so designated commercial in that immediate adjoining area. You can imagine my extreme surprise and concern when 1 recently heard of the plan to add an additional seven acres of commercial property (designated site 4) to the aforementioned commercial zone. Certainly this was contrary to what I was Informed of by staff, and clearly I was faced with a much greater and larger neighboring impact. In an attempt to mitigate this new addition, in good faith, 1 approached the land owner and asked that he might mitigate in exchange for my cooperation. I proposed that an enhanced buffering standard on his property or even an enhanced buffering as would relate to myself and my neighbors might be enacted. He declined this and the issue was brought before the zoning board. I must say that my wife and I and our neighbors felt oppressed by the magnitude of the events that took place. Here we were voicing our opinion against a major county land owner who provided no definitive reasons why this additional commercial land should be added, yet It passed anyway. Further, so concerned were we about proper representation and the possibility of being downtrodden by a major land owner that we had an attorney represent us. It seemed quite clear from our attorney's arguments that there was no pertainable regulation that allowed for this to happen. We were placated slightly by the removal of 7/10 of an acre of this added commercial property Immediately to our west but with Its addition more to the south. AU JUNE 139 1995 64 04 Immediately after closing on the purchase of my home, it OTOLARYNGOLOGY JOSEPNJ.BRADMI.D.M.D. came to my attention that eight acres of property bordering on county route 510 was under the final application process PEDIATRICS SUSAN BAUERD?DDLE.M.D. for conversion to Commercial /industrial from RM -6. Needless KAREN R. WESTBERRY. M.D. to say, I was distressed and greatly disturbed. I had SURGERY, VASCULAR d GENERAL W. CLARK BECKETT. M.D. purchased my home in an area which attracted me by virtue THEODORE 0. PERRY, M.D. of its rural and generally pristine environment. I UROLOGY subsequently contacted the County Planningoffices and was q Y 7 PAUL T. BAKULE. M.D. DAVID W.LAZAN.M.D. informed by staff that in order for me to have any impact on WALK•INIURGENTCARE the prevention of this conveyance, I would need to go to PATRICIA �A VXELRMATDH.M.D. Tallahassee and appear before an administrative hearing. I THOMAS was also informed by planning staff that it was unlikely MANAGEMENT SERVICES would have any impact since the plan had proceeded to its MEN" E.ROSS EeeartWe ft-cim near final stage. g My wife and I surmised that this was bad luck on our part, but we would learn to live with this small eight acres of neighboring commercial property and recognized by virtue of it's size its probable limited impact. This did not stop my concern, however, and based on these concerns, I again contacted the planning office and asked if some additional buffer requirements might be imposed so as to mitigate the presence of commercial development. It is notable that this commercial property so zoned immediately abuts a small sliver of RM -6 which is immediately adjacent to an extensive area of wetlands. The wetlands contains many endangered species including wood storks, rosetta spoonbills, little blue herons, indigo snakes, and is a documented rookery for protected snook and tarpon. We have also witnessed an extraordinary diversity of wildlife in this area Including enormous flocks of heron which migrate and roost as well as a family of sea otters that live in this very area. With these concerns and my expressed desire ito perhaps impose an enhanced buffer (currently only required as type C) , I was informed that county standards did not permit such enhancement because the property was bordering on not conservation, but residential. it should be noted that this small silver of residential measures only approximately 50 to 150 feet. Interestingly, I was assured by staff (please see enclosed letter) that no additional lands would be so designated commercial in that immediate adjoining area. You can imagine my extreme surprise and concern when 1 recently heard of the plan to add an additional seven acres of commercial property (designated site 4) to the aforementioned commercial zone. Certainly this was contrary to what I was Informed of by staff, and clearly I was faced with a much greater and larger neighboring impact. In an attempt to mitigate this new addition, in good faith, 1 approached the land owner and asked that he might mitigate in exchange for my cooperation. I proposed that an enhanced buffering standard on his property or even an enhanced buffering as would relate to myself and my neighbors might be enacted. He declined this and the issue was brought before the zoning board. I must say that my wife and I and our neighbors felt oppressed by the magnitude of the events that took place. Here we were voicing our opinion against a major county land owner who provided no definitive reasons why this additional commercial land should be added, yet It passed anyway. Further, so concerned were we about proper representation and the possibility of being downtrodden by a major land owner that we had an attorney represent us. It seemed quite clear from our attorney's arguments that there was no pertainable regulation that allowed for this to happen. We were placated slightly by the removal of 7/10 of an acre of this added commercial property Immediately to our west but with Its addition more to the south. AU JUNE 139 1995 64 04 r 100K 95 FACE 405. Apparently, the county regulations for land use stipulate that changes in the overall land use plan require that there be some "mistake" in the old plan, or that there need to be a change due to an unanticipated growth. Neither of these applied. One might consider "the Disneyfication" of the area prompted a large land owner to swap some of his less valuable commercial land west of town for potentially more valuable property on the 510 causeway. Not only were my neighbors and I affected, but during the zoning commission meeting, it was apparent that other property owners were also ill affected. They stood up and said their piece as to how changes in the zoning to the benefit of this one large land owner would adversely affect many individuals surrounding other properties -so affected, and also to be rezoned as commercial. I find this grossly unfair. I cannot imagine how anyone could feel safe in this county purchasing property and expecting there to be an established zoning and land use relationship applying to the neighborhood. With this kind of free wheeling swapping taking place, nobody in the county can be safe. With this sort of precedent established, commercial/ Industrial can be put anywhere as long as someone owns enough property to appropriately swap it (if already zoned as such) with existing residential property. What might happen If this is allowed to occur? 1) If such activities are allowed to continue, the promotion of prosperity of a few wealthy land owners increasing their land value will take place without consideration for the many individuals surrounding their affected commercialization. 2) What is to prevent this from happening elsewhere? A wholesale shell game could take place. No one is safe. The land use designation was set forth and described and enacted. People make plans around the designations of that land use and it is just not fair to turn around and find one's property devalued because what was initially purchased with a specific land use surrounding now has a different land use surrounding and a devaluation of property values. The big land owner swapping properties gets richer and ' the affected small property owner loses what little value he or she has. 3) ' Increased commercialization will result in increased traffic and increased noise. This is not without environmental impact. It is noteworthy that recently a group of citizens has aligned to try to preserve the pristine environment of the 510 causeway. It seems entirely discordant that commercializing that strip of land might be conceived compatible with the concerns raised by a large group of citizens. Further, the increased traffic serving a major commercial development (and let's be serious - 12 acres of commercial property is a major commercial development) along the 510 causeway will dramatically increase the traffic along that causeway. Of note, a large group of citizens recently wrote the Metropolitan Planning Organization when there was discussion in the 20/10 proposal for widening the causeway, and begged that this not occur. The 510 causeway area is one of the prettiest portions of Indian River County. "Pave paradise, put up a parking lot." No one wants to see this happen. Well, no one except for those who are to profit from a capital venture. Let us suppose that a major supermarket, which reportedly is the reason for the necessity of Increasing the acreage of the already existing commercial property, goes into place. I would defy any of those individuals to try to sleep in my home when at 3:00, 4:00 and 5:00 in the morning the constant "beep, beep, beep" from unloading trucks fills the air and destroys the morning silence. Specifically and Inherent in this alteration in zoning are two very important factors; 1) The property value for my home will be greatly diminished and, who will bear this burden? And 2) Just a few feet away from the proposed commercial development is what is truly an extensive diverse and beautiful wetlands area. The fact that this conservation area is separated from the proposed commercial JUNE 139 1995 65 development by a mere sliver of several feet of RM -6, requires that only type C buffer be enacted. I cannot help but think that this extraordinary piece of Indian River County will be destroyed through construction, noise, lights, traffic, fumes, and all the other unthinkable results of commercialization. To read the editorial section in the Press Journal makes it clear that there are a large number of people in this county who believe that we have much to offer in terms of "way of life." It is understandable that our community leaders wish to enhance the economic prosperity of our community through appropriate and well considered development. I cannot for the life of me understand how the economic environment will be improved when there is commercialization of what is truly a pristine area in this region. A testimony to this fact is the immediate and adjacent locations of the protected jungle trail and the extraordinary efforts of the Environmental Learning Center. It seems more than quite reasonable to leave the pristine areas as they are, attract visitors, and have them spend their money In commercialized locations that are already so designated. As community leaders, you have a significant challenge. Economic growth and development and fiscal responsibility are obviously important facets of your duties. More importantly, however, I feel very strongly that your good names will be served not through the enhancement of the coffers of a few industrialists, but through the legacy that you leave to your children and your grandchildren. Do what you must to support the development of Indian River County, but also consider the preservation of the beauty and uniqueness with which we have been blessed. I hope you will rule favorably for my wife, myself, and my neighbors and the people also affected by this "land swap" and decline the request for additional commercialization of the 510 corridor. Respectfully yours, Sincerely, OL i-� , 7 Steven H. Lewis, MD Attorney Dill then read a letter from Heidi Gorsuch: The Florida Surgery Institute Heidi D. Gorsuch, MD, FACS GENERAL AND ONCOLOGIC SURGE11Y June 13, 1995 Dear Commissioners, It is with great regret that I an unable to attend the meeting this morning. Unfortunately, I have been unable to change long—standing previously made plans that would have allowed me to attend the meeting. However, my lack of presence should not be construed as a lack of interest in the proceedings. I previously spoke at the that you have before you. Property p4, and in fact small triangle of Subject time encompass the large that is currently before Planning and Zuni At that time, I w at that meeting, a Property 44, very r perspective of the yau. ng Commission Meeting regarding the matter as specifically interested in Subject revision was made that eliminated a close to our home. My concerns at this commercial and residential land swapping JUNE 139 1995 66 bm 'M ov BOOK 95 FACE 4®7 When my husband and I moved into Wabasso very early in 1994, we chose that area because it was wonderfully pristine, minimally developed and there was an abundance_* of wildlife present. We felt that this best suited the way -that we wished to spend the little bit of time that we have at home, given our busy professional lives. However, shortly after purchasing our home, we found that in fact within 500 feet of our backyard and within close proximity to a veritable wildlife preserve, 8 screws had been zoned for heavy industrial commercial use. We were appalledl however, at that time, proceedings had been underway for quite a while and we really had no recourse other than a very expensive trip to Tallahassee and a prolonged court proceeding with the attendant significant expense. Although we were very disappointed that this commercialization bad occurred, we felt that there was not much that we could do about it, so we tried to accept it. Now, we find that there is an attempt to enlarge this commercial node to 15 screws, via a complex series of land swappings all over Wabasso. We are very fearful that this enlargement of the commercial node will allow and in fact, encourage significant development to occur there with all of the attendant increased lighting, noise pollution increased traffic and environmental havoc on both the land and wildlife. Commissioners, we live in a neighborhood. We have neighbors with families and everyone who has purchased residential property in Wabasso has done so with the full intent and strong desire to live in an area that is quiet, relatively undeveloped and pristine with respect to the ecology. We wish to live in harmony with the area, not to participate or support commercialization such as proposed and would be allowed by the swapping of properties and the enhancing and enlarging of the commercial node referred to as Subject Property 94. I urge you strongly to please deny the increased size of this commercial node. I am certain that none of you, and none -of us wish to be awakened at 3-4 o'clock in the morning to that annoying sound of trucks backing up and tehe "beep -beep -beep" that goes along with it. Additionally, when I step outside in the evening, I look into the sky and see a very dark sky and a wonderful profusion of stars. With all of the lighting that will come along with the commercial development of a 15+ acre commercial node, that truly wonderful experience will be much diminished if not totally eliminated. I feel that there is enough property zoned commercially in Indian River County as previously plotted in the land use program. Please do not rearrange the commercial property such that a 15 acre commercial node will be located footsteps away from environmentally fragile wet lands and many endangered species of wildlife. We ask that you turn down this proposal. Our neighborhood does not want a strip mall development virtually in our backyards. I thank you sincerely for your attention to and consideration of this matter, and I only wish that I could be there this morning to deliver this in-person. Sincerely, ly HeidiD. Gorsuch,M.D. Attorney Dill then went over the process of application for a redesignation and expressed his opinion that the County has done all the work with no help from the applicant. He felt that staff has a difficult roll in that they are obligated to assist the applicant while trying to balance the needs of the other residents. He then reviewed Policy 13.3 in the Comp Plan which sets out the 3 criteria which must be met and expressed his opinion that; (1) there was no oversight, (2) there was no mistake, and (3) there were no changes in circumstance. He gave the Board Black's JUNE 139 1995 67 M ® M definition of "affecting" - to act upon, to change, often used in the sense of acting injuriously on persons or things, and expressed his opinion that the Board should be reacting to changed circumstances, not expectations or intent. He believed that in this case the change in circumstances relates solely to the property owners' expectations of the Disney gold rush. He reminded the Board that the Vero Mall is 13.9 acres and that one of the redesignated properties will now be 14 acres. The Comp Plan was not designed to litter Wabasso Causeway with neon lights even though some adjacent land is already zoned commercial. He then read a letter to Dr. Lewis of March 3, 1995 from John W. McCoy, AICP, Senior Planner, Current Development: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone- (407)567-8000 March 3, 1995 Dr. Steven H. Lewis Doctors Clinic 2300 Fifth Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 RE: Commercial Property Along Wabasso Causeway Dear Dr. Lewis: This is in response to your letter regarding "enhanced standards" for the above referenced property. As you know, an 6.4 acre portion of the property described in your letter was recently rezoned from RM -6, Residential Multi -family district (up to 6 units per acre), to CG (General Commercial). While there is a difference in the buffering and open space requirements, both the RM -6 and CG zoning districts allow fairly intense development. Despite the recent rezoning of the referenced tract, there is still _�- some property zoned RM -6 between the CG property and environmental property referenced in your letter. While the RM -6 property cannot be developed commercially, staff anticipates that the CG property will eventually be developed as a community shopping center. Although your letter requests that staff apply greater standards to the referenced property than to other similarly zoned properties, that is not possible. Staff is required to apply the county's adopted Land Development Regulations (LDRs) fairly, equitably, and consistently on a county -wide basis. The LDRs are designed to provide protection for natural resources, ensure the availability of adequate public facilities, and limit impacts on adjacent properties. Thus, the LDRs address the issues that you raised. JUNE 13 1995�`� ' � 68 While it is not possible to legislate quality design and construction, staff will ensure that all of the county's regulations are met when the property develops. With regard to the specific concerns mentioned in your letter relating to stormwater management, endangered species, buffering, lighting, and traffic, be advised that these issues are all addressed in the LDRs. In reviewing any project proposed for the referenced property, staff will ensure that there is no off-site impact because of site lighting, that all traffic issues are addressed and adequate roadway- capacity and safety is maintained; and that there is no adverse impact on endangered species (see section 929.09 attached). Through the site plan review process, staff will ensure that the appropriate buffers are constructed prior to completion of any commercial project. With respect to the stormwater quality issue raised in your letter please note that the county's engineering division has deferred stormwater quality review to the St. John's River Water Management District. Therefore, in regards to this issue you may want to contact the St. John's River Water Management District at 407-984-4940. As per your request, staff will contact you if and when a development application is filed for the subject property. Staff welcomes your input on any development proposed for the site. If you are aware of any specific characteristics of the site which could impact or restrict development, please inform staff now, so that staff's review can be as comprehensive as possible. Should you have any questions regarding any of these matters, please do not hesitate to contact me at (407) 567-8000, extension 253. Sincerely, John W. McCoy, AICP Senior Planner, Current Development and a letter from Chairman Macht to Dr. Lewis of March 9, 1995: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Strut, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Telephone: (407) 5674K= Steven H. Lewis, MD 8680 Shore Lane Vero Beach, FL 32963 Dear Dr. Lewis: March 9, 1995 With respect to your letter about the 510 bridge and causeway, I favor maintaining that area much as it is now. The beautiful, park -like aspect would be destroyed by converting it to a high traffic artery, and there is no need to do so. With the Land Development Regulations the board of commissioners has approved, no significant development can occur on the barrier island. The Disney project is not designed to foster significant two-way traffic and the barrier island residential developments are very low density. JUNE 139 1995 69 Thanks for writing and please accept my apology for the slowness of my response. Gathering data from the Florida Department of Transportation and other sources required some time. Please contact me by phone, letter or in person any time you need further information. Yours ruly, f?i Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman County Commission Attorney Dill then reiterated that the criteria has not been met for redesignation and respectfully requested on behalf of his clients that the Board deny the application. He then introduced Les Solin, a member of American Institute Certified Planners with a masters degree and 29 years planning experience. Mr. Solin lived in Indian River County for 13 years, was the first planning director for the City of Vero Beach, was involved in the planning for Indian River Shores and the City of Sebastian, and specializes in land use plans. Lester L. Bolin, Jr. of 636 Longview Place, Longwood, Florida, President of Solin and Associates, Inc. reviewed the following memorandum of June 13, 1995: UMWRDENT MCPSOLIN AND ASSOCIATES, INC. PLANNING CONSULTANTS 901 DOUGLAS AVE., SUITE 207 ALTAMONTE SPRINGS, FL 32714 June 13, 1995 MEMORANDUM TO: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS FROM: LESTER L. SOLIN, JR., AICP CERTIFIED PLANNER #2063 407-682-7200 FAX 407-BB2-7208 SUBJECT: EVALUATION OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN --PLAN AMENDMENT #LUDA 95-01-0199 At the request of Warren Dill, I have evaluated the subject proposed amendment to the Indian River Comprehensive Plan. The properties impacted are identified on the attached map entitled "Plan Amendment Subject Properties and Related Factors: Plan Amendment #LURA 95-01-0199." The following Table 1: "Proposed Land Use Policy Amendments and Related Land Use Factors" presents a tabular summary of the proposed land use amendment as well as characteristics of impacted lands. JUNE 139 1995 70 TABLE 1: PROPOSED LAND USE POLICY AMENDMENT AND RELATED LAND USE FACTORS ISSUES ADDRESSED If approved, in addition to other Plan requirements, the County should produce analysis that demonstrates that the proposed land use amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policies: 1. Criteria for Node Size. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.20 which provides criteria for node size based on land use, population, existing land use, and other demand characteristics? [Policy 1.20. Nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use classification and service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.] 2. Criteria for Node Expansion. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.23 which provides criteria for node expansion? [Polity 1.23. No Node should be considered for expansion unless 70016 of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non-residential and non-agricultural development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development.] 3. State Coastal Management Policies. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with State policies for managing development in coastal high hazard area (CHHA)? State policy 9J-5.003(14) recently amended the definition of "coastal high hazard area" to include the evacuation zone for the Category I hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local government. The Florida State Division of Emergency Management Computer Model indicates that the CHHA is located in the vicinity of subject property #4 and extends westward to 46th Avenue and therefore embraces the subject site. 4. Impact on Public Facilities. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 2.8 which mandates that public facilities shall have capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in the Plan and the intensity of future development identified on the Future Land Use Map? [Policy 28. Public services and facilities shall be designed with capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in this plan, support the needs of the projected population, and the intensity of future development as identified on the Future Land Use Map.] JUNE 139 1995 71 Property #1 Property #2 Property #3 Property #4 SW comer of 87th St/ N side 82nd S side 82nd St. Near NE Location 55th Av St. 178'+/- E 150'+/- E of US 1 comer 85th of US 1 St/46th Av. Size (acres) 15+/- acres 8.8+/- acres .7+/- acres 5.5+/- acres N: Golf Course/RM-6 Groves/RM-6 Inactive Grove/A-1 Groves/CG MH Park/RM-6 Adjacent Land _ S: SF DUs/RM-6 Retail/CL Groves/RM-6 Use/Zoning Vacant/II. & CL E: MH Park/IL Groves/RM-6 SF DUs/RM-6 Groves,Wet- lands/RM-6 W: Vacant/RM-6 Vacant/CL Retail/CL Grove/CG,CL Existing FLUM C/I M-1 M-1 M-1 Existing Zoning IL A-1 RM -6 RM -6 Proposed FLUM M-1 C/I C/I C/I Proposed RM -12 CL CL CG Zoning ISSUES ADDRESSED If approved, in addition to other Plan requirements, the County should produce analysis that demonstrates that the proposed land use amendment is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policies: 1. Criteria for Node Size. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.20 which provides criteria for node size based on land use, population, existing land use, and other demand characteristics? [Policy 1.20. Nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use classification and service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.] 2. Criteria for Node Expansion. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 1.23 which provides criteria for node expansion? [Polity 1.23. No Node should be considered for expansion unless 70016 of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non-residential and non-agricultural development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development.] 3. State Coastal Management Policies. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with State policies for managing development in coastal high hazard area (CHHA)? State policy 9J-5.003(14) recently amended the definition of "coastal high hazard area" to include the evacuation zone for the Category I hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local government. The Florida State Division of Emergency Management Computer Model indicates that the CHHA is located in the vicinity of subject property #4 and extends westward to 46th Avenue and therefore embraces the subject site. 4. Impact on Public Facilities. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 2.8 which mandates that public facilities shall have capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in the Plan and the intensity of future development identified on the Future Land Use Map? [Policy 28. Public services and facilities shall be designed with capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in this plan, support the needs of the projected population, and the intensity of future development as identified on the Future Land Use Map.] JUNE 139 1995 71 5. Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 13.3 which states specific criteria for amending the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element? [Policy 13.3. Indian River County shall approve plan amendments only upon a showing that one of the following criteria has been met.• ° The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan. ° The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan. ° The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property.] 6. Consistency of Plan Amendment with Comprehensive Plan. Is the proposed Plan amendment consistent with Policy 13.2 which requires consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and other timely issues. [Policy 13.2. Applicants requesting amendments to the Comprehensive Plan or Future Land Use Map shall be evaluated to consider consistency with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of all elements, and other timely issues.] ANALYSIS OF ISSUES Evaluation of Proposed Change in Node Size. Policy 1.20 requires that the node size be "based on the intended use classification and service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics. The staff analysis rationalizes that the amendment merely "slu fts land uses and no intensity/density increase" occurs. The following analysis indicates that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.20. • Summary Analysis. The size of land uses as well as the density, intensity and land use mix within the node are dramatically changed yet no substantial evidence is presented to justify the changes. • Loss of Industrial Land with No Analysis Consistent with Policy 1.20. A market sensitive rationale for removing the Industrial designation on the 15+/- acres comprising the subject site #1 (nearly 20% of the industrially designated land within the subject C/I node), is never presented as required pursuant to Policy 1.20. The County loses a site capable of accommodating 100,000 square feet or more of industrial activity and no replacement site is offered, nor is any quantitative data presented to support the action. Policy 1.20 places a burden on the County to articulate viable alternative land use strategies for preserving sites for industry. The subject Plan amendment is not a "swap -out" since the County loses 15+/- acres of industrial land which is not replaced by a shift in industrial land use designation to other lands near the FEC railroad west of US 1 which may be adaptive to industry. • Significant Addition of Commercially Designated Land in Residentially Designated Area East of US 1 with No Supportive Market or Demographic Analysis or Analysis of Alternative Sites. A market sensitive rationale is not presented for adding 15+/- acres of commercially designated land (subject sites # 2, 3 and 4 east of US 1)to the node. All three sites are adjacent to existing or planned residential areas. A market justification is mandated pursuant to Policy 1.20, and typically includes identification of proposed activities, an analysis of unmet primary and secondary markets, and consideration of competitive forces. Equally important is the need to identify alternative sites that are currently available and zoned for commercial development. • In concert with lands under common ownership which abut subject sites #2 and #4, these two sites would comprise two sites of 13.8+1- acres each and each site is approximately the she of the Vero Mall site -- one of the largest shopping centers in the County. The County's Comprehensive Plan states that the "availability of commercially designated land far exceeds that which is currently developed (Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element, page 65.8). The Future Land Use Element states that the C/I nodes contain 1,172 acres of vacant land while the total vacant land available for varied types of commercial, industrial, and mixed use development is 2,592 acres (page 66). Prior to adding substantial commercial land to a previously residentially designated area, a market driven analysis is mandated pursuant to Policy 1.20. Again the analysis should address, identification of proposed activities, an analysis of unmet primary and secondary market demands based on changed population trends and market conditions, and consideration of competitive forces. Equally important is the need to Identify alternative sites that are currently available and zoned for commercial development. JUNE 139 1995 72 8a 95 PAGE 412 F- • The Redesignation of the Industrial Site to Residential (8 units/acre) Increases the Density of Development in the Node and the Potential Dwelling Unit Count without a Supportive Analysis of Changes in Demographic and Housing Conditions, including Past, Present and Future Trends Pursuant to Policy 1.20. The proposed density for the subject site #1 is 8 units/acre. This 15+/- site could accommodate 120 dwelling units. Under the existing land use designations, subject sites #2, 3, and 4 M would accommodate a maximum of 90 units (only 39 units if Subject site #2 remains zoned A-1. • The Increase in Density and Intensity of Development Generates Substantial Impact on Residential Land Use and Facilities East of US 1 which Would Not Be Similarly Impacted Without the Expanded Node and Intensified Land Use East of US 1. The proposed amendment impacting Subject Site #2 and 3 introduces potentially intense large scale commercial land uses with only 25 foot front setbacks to adjacent areas now accommodating single family homes. Similarly, the commercial development on subject site #4 introduces the potential of a 100,000 - 200,000 square feet shopping mall within 450 feet of high value single family property adjacent to the Indian River. Similarly, the potential shopping mall on site #4 also abuts property designated for medium density residential development. Facility impacts are discussed later in this section. Evaluation of Proposed Node Expansion. Policy 1.23 requires that a node should not be expanded unless 70% of the land area Less R/W) is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non- residential and non-agricultural development, or otherwise warranted by the proposed development. The staff analysis rationalizes that the amendment merely "shifts land uses and no intensity/density bmwase" occurs. The following analysis indicates that the Plan amendment is inconsistent with Policy 1.23. • Fails to Demonstrate Compliance with Node Expansion Criteria. The propose Plan amendment expands the subject CA node as demonstrated above, including generation of 1) adverse land use impacts on single family homes; 2) increased density including the potential increase of 30 dwelling units; 3) over 13 acres of commercial land use east of US 1, including potential construction of more than 100,000 square feet of commercial floor area. When combined with lands under common ownership, the two sites (#2 and #4) could accommodate upwards of over 200,000 sq. ft. of additional gross leasable area of retail commercial use. Despite the expanded node, the proposed amendment does not include a detailed analysis demonstrating compliance with criteria for expanding nodes as stated in Policy 1.23. Evaluation of Coastal Management Issues. The Florida State Division of Emergency Management Computer Model indicates that the CHHA is located in the vicinity of subject property #4 and extends westward to 46th Avenue and therefore embraces the subject site. State policy 9J-5.003(14) recently amended the definition of "coastal high hazard area" to include the evacuation zone for the Category 1 hurricane as established in the regional hurricane evacuation study applicable to the local government. The proposed Plan amendment falls to address planning policies related to managing development in coastal high hazard areas. Since subject site #4 is likely in, or at best very near the Category 1 hurricane storm surge zone, the proposed Plan is likely to generate several related coastal planning and management issues which should be approached more prudently. The implications of an additional 5.5+/- acres of "General Commercial" land use together with the potential resource management issues should be addressed. The current analysis of record fails to address such issues. Evaluation of Public Facility Impacts. Policy -2.8 requires that the public facilities shall have capacities sufficient to meet levels of service established in the Plan and the intensity of future development identified on the Future Land Use Map. If subject site #4 is combined with the adjacent commercial site to the north the resulting commercial site will comprise 13.91+/- acres and could accommodate 100,000 to 200,000 square feet of gross leasable area of retail sales activity. Such a shopping facility could generate between 8,500 to 10,000 trips per day. • CR 510 from US 1 to AIA is projected to be at level of service F by 2010 according to the County's Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element (page 18.3). The Indian River County 2020 Cost Feasible Transportation Plan recommends an expenditure of $3.18+ million in improvements, including an additional 2 lanes and increased right-of-way (Memorandum from Keith Burnsed to MPO, January 3,1995). The recommended improvements have not received a commitment from the County or the State. Realizing the projected shortfall in level of service on CR 510 -- a major hurricane evacuation route -- it appears premature to approve any development that could increase intensity on CR 510. Such action could give an investor or land owner a "false reading" regarding reasonable development expectations. • Plan Amendment Fails to Demonstrate Compliance with Policy 2.8. The staff analysis fails to address public facility impacts on CR 510 despite the projected shortfall in 2010 LOS and lack of funding commitments for require improvements. JUNE 139 1995 73 Evaluation of Compliance With Plan Amendment Criteria. Policy 13.3 requires that no Plan amendment be approved unless there is a showing that the: - The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan. - The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan. - The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. • Plan Amendment Fails to Comply with Policy 13.3. There is no indication in the staff analysis that there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. No quantitative analysis appears: 1) identifying shifts in market conditions and demand of industrial land to warrant loss of a 15 acre industrial site with no replacement; 2) presenting market justification for increased commercial land as mandated pursuant to Policy 1.20, typically including identification of proposed activities, an analysis of unmet primary and secondary markets, consideration of competitive forces, and, equally important, the need to identify alternative sites that are currently available and zoned for commercial development; and 3) the existing rationale for increasing density, including the addition of 30+/- dwelling units. Evaluation of Consistency with Comprehensive Plan and Other Timely Issues. The Plan amendment fails to comply with Policy 13.2 since the Plan amendment does not comply with the following Comprehensive Plan Policies and State coastal resource management requirements: • Policy 1.20: Criteria for Node Size. • Policy 1.23: Criteria for Node Expansion. • State Coastal Management Policies for the Coastal High Hazard Area. • Policy 2.8: Criteria for Managing Impacts on Public Facilities. • Policy 13.3: Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan. • Policy 13.2: Plan Amendment is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan Summary Plan Amendment Evaluation • Policy 1.20: Criteria for Node Size. The size of land uses as well as the density, intensity and land use mix within the node are dramatically changed yet no substantial evidence is presented to justify the changes. • Policy 1.23. Criteria for Node Expansion. The proposed Plan amendment expands the subject C/I node, including generation of: 1) adverse land use impacts on single family homes; 2) increased density including the potential increase of 30 dwelling units; 3) over 13 acres of commercial land use east of US 1, including potential construction of more than 100,000 square feet of commercial floor area. When combined with lands under common ownership, the two sites (#2 and #4) could accommodate upwards of over 200,000 sq. ft. of additional gross leasable area of retail commercial use. Despite the expanded node, the proposed amendment does not include a detailed analysis demonstrating compliance with criteria for expanding nodes as stated in Policy 1.23. • State Coastal Management Policies for the Coastal High Hazard Area. The proposed Plan amendment fails to address planning policies related to managing development in coastal high hazard areas. Since subject site #4 is likely in, or at best very near the Category 1 hurricane storm surge zone, the proposed Plan is likely to generate several related coastal planning and management issues which should be approached more prudently. The implications of an additional 5.5+/- acres of "General Commercial" land use together with the potential resource management issues should be addressed. The current analysis of record fails to address such issues. • Policy 2.8: Criteria for Managing Impacts on Public Facilities. The staff analysis fails to address public facility impacts on CR 510 despite the projected shortfall in 2010 LOS and lack of funding commitments for require improvements. • Policy 13.3: Criteria for Amending the Comprehensive Plan. There is no indication in the staff analysis that there has been a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property. No quantitative analysis appears: 1) identifying shifts in market conditions and demand of industrial land to warrant loss of a 15 acre industrial site with no replacement; 2) presenting market justification for increased commercial land as mandated pursuant to Policy 1.20, typically including identification of proposed activities, an analysis of unmet primary and secondary markets, consideration of competitive forces, and, equally important, the need to identify alternative sites that are currently available and zoned for commercial development; and 3) explaining the rationale for increasing density, including the addition of 30+/- dwelling units. • Policy 13.2: Plan Amendment is Inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan for reasons stated herein. JUNE 139 1995 74 414 Past 415 CERTIFICATION OF FINDINGS The findings presented in this memorandum have been predicated on accepted standards and practices of urban planning and consistent with the Code of Ethics and Professional Conduct of the American Institute of Certified Planners. Lester L. Solin, Jr., AICP, certifies that: • The findings contained herein are limited to my analysis of the Unincorporated Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use, Transportation, and Economic Development Elements together with the Indian River County staff report concerning Plan Amendment Number: LUDA 95-01-0199, signed by Robert M. Keating, AICP, Community Development Director on May 30, 1995, and various County memoranda noted herein. I also visited the subject sites. • Lester L. Solin, Jr. has no present or prospective interest in any subject property in Indian River County, and has no particular interest or bias with respect to any issues material to the subject proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment or to the parties involved or affected by the same; • Compensation to Lester L. Solin, Jr. is not contingent upon the reporting of predetermined conclusions or upon a specified decision by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners or any other public entity; d- Lester L. Solin, Jr., AICP Certified Planner #2063 Mr. Solin believed the redesignation would be a major change in the .land use plan and that the size of the node would be dramatically changed, and would have a substantial impact on residential lands and facilities. He believed the plan amendment is not consistent with policy. William Koolage of 11 Vista Gardens Trail requested that the Board set up a few workshops to study the presentations. Attorney Barkett asked Director Keating if he had been sworn, and Director Keating responded that he had been sworn. Attorney Barkett then asked whether the staff considered the capability issue, and Director Keating advised that they had and felt the redesignation is completely consistent with the Comp Plan. Director Keating continued by pointing out that the original intent of the node at CR -510 and A1A was major commercial service. He emphasized that zoning is not an issue at this point in time and that the Comp Plan does not require market studies. Attorney Barkett stated that a Catholic diocese is purchasing Property Number 4 and inquired what else they might do with the property other than construct a church. Attorney Barkett then introduced Ken Kennedy, one of the applicants who is a member of the Wabasso Corridor Task Force; Gordon Michael, and Mr. and Mrs. Ryall, some of the other applicants. He advised the Board that he felt staffs' recommendation is appropriate and that the applicants are some of the most respected names in the community. JUNE 139 1995 75 � � s Michelle Bishop of 4785 86th Place, Wabasso, expressed her concerns that children will not be able to ride bicycles or play in safety in the neighborhood due to increased traffic. Gordon Michael of 2655 69th Street commented that this application has not been an overnight process. He emphasized that his only business is a packing house and that his family has been in the citrus business for generations. He also commented, referring to the .7 acre parcel, that when the property was purchased half of it was zoned commercial and half was zoned residential. They are trying to have the whole property one type of zoning. Mr. Michael also expressed his opinion that Dr. Lewis and Dr. Gorsuch were aware when they purchased their property of the "Disney" rush. Chairman Macht asked the two attorneys to make their closing remarks and keep them to 3 minutes each. Attorney Dill stated that Dr. Lewis and Dr. Gorsuch had been offered 12 trees on their personal property not to be here today and they declined because they did not think it was in the best interest of the community. He asked that the Board review the application and make a decision based on the facts. Attorney Barkett asked Director Keating for the distances between the Lewis and Gorsuch house to the closest point of the property being redesignated, and Director Keating responded that the closest point to the current commercial property is 625 feet and the closest point to the property being redesignated is 875 feet. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eggert had some concerns about increased traffic on CR -510 but had no problem with submitting the proposal to the DCA because there is still a long way to go. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-71, approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review. "Io JUNE 139 1995 76 F_ RESOLUTION NO. 95- 71 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its January 1995 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on April 27, 1995 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 4 to 2 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 13, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendments. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: JUNE 139 1995 Request to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 15 acres located at the southwest corner of 55th Avenue and 87th Street from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node, to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre); to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 8.8 acres located on the north side of 82nd Street, east of U.S. #1, from M-1, Medium - Density Residential -1, to C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node; to amend the Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 0.7 acres located on the south side of 82nd Street, east of U.S. #1, from M- 1, Medium -Density Residential -1, to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node; and to amend the 77 RESOLUTION NO. 95-71 Comprehensive Plan to redesignate approximately 5.5 acres located near the northeast corner of 85th Street and 46th Avenue, from .1, Medium -Density Residential -1, to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node. The forgoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Tippin and seconded by Commissioner Bird and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave Commissioner Richard N. Bird Ave Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 13th day of June 1995. ATTEST: ►�Z BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, F ORIDA BY: Kenneth R. Mac t, Chairman JUNE 139 1995 95 78; F_ PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK RESOLUTION #85-61, BETWEEN REALCOR ASSOC. AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 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 Beady, Indian River County. Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Ise 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. ,Sworn .to'and subscribed before me this _ bday of A.D. 18 (Business Manager) (SEAQ State of Roma. ki•: Commissx., Lx•)i Jun•• 29 1 - rommrssia„ Nunmeer. CCSuu572 • fe f Signed:-- • hulary EARJARA C. £:'P AGUE JUNE 139 1995 79 The troard a�7C�-ft � a � i" it. PJM OWat �i1S aaL.In ft �Co,rrry�y stat G'hsnDera`.a ft..Odn(y Brid- TThs p� ho seam,wSe = of the frarrdriee PA' AN the � Seceon loo of Of Ccurhydde NNM Metre Home Park kfacer t°�p: •-of de tri t f schise in it i- and, � 0 o► Uwrirere f Fran- diseAnyone who neyeda a gXCW ac000eroftm for wwifr oiea6 Act (ADA) ab FA �orxd11 Ext, 108, at least 18 hone in advance of thw IF � 28.18f5 �a L r ail The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 6, 1995: DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTI SERVICES PREPARED HARRY E. A44;� AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK, RESOLUTION 185-61, BETWEEN REALCOR ASSOCIATES AND INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PUBLIC HEARING BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS On May- 23, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners set the date of June 13, 1995 for the public hearing of the above -referenced franchise. The information previously submitted for review by the Board of County Commissioners is attached. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners find the franchise in default and, therefore, the franchise is no longer in force. Attorney Vitunac announced that back in 1985 the County gave a, franchise to Realcor Corporation and apparently that park has been sold to a new buyer. The sole purpose for this public meeting today is to determine whether Realcor is in violation of its franchise. The Utilities Department is prepared to present several aspects of the franchise which they feel have not been complied with. There are other aspects concerning Countryside and the County, impact fees and overdue debts and the purchase of the park, which are not truly part of the franchise discussion today. Attorney Vitunac noted that Utilities Director Terry Pinto is prepared to present the facts showing that all franchise requirements have not been met. He also noted that there is an attorney here representing the present owners of the park together with representatives from both citizens' committees. With that, he asked Director Pinto to present the charges. Director Pinto explained that the Utilities Department is charged with overseeing private franchises within Indian River County. The issues today are payment of their 6% franchise fees, keeping their R & R accounts current, and filing annual reports. Since 1992, Realcor, the holder of the franchise, has failed to comply with those terms of the franchise and there have been JUNE 139 1995 80 Bou 95 PAGE 420 600K 95 PACE 421 several complaints on water quality. So there are 3 items today -- franchise fees have been unpaid since 1992 - the Renewal & Replacement -fund has not been funded adequately and they have not responded to the complaints on water quality that have been sent to them. We do know that the ownership of the park was transferred from Realcor Corporation to Ellenburg Corporation. However, we do not have any evidence whether the utility was part of that transfer. If it was, then they transferred it without complying with the franchise requirements as it would take a public hearing to accommodate that transfer. _After receiving no response to repeated correspondence to Realcor, we have brought this before the BCC in a public hearing to give the owner the opportunity to be heard on why they have not complied with the requirements within the franchise. Directgr Pinto noted that we know there are some negotiations going on to sell the park and franchise it under a new owner. It was brought before the Board at a previous meeting to ask for a postponement of this issue until such time as the prospective buyers of the park had the ability to negotiate the terms which would include the default of the franchise. After notification of this hearing, all three parties have made contact with staff --the previous owners of the park, the present owner and the potential buyers of the park. The potential buyers of the park have expressed a willingness to resolve this issue if they buy the park. The tentative proposal they have submitted is one that we would be comfortable to submit to the Board for their review, but none of that can take place until they purchase the park. Director Pinto stated that we are not sure who the owner is; we are absolutely sure that whoever the owner is, they are not complying with the existing franchise. We ask the Board to place an order on the owner to provide whatever is required under the franchise and take whatever action the County Attorney recommends to force them to do so. Director Pinto advised that if the Board wants to get further into this, the Agenda item and all the information given today would be made part of the record of complaint for this public hearing. He recommended that testimony be taken under oath. Attorney Vitunac asked all those planning to speak to stand and be sworn in. Chairman Macht opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. JUNE 13, 1995 81 M M Michael Tammaro of the law firm of Carlton, Fields, Ward in West Palm Beach advised that he is representing Ellenburg Capi al Corporation, the current owners of Countryside Mobile Home Pak. He noted that he was standing in for Attorney Gary Brandenburg Tho was unable to be here today. Attorney Tammaro recapped the progression of ownership of Countryside and the confusion regarding the franchise transfer. He stressed that the franchise cannot be transferred to Ellenburg until the outstanding fees are paid. Ellenburg is not willing to pay the outstanding fees. They are squeezed between what Realcor owes and their belief that Realcor should pay that. Until the franchise is transferred, Ellenburg cannot give annual reports and meet other requirements. An ideal resolution is for the residents to acquire the park. Negotiations are continuing with an anticipated closing date of July 15. He is told by his clients that there is a substantial sum of money in escrow, earnest money. He asked the Board's indulgence for a 90 - day postponement. Attorney Vitunac advised that the Board has the right to postpone the public hearing and there is no problem from the legal side. Director Pinto stated that would not be a problem for the Utilities Department. Commissioner Adams asked why they didn't respond earlier, and Attorney Tammaro said that Ellenburg has been responding, but Realcor has not. Attorney Vitunac explained that our franchise is with Realcor, the previous owner. It has nothing to do with the ownership of the park. Attorney Tammaro explained that the best solution came along when the residents of the park decided to purchase the park. All they are asking for is 60-90 days and there really isn't any reason not to postpone this public hearing. Commissioner Bird understood that Ellenburg purchased the park in 1993 and the fees from then until now will be paid in full. The question remains about who owes the fees from 1985 to 1993. He asked Attorney Tammaro whether he were saying that if Ellenburg sells the park to the residents, the residents will make the County whole on the amount of money that is due between 1985 to 1993. Attorney Tammaro felt they would not make the County whole, but felt that everyone would reach an acceptable resolution. They have tried to track down Realcor on these issues but have not been successful. He understood that the purchasers' attorney has contacted Director Pinto with regard to the outstanding franchise fees. JUNE 139 1995 82 Boa mu A* �aoK 95. FACE 423 Director Pinto wished to clarify the issues in question regarding the franchise fees. The 6% franchise fee fund needs to be brought up to $42,000. Commissioner Bird stressed that with another -pending sale of the park, the County would take whatever steps we need to.protect our interests, even if it means going to court and getting an injunction. He wanted everyone to be on notice that the County may have been asleep once, but we are not going to do that again. Chairman Macht interjected that we are in a public hearing and everyone has a right to be heard. Attorney Vitunac suggested that we ask if the residents wish to postpone the hearing, but Commissioner Adams was ready to hear all of the evidence. Chairman Macht felt the Commission has all the leverage it needs to postpone this hearing. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, to postpone the public hearing for 60 days, delaying a decision on the utility franchise until that time. Chairman Macht limited discussion to the question of whether or not to postpone the public hearing. Glen Martini wished to present correspondence pertaining to the Countryside issue, but Chairman Macht asked Mr. Martini to limit his comments to reasons why this public hearing should or should not be postponed for 90 days. Commissioner Adams felt we should hear these people because they have been waiting all morning for this public hearing. Dorothy Curtis stated that she is one of the residents who is trying to buy the park. She stressed that they are extremely close to buying the park, and she urged the Board to grant the postponement. Ed Nelson, resident of Countryside, objected to the Motion to postpone because people have been waiting all morning for this public hearing to begin. He felt this is a smoke screen and the Commission doesn't know what it is all about. The main issue here is how to pick up that $400,000 that they cannot collect because Realcor was dissolved. Mr. Nelson wanted permission to go through his arguments, and he pointed out that if this hearing is postponed JUNE 139 1995 83 for 60-90 days, many of the people will have gone up north. He maintained that the last meeting was postponed at the request of two people who had no authority to speak to the matter. After lengthy discussion, Commissioner Bird reiterated his support to go along with staff Is recommendation and to postpone the public hearing to await the outcome of the purchase negotiations. Commissioner Tippin agreed. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion was voted on and carried unanimously. WILLOW STREET PAVING AND DRAINAGE ENOROVEMENTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 7, 1995: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: June 7, 1995 SUBJECT: Willow Street Paving and Drainage Improvements FROM: James E. Chandler Y5r Q.— County Administrator A joint Public Hearing of the Board and Fellsmere City Council regarding the Willow Street improvements originally scheduled for January 24, 1995 was canceled at the request of the City. A straw ballot. question concerning unpaved streets had been scheduled for the City's March election. At this time, a final determination has not been made concerning the proposed Willow Street Project. Inquiries from interested parties continue to be received about the project status, as well as requests for the public hearing to express their views both pro and con. - If the Public Hearing is rescheduled, City Administrator John Little advised that the City Council could not support the city portion of the project, unless the proposed assessment within the City were modified to apply only to properties fronting on Willow Street. With respect to hearing dates, he indicated the City is flexible, with the exception of Council meeting nights, which are the 1 st and 3rd Thursdays. _ County Administrator Chandler reviewed the matter with the Board and advised that the City Council of the City of Fellsmere has advised they could not support the city portion of the project unless the assessments were on a front footage basis. CONSENSUS was reached to set a public hearing date early in August, 1995, on the Willow Street Paving and Drainage Improvements. JUNE 139 1995 84 1 ija 95 m( 424 mu 95, mi 425 r CITRUS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DESIGN REPORT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 1, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Obert M. Rea ng, AICP Community Develop ent rector FROM: Reith Burnsed vkpp MPO Planner DATE: June 1, 1995 RE: CITRUS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR PLANNING AND DESIGN REPORT It is requested that the consideration by the Board meeting of June 13, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS data herein presented be given formal of County Commissioners at their regular The Citrus Highway (County Road 609) is a proposed two-lane roadway that will link the citrus groves, processing facilities, and markets in Indian River, St.. Lucie, and Martin Counties. As proposed, the Citrus Highway will extend approximately 48 miles from Wabasso Road (County Road 510) in Indian River County to Indiantown Road (State Road 710) in Martin County. To study the proposed Citrus Highway, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) hired'a consultant to complete a Corridor Planning and Design Report. Since 1993, the consultant has worked on the project through a Citrus Highway Technical Advisory Committee consisting of representatives from FDOT, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council, the Indian River Citrus League, and Indian River, St. Lucie, and Martin Counties. With the Corridor Planning and Design Report now complete, staff has initiated a request to incorporate the Citrus Highway into the county's comprehensive plan. To further ensure consistency among plans affecting the county's transportation system, the Indian River County MPO placed the Citrus Highway on the 2020 Cost Feasible Plan, which is the MPO's list of highway improvements that will be undertaken in the MPO area. On April 15, 1995, the Martin County Commission voted to accept the Citrus Highway Final Report, and the St. Lucie County Commission accepted the report at its May 9, 1995 meeting. The Indian River County MPO will consider the report at its June 14, 1995 meeting. At this time, staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners formally accept the report. ANALYSIS In undertaking the Citrus Highway study, the study team developed six alternative alignments. These alignments follow the existing Dale Hairy Road (CR 609) in Martin County, then follow alternative roadways through central and north St. Lucie County, and continue JUNE 139 1995 85 r on to Indian River County, where the alignments then use 66th Avenue or 82nd Avenue to CR 510. The six alternatives were screened using consideration of environmental, traffic, safety, and other factors. The screening resulted in the selection of two preferred alignment corridors. The preferred corridors each use 82nd Avenue in Indian River County, and are shown in the map attached to this staff report. The preferred corridors were further analyzed by comparing costs for right-of-way acquisition, road construction and improvement, growth management issues, and public comment. While no flaws were identified with either preferred alignment, Alignment A, which uses Shinn Road in St. Lucie County, was the higher ranked alternative. There are important benefits to be derived from the Citrus Highway. The new roadway will relieve citrus truck traffic from US 1 in the three counties. The roadway will also provide a more direct route for agriculturally oriented trucks to shipping and processing facilities, and will support the citrus industry and employment in the region. Staff has attached portions of the Citrus Highway Transportation Corridor Planning and Design Study Final Report to this staff report. A complete copy of the final report is available for review either at the office of the Board of County Commissioners or in the Planning Division office, both of which are located in the Indian River County Administration Building. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners review the attached information from the Citrus Highway Corridor Planning and Design Study Final Report and formally approve and accept the report. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved and accepted the Transportation Corridor Planning and Design Study, Final Report prepared by Barton- Aschman*Associates, Inc. JUNE 13, 1995 STUDY IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 86 ®®K 9� 426 _I 100F 95 : PAUL 427 E911 COMMUNICATIONS CENTER - EQUIPMENT AND MalillYll The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 6, 1995.: - TO: Board of County Commissioners THROUGS:- Jim Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Directorl:)' Emergency Services DATE: June 6, 1995 .SUBJECT: Purchase of Certain Equipment and Furniture for E9-1-1 Communications Center It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next regular scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The Sheriff's Department staff at the E9-1-1 Center is seeking funding from the 911 surcharge revenue in the amount of $2,491 to purchase replacement office furniture and equipment. This request represents a partial furniture replacement of a type which is consistent with existing office equipment. The requested items will be used by the dispatchers in performance of their daily tasks. Funding to purchase the following equipment is requested: DESCRIPTION'; QTY COST TOTAL Plain Paper Facsimile Machine 1 $1,545 $1,545 Low Pile Carpeting Chair Mats 3 22 66 Globe Evolution Chair 4 200 800 24 Hour Digital Display Clocks 2 40 80 TOTAL <: The above expenditures were not funded in the FY 94/95 budget. If the Board approves the request, funding for the furniture and equipment would have to be appropriated from the 9-1-1 surcharge contingency...account and a budget amendment would be necessary. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The dispatchers' chairs and the facsimile machine are more than five (5) years old. The facsimile machine is used to send/receive informational bulletins and is routinely jamming and generally unreliable. The concern is that important bulletins will not be receivedand disseminated to governmental agencies in a timely manner with the undependable and unreliable machine. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends approval of the funding request from the Sheriff's Department for the 9-1-1 Communications Center and requests the Board authorize the necessary budget amendment of $2,491. JUNE 139 1995 87 � � r Commissioner Tippin commented that he had purchased a very nice machine from Office Depot a year or so ago for $450.00. Commissioner Bird directed staff to attempt to obtain a cheaper purchase price. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the funding request from the Sheriff's Department and authorized the budget amendment of $2,491 for purchase of equipment and furniture for E911 Communications Center. NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY - PARKING LOT EXPANSION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 5, 1995: DATE: JUNE 51 1995 TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR PROM: H.T. "SONNY" DEAN, DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF GENERAL SERVICES SUBJECT: NORTH INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LIBRARY - PARKING LOT EXPANSION BACKGROUND: As requested by the Board of County Commissioners, staff has looked at various alternatives to expand parking at the North Indian River County Library. The following two alternatives were investigated: 1. Expand the present parking lot to the south or rear of the building using existing property. The engineering firm of Masterller and Moler, Inc. was contacted and requested to look at the feasibility of expanding on the present property, and provide a cost of adding approximately twenty parking spaces. They confirmed the work could be done and estimated the cost of $40,000. 2. Purchase additional property to the east of the building and expand parking to a determined amount of -spaces. Contact was made with Mr. Peter B. Hoelzle of Lennar Northeast Partners, Inc., the company handling the surrounding property and he offered to sell any amount needed at $6.00 per square foot. The exact amount of land required has not been determined. JUNE 139 1995 88 560K 95 PAGE428' I bdQK 95 �AIH 429 RECOMMENDATIONS: Since the number of parking spaces has not been determined and there are nd"budgeted dollars for this project, staff is requesting Board guidance as to how to proceed. Commissioner Eggert asked for a breakdown and inquired if traffic impact fees were included in the fee for Engineering Design/Permitting. Director Dean advised that he had not asked for a breakdown. Commissioner Adams wondered if the row of cedar trees comprised the property line where the parking lot was planned and whether there would be a back entrance. Commissioner Bird felt that more information was needed and suggested a delay of 1 week. Commissioner Tippin felt that a rough site plan would be a. big help. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously directed staff to obtain an estimate of the cost of an appraisal and prepare a rough site plan for presentation at the July 11, 1995, meeting. AS -BUILT RESOLUTION & ASSESSMENT ROLLS FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IlVIPROVEMENTS TO IST PLACE BETWEEN 27TH AVENUE AND 32ND AVENUE IN VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 30, 1995: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, CET Civil Engineer DATE: May 30, 1995 SUBJECT: As -Built Resolution & Assessment Roll for Paving and Drainage Improvements to: 1) 1st Place between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue in Vero Beach Homesites Subdivision JUNE 139 1995 89 I DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of the above road has been completed. The final assessment is as follows: 1) Prelimin&a Estimates Final Cost $68,760.59 - 100% $67,332.85 - 100% $51,570.44 - 75% $51,509.63 - 75%* (3040.71/Front Footage) (3040.71/Front Footage) $16.96/per FF $16.94/per IF *This figure includes 2% Tax Collector's fee. The final assessment roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in 2 equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date at an interest rate of 8.5% established by the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefitted owners is less than the preliminary assessment roll, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment roll. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the final assessment roll and the "As -Built Resolution" for the paving of the above mentioned road be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that it be transferred to the Tax Collector for recording in the "Assessment Lien Book" and for collection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 95-72 certifying "As -Built" costs for certain paving and drainage improvements to 1st Place between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue in Vero Beach Homesites Subdivision, designated as Project No. 9110. As -Built (Fourth Reso.) 2/7/95(ENG)RES4.MAG\gfk RESOLUTION NO. 95-7 2 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CERTIFYING "AS - BUILT" COSTS FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 1ST PLACE BETWEEN 27TH AVENUE AND 32ND AVENUE IN VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION, DESIGNATED AS PROJECT NO. 9110, AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that the improvements described herein specially benefited the property located within the boundaries as described in this title, designated as Project No. 9110, are in the public Interest and promote the public welfare of the county; and JTJrTE 139 19959 0 �00� gJ P��E 4. 0 r mog , 95 Put V1 RESOLUTION 95-72 WHEREAS, on May 24, 1994, the Board held a_ public hearing in the Commission Chambers at which time the owners of the property to be assessed were afforded an opportunity to appear before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 9469, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in an attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Public Works has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed Is $1694 per front foot, which Is less than $1696 per front foot in the confirming Resolution No. 94-69, NOW THEREFORE, BE -IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUN rY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. Resolution No. 9469 is modified as follows: The completion date for Project No. 9110 Is declared to be May 15, 1995, and the last day that payment may be made avoiding Interest and penalty charges Is ninety (90) days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing Interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum may be made In two (2) equal Installments, the first to be made twelve (12) months from the due date and the subsequent payments to be due yearly from the due date. The due date Is ninety (90) days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The assessment roll for said project listed in Resolution No. 9469 shall be as set forth In attached Exhibit "A" to this resolution. 4. The assessments as shown in attached Exhibit "A" shall stand confirmed and remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. JUNE 139 1995 91 RESOLUTION 95-72 S. The assessments shown in Exhibit W, attached to Resolution No.9469 were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall constitute prima facie evidence of its validity. This resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert . and the motion was seconded by Commissioner Adams and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 1 I day of M i n e .1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IND LqkAIVER. CO ORIDA By NNETH R. MACHT, Chairman Attest: JEFFREY K. BARTO Cler . Attachment: Exhibit W C:\wp6O\DATA9511plasbit.res 2 JUNE 139 1995 92 FcM �M! � f *5 VMV,FS0�I '5 PAcE 432 500K U ./ CID 4 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1 ST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) CIOTOTAL VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION FRONT FEET.......... 3040.71 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $51,509.63 PROJECT NO. 9110 COST, PER FRONT FOOT ............. $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 1. Theodore A. & Mary Wujcik Parcel #15333900010000200010.0 102.00 16.94 $1,727.88 N 2706 1 st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}61, Lot 11, M Less E 5 FT for Road R/W & o Less W 83 Ft. Block B 9- 2. George A. Watson Parcel #15333900010000200010.1 102.00 16.94 $1,727.88 y 2746 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. a� Vero Beach, FL 32968 1)A PBI 3}61, W 83 Ft of Lot , 11 & E 19 FT of Lot 12, Block B (OR BK 491 PP 878) 3. Jin K. & Rita Lee Parcel#15333900010000200012.0 101.00 16.94 $1,710.94 2766 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}61, Lot 12 Less E 19 Ft. & All Lot 13, Block B (OR BK 463 PP 737) 4. Norman & Anna L. Ensminger Parcel #15333900010000200014.0 120.00 16.94 $2,032.80 2830 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}61, Lots 14 & 15, Block B (OR BK 482 PP 193) 1PLFIN2.WK1 ' Signed Petition EXHIBIT "A II 26 -May -9 M rn kn 0ON1 M rj 1 1 to 1 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET PROJECT NO. 9110 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. COST PER FRONT FOOT ............. 3040.71 $51,509.63 $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 5. John S. Mead Parcel#15333900010000200016.0 60.00 16.94 $1,016.40 2870 1 st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1)A PBI 3)61, Lot 16, Block B 6. Harry L. & Holly H. Coker Parcel #15333900010000200017.0 63.50 16.94 $1,075.69 2880 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1)A PBI 3)61, Lot 17, Less W 65.5 Ft. & Lot 18, Less W , 65.5 Ft., Block B 7. 8. Samuel G.& Louise V.Masiello 2890 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32962 Frederick H.& Lena Ki DeDoming 136 29th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32968 1 PLFIN2.WK1 Parcel#15333900010000200017.1 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)61, The W 65.5 Ft. of Lot 17, & the W 65.5 Ft. of Lot 18, Block B Parcel #15333900010000300001.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)61, Lot 1, Block C 65.50 129.00 16.94 16.94 " Signed Petition FXHIRIT t' " $1,109.57 $2,185.26 * ' 26 -May -85 Nt 0) kn th 0 d� FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 3040.71 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $51,509.63 PROJECT NO. 9110 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............. $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 9. Victoria J. Molinari (TR) Parcel #15333900010000300003.0 60.00 16.94 $1,016.40 • P.O. Box 7159 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32961-7159 1)A PBI 3)61, Lot 3 Block C 10. Alfred & Claire Soderlupd 2845 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 11. Douglas H. Long 2825 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 Parcel#15333900010000300004.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)61, Lot 4 Block C Parcel #15333900010000300005.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1-A, Lot 5 Block C 12. Joseph W. & Janeen V. Kinnear Parcel #15333900010000300006.0 2765 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1)A PBI 3)61, Lot 6 & W 40 Ft. of Lot 7, Block C 1 PLFIN2.WK1 " Signed Petition 60.00 60.00 100.00 16.94 16.94 16.94 FYHIRIT 11A11 $1,016.40 * $1,016.40 * $1,694.00 * 26 -May -95 1 Ln rn u7 ON ON ro .b. FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: , 1ST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 3040.71 COST TO PROOERTY OWNERS .............. $51,509.63 PROJECT N0.9110 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............. $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 13. John A. & Darolyn Weiss Parcel #15333940010000300008.0 205.00 16.94 $3,472.70 n 2725 1 st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}61, Lot 8, Less ° E 5 Ft. for Road R/W, Block C N & E 20 Ft. of Lot 7 CA 14. Ovila E. J & Dorothy I. Dube Parcel #15333900009000600016.0 121.32 16.94 $2,055.16 ' 2905 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}33, Lots 16 & 17 Block F 15. Lillian Jane Beeler Parcel #15333900009000600018.0 120.00 16.94 $2,032.80 503 Sand Dollar IV Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 8090 S AIA 1}A PBI 3}33, Lots 18 & 19 St. Augustine, FL 32086 Block F 01 16. Ann & Robert Berger Parcel#15333900009000600020.0 240.00 16.94 $4,065.60 12 Red Barn Lane Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Randolph, NJ 07869 1}A PBI 3}33, Lots 20, 21, 22 th & 23, Block F 1PLFIN2.WK1 • Signed Petition 0 26 -May -95 F -I ... Cn. A9 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 3040.71 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS.............. $51,509.63 PROJECT NO. 9110 COST PER FRONT FOOT............. $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST n 17. Audrey J. Roberts Parcel #15333900009000600024.0 60.00 16.94 $1,016.40 J P.O. Box 14 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. °Martin, TN 38237 1}A PBI 3}33, Lot 24, Block F x N I � 18. Anthony & Dora Esposito Parcel #15333900009000600025.0 60.00 16.94 $1,016.40 * O1 c P.O. Box 650754 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32965-0754 1}A PBI 3}33, Lot 25, Block F (OR BK 492 PP 265) 19. Peter O. & Dianne Marie Dove Parcel #15333900009000600026.0 180.00 16.94 $3,049.20 31651 st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}33, Lots 26, 27, & 28, Block F (OR BK 448 PP 866) 20. Michael D.& Beverly A. Tirpak Parcel #15333900009000600029.0 125.00 16.94 $2,117.50 166 32nd Avenue Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. p� Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3}33, Lots 29 & 30 Block F cri 1PLFIN2.WK1 " Signed Petition�� 26-May-95 -Grp W d ii FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS �r TO: , IST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 3040.71 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $51,509.63 PROJECT NO. 9110 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............. $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 21. Wayne E. & Sharon L. Greer Parcel#15333900009000700001.0 125.00 16.94 $2,117.50 n 3196 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No.- Vero o:Vero Beach, FL 32968 1)A PBI 3)33, Lots 1 & 2, In °% Block G (OR BK 409 PP 783) I o Co 40 M 22. Michael J.& Dorene F.Kelleher Parcel #15333900009000700003.0 120.00 16.94 $2,032.80 a' 2025 Magnolia Lane Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32963 1)A PBI 3)33, Lots 3 & 4, Block G (OR BK 409 PP 783) 23. Steven S. & Pamela A. Webb Parcel #15333900009000700005.0 90.00 16.94 $1,524.60 3156 1st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 5 & W 1/2 of Lot 6, Block G (OR BK 469 PP 563) �n 24. David L.& Clara Joyce Thatcher Parcel #15333900009000700006.0 90.00 .16.94 $1,524.60 P.O. Box 82 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Freedom, IN 47431 1)A PBI 3)33, E 1/2 of Lot 6 & Lot 7, Block G (OR BK 427 PP 885) 1PLFlN2.WK1 " Signed Petition" " 26 -May -95 N i in M z 0 M 0 H 4 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 25. David L.& Clara Joyce Thatcher Parcel #15333900009000700008.0 120.00 16.94 $2,032.80 P.O. Box 82 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Freedom, IN 47431 1)A PBI 3)33, Lots 8 & 9, Block G (OR BK 403 PP 624) 26. James R. & Crystal J: Rice 2946 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 27. James R. & Crystal J. Rice 2946 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 28. James R. & Crystal J. Rice 2946 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 1 PLFIN2.WK1 Parcel#15333900009000700010.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 10, Block G (OR BK 434 PP 946) Parcel#15333900009000700011.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 11, Block G (OR BK 433 PP 282) Parcel#15333900009000700012.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 12, Block G (OR BK 433 PP 282) ' Signed Petition 60.00 60.00 . O 151, 16.94 16.94 16.94 $1,016.40 * $1,016.40 * $1,016.40 * FX H1. BIT "All 26-".,95 FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL, FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: IST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) CZ; VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 3040.71 " COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $51,509.63 PROJECT NO. 9110 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............. $16.94 N i in M z 0 M 0 H 4 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 25. David L.& Clara Joyce Thatcher Parcel #15333900009000700008.0 120.00 16.94 $2,032.80 P.O. Box 82 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Freedom, IN 47431 1)A PBI 3)33, Lots 8 & 9, Block G (OR BK 403 PP 624) 26. James R. & Crystal J: Rice 2946 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 27. James R. & Crystal J. Rice 2946 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 28. James R. & Crystal J. Rice 2946 1st Place Vero Beach, FL 32968 1 PLFIN2.WK1 Parcel#15333900009000700010.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 10, Block G (OR BK 434 PP 946) Parcel#15333900009000700011.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 11, Block G (OR BK 433 PP 282) Parcel#15333900009000700012.0 Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. 1)A PBI 3)33, Lot 12, Block G (OR BK 433 PP 282) ' Signed Petition 60.00 60.00 . O 151, 16.94 16.94 16.94 $1,016.40 * $1,016.40 * $1,016.40 * FX H1. BIT "All 26-".,95 1 1 I� N i In a% I FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO: 1ST PLACE (Between 27th Avenue and 32nd Avenue) VERO BEACH HOMESITES SUBDIVISION TOTAL FRONT FEET.......... 3040,71 COST TO PROPERTY OWNERS .............. $51,509.63 PROJECT NO. 9110 COST PER FRONT FOOT ............. $16.94 NAME & ADDRESS LEGAL DESCRIPTION FRONT FOOTAGE COST/F.F. TOTAL COST 29. John R. & Sarah L. Montgomery Parcel #15333900009000700013.0 181.39 16.94 $3,072.75 2196 1 st Place Vero Beach Homesites Unit No. Vero Beach, FL 32968 1}A PBI 3133, Lots 13, 14 & 15, Block G 1 PLFIN2.WK1 TOTAL 3040.71 16.94 $51,509.63 FF TOTAL COST Signed Petition I ' 28 -May -85 FXHIRIT "A" W. 11-N O O H RESOLUTION 95-72 RNAL COST FOR 1ST PLACE DATE: MAY 25, 1995 PROJECT NO. 9110 TOTAL F.F. TOTAL L.F. FINAL COST CONSTRUCTION Labor $12,209.92 - Equipment $11,942.35 Asphalt $22,342.34 Sod $5,737.88 Pipe $6,298.90 ' Limerock $1,956.47 Testing $446.00 Miscellaneous $840.00 Less CREDIT for Fill ($1,162.50) Total Construction Cost $60,611.36 PERMIT FEES $300.00 ROW ACQUISITION & TITLE SEARCH $0,00 ENGINEERING (Based on $2.59/L.F.) $2.59 Administration 2.98410% Recording Fees 25% County's Cost 75 % Property Owner's Assessment 2 % Tax Collector's Fee (75 % Figure) TOTAL ASSESSMENT 1 PLFIN.wk1 5m 5' PAGE 441 3040.71 1610 1610 LF = Sub—Total TOTAL Assessment $51,509.63 $16.94 3040.71 $60,611.36 $300.00 $0.00 169.90 $65,081.26 $1,942.09 09.50 $67,332.85 $16,833.21 $50,499.64 $1,009.99 $51,509.63 25 -May -95 JUNE 139 1995 101 M M M ARTIFICIAL WETLAND PROTECT ADDITIONAL SERVICES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 1, 1995: DATE: JUNE 1, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINIS FROM: TERRANCE G. PI DIRECTOR OF UTTRATO SERVICES PREPARED ROBERT O. WISEMEN, P.E AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER VY BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SkRVICES SUBJECT: ARTIFICIAL WETLAND PROJECT ADDITIONAL SERVICES INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. IIS -93 -05 -ED On February 7, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved and executed an agreement with Coastal Construction of Brevard. The construction is in progress and approximately 55% completed. The MSSW permit received from the Department of Environmental Protection requires the County to conduct additional monitoring of the surface water elevation of the existing ± 20 acres of the Cypress area. Also, the permit requires the County to. identify and limit the jurisdictional wetland in excess of that normally proposed in this type of project. ANALYSIS The staff gauge and delineation of the jurisdictional wetland was performed by Ecotech Scientist. The services are covered in Section 1, Tasks 3 and 4 in a letter dated March 10, 1995 to the County by Masteller and Moler. Section 2 for additional services arose as a result of the discharge of effluent from the wetlands to the County canal system (waters of the State). This would not be necessary if the Department of Environmental Protection would accept the artificial wetland as a disposal system instead of as an additional treatment of a wastewater treatment system. Section 3 is for additional services to provide a better entrance road to the treatment plant and wetlands system. The existing design was considered to be the inexpensive way for an access road; however, it does require periodic -maintenance. The relocation �of the entrance gate and paving of the entrance road will provide better safety and security with less maintenance costs. Section 1 Task 3 Task 4 Section 2 Section 3 REON Delineation Lump sum fee Installation Lump sum fee of jurisdictional wetland $ 615.00 of staff gauge Assistance to the County in obtaining NPDES permit Design of entrance road Total to be approved 1,175.00 9,060.00 4.850.00 $15,700.00 The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval and execution of the addendum to the agreement with Masteller and Moler, Inc., in the amount of $15,700.00. JUNE 13, 1995 102 800E 95 FaGE 44 r rooK 95 Pn:E 443 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the Addendum to the Agreement with Masteller and Moler, Inc. in the amount of $15,700, as recommended by staff. ADDENDUM IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT - HERITAGE ESTATES - COLONL4L TERRACE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 6, 1995: DATE: .7wie 6, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED TERRY H. DRUM AND STAFFED G.I.8. COORDINATOR/ G.I.B. MAPPING DIVISION BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: WATER MAIN REPLACEMENT PROJECT HERITAGE ESTATES / COLONIAL TERRACE IRC HID NO. 4007, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -95 -16 -DS, WORK AUTHORIZATION NO. 31 BACKGROUND On September 29, 1993, the Board of County Commissioners approved the award of the labor contract bid to Driveways, Inc., Bid No. 4007. (See Attached Minutes.) The Department of Utility Services utilizes the labor contract for renewal and replacement to replace the distribution system within various areas. This is in response to the continuing problems of rusting, leaking and low pressure with the existing galvanized water lines. ANALYSIS The subject project is comprised of the replacement of existing 2" galvanized water line with approximately 200 linear feet of 2" PVC water main and 1,395 linear feet of service laterals along with 85 meter connections. The cost of the labor to construct the 2" PVC water main under the labor contract is $46,823.97 (see attached work authorization No. 31 with Driveways, Inc.). The pipe, valves, and fittings will be supplied by the County at a cost of $31,165.86. In-house engineering, inspection, and administration costs are estimated to be $9,000.00. The construction of these replacement water lines is a part of a continuing effort by the Department to replace galvanized water lines in Indian River County. Funding for this project will be from renewal..and replacement funds. JUNE 139 1995 103 RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the execution of the attached agreement, which approves Work Authorization No. 31, with Driveways, Inc., to construct the water line replacement in the amount of $46,823.97 to replace an estimated total of 200 linear - feet of water main, 1,395 linear feet of laterals and 85 meter connections and authorizes. expenditure of $40,165.86 for materials and in-house support, for a total project cost of $86,989.83. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved Work Authorization No. 31 with Driveways, Inc., for a total project cost of $86,989.83, as recommended by staff. AUTHORIZATION IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NORTH BEACH R.O. PLANT - UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum of May 9, 1995: DATE: MAY 9, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTIL SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM Mc N AND STAFFED CAPITAL CTS ENGINEER BY: DEPAR F UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: NORTH MCH R.O. PLANT UNDERGROUND FUEL STORAGE TANK REMOVAL AND REPLACEMENT BACKGROUND This is a budgeted renewal and replacement project for the- year 1995. Both state and federal regulations are now requiring municipalities to retrofit all underground fuel storage tanks with above ground facilities. The regulations on tank removal are now more stringent than ever and require that the contractor be licensed to perform the required tank removal. As a result of this, we must prepare contract specifications and bid documents for this project. The engineering associated with this work will be accomplished in-house. ANALYSIS This project has been budgeted at a cost of $40,000.00, and the department feels confident that this will not be exceeded. The project includes tank removal and the above ground ., tank installation. Also, as part of this project, we will be bringing both a level indicator signal and a containment breach signal back into the plant's computer system for monitoring and alarm status. This will require connection to the plant's main control computer. W3 propose to have the connection and programming service performed by our control maintenance group, HTS, Inc., An an amount not to JUM 139 1995 104 b®®K 1 95 FAct,444 r mu 95 f-AcE 445 exceed $2,500.00. This work is included in the $40,000.00 budgeted amount and will be handled with a purchase order. Funding for this project will be from the renewal and replacement fund. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval of the above outlined project and expenditures as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the -Underground Fuel Storage Tank Removal and Replacement project and expenditures, as recommended by staff. EMERGENCY WATER MAIN RELOCATION - 43RD AVENUE AND 51H STREET SOUTHWEST The Board reviewed a Memorandum of June 6, 1995: DATE: JUNE 6, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. c AND STAFFED CAPITAL PR S ENGINEER BY: DEPAR F UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: EMERG MAIN RELOCATION 43RD VENUE AND 5TH STREET, SW BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS In the first week of May 1995, we were notified by Public Works of a conflict with a paving and drainage project at the above -referenced site. The conflict resulted from a requirement by Indian River Farms to increase the east/west culvert under 43rd Avenue from an existing 24 inches to a 48 -inch pipe. The Utilities Department, in an effort not to delay the Public Works project, has designed a pipe modification,to accommodate the required work and has acquired quotes from three contractors for this work as follows: (See attached quotes.) 1) Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc. $22,650.00 2) Hall Contracting Corporation $26,641.90 3). Speegle Construction, Inc. $28,950.00 To expedite this work, we are requesting authorization to issue a purchase order with the low bidder, Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc., so that the relocation can commence immediately. Funding for this project will be from the renewal and replacement fund. RECOM ENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the project as outlined above. JiJNE 139 1995 105 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded the bid to Treasure Coast Contracting, Inc. in the amount of $22,650, as recommended by staff. DEP WETLANDS AIMGATION PERMIT PROCESS Chairman Macht remarked that DEP has raised its head on the wetlands project and is concerned that cypress trees are being immersed in water. They now want us to plant cypress trees in water to see what killed them if they die. Director Terry Pinto reminded the Board that DEP had suggested the County take the permit "as is" and come back later for modifications. Now DEP is advising that in order to make modifications, you have to make application for modifications, pay a fee and go through an extended process. Chairman Macht felt that the County should go to the mat on this one, including filing a lawsuit. Commissioner Adams agreed. Director Pinto suggested applying for the modifications and inviting some state representatives to sit down at some meetings to work out the problems. Commissioner Tippin suggested including the lady from the DEP who spoke recently to local residents. Chairman Macht suggested DEP is operating clearly beyond the legislative intent and beyond their own directives. He felt they are legislating in situ and someone has to call a halt. He suggested that the County oppose the process vigorously and communicate with FACo regarding their position on the matter. Commissioner Tippin directed staff to document the process and felt there should be some publicity of the dollars involved as he believed we have quite a battle in front of us. Commissioner Adams wanted to make certain that staff was also documenting the costs. CONSENSUS was reached that the Board would vigorously oppose the process and communicate with FACo regarding the matter. EX PARTE COMMUNICATIONS LEGISLATION Commissioner Tippin inquired about the status of the ex parte communications legislation, and Attorney Vitunac advised that he is preparing a paper for the Board on the meaning of the legislation. JUNE 139 1995 106 aoa 95 PacE 446 mac 1 95 ma -447 JULY 42 1995 BOARD MEETING The Chairman announced that there will be no meeting on Tuesday, July 4, 1995. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 1:47 p.m. ATTEST: C�A J. arton, Clerk Minutes Approved.. - g - 95 JUNE 13, 1995 107 e neth R. acht, Chairman