Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/24/1995MIN TES ATTACHED BOARD, OF O0UNTY COMMISSIONERS - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA & G E N D A. TUESDAY; OCTOBER 24, 1995 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida COUNTY COMMiSRIONERS Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman (District 3) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman (District 1) Richard N. Bird (District 5) went Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2) John W. Tippin (District 4) Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER ESE 3. PLEDGE OF AT, Comm.C Adams 4. ADD [T10 9S to the A�I1 , / ►II ►ITEMS ADDED 13.D. Courthouse Area Parking DELETED 11.G. Walgreen's Site - Proposed Right -of -Way Acquisition None A. Special Meeting of September 12, 1995 B. Regular Meeting of September 19, 1995 C. Regular Meeting of September 26, 1995 D. Regular Meeting of October 3, 1995 7. CON NTA - .NDA A. Proclamation Designating Month of November, 1995 as Epilepsy Awareness Month B. Occupational Licenses Taxes Collected During Month of September, 1995 (memorandum dated October 13, 1995) pr - 9:05 A.M. 7. CONSENT AGENDA (on ' 1• C. Administrative Policy Manual Amendments (memorandum dated October 10, 1995) D. Training for New Computer Programs (memorandum dated October 18, 1995) E. Approval of Transfer of Inventory Items from Supervisor of Election's Inventory to Sheriffs Inventory (memorandum dated October 18, 1995) F. Award Bid #6012 / Patch Paving (memorandum dated October 12, 1995) G. North County Office Space - Lease Renewal (memorandum dated October 17, 1995) H. 66th Ave. Roadway & Drainage Improvements Release of Retainage - Engineering Services (memorandum dated October 18, 1995) I. A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING PARTIAL -YEAR AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS J. SJRWMD Lease Agreement / Blue Cypress Lake Park (memorandum dated October 18, 1995) K. .Agreement with New Horizons as Requested by Substance Abuse Grant (memorandum dated October 18, 1995) 1►. 1 31 �) ; 014MA D1 ',►lu 1 DWO W41 WAM DQ[01 173W Circuit and County Judge's Travel, Tuition, Membership/Dues (memorandum dated October 17, 1995) 1. Paving & Drainage Improvements to 1 st Street S.W. (R.D. Carter Road) Between 66th Ave. & 58th Avenue (memorandum dated October 16, 1995) 2. Approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Class "E" Certificates to Provide Wheelchair Non -Emergency (Ambulatory) Trans- portation Services for Applicants Noted Who Are Currently Under Contract with the Indian River County Transportation Coordinator (memorandum dated October 17, 1995) 7J ��,wawj im coo rr3lu A. PUBLIC RINGS (on 'dl• 3. County Initiated Request to Amend the Future Land Use Element, The Housing Element, and The Trak Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan - (memorandum dated October 16, 1995) 4. 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 October 11, 1995) 5. County Initiated Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approxi- mately 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 (memorandum dated October 13, 1995) 6. 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 Re- designate 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 (memorandum dated October 13, 1995) 1. We u 1. Falcon Cable TV - Discussion Regarding Company's Policy on Customer Complaints, Repairs, and Capital Improvements for System (letter dated October 10, 1995) 2. Request from Nollie Robinson, New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc.'to Discuss the IRC Jail Substance Abuse Treatment and Aftercare Program (letter dated October 9, 1995) 1►Y r 1 u I I►I &3 Y: TA K Q: a 0 Y None : r►.I .rF41 a 3 rN DI 11 Ri None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (on 'd 1• PAGE B. E_mer=cy Services None C. General Se None D. I-eisure Services None E. Office of Management and RudgrA None F. Per onn 1 None G. Pnb is Work s Walgreen's Site - Proposed Right -of -Way Acquisition at 17th St and.U.S. #1 (memorandum dated October 10, 1995) H. Ufflities 1. South County Wastewater Repump Station and Force Main Final Change Order and Pay Request (memorandum dated October 16, 1995) 2. Load Sharings Agreements Between Indian River County and Fla. Power & Light (memorandum dated October 13, 1995) 3. Jungle Trail Water Main Extension, Final Change Order and Pay Request (memorandum dated October 13, 1995) 12. COINW ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS (on 'd 1•. B. YiceChskerMgn Fran R- Adgms . C. Commissioner *chard N Hord FMI kip L*j E. CommisWoner John W Ti,VVin 14. A. EEmergency Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District None 15. ADO 1RNMENT M PAGE 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. Tuesday, October 24, 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, October 24, 1995, at 9:00 a.m. Present were Kenneth R. Macht, Chairman; Fran B. Adams, Vice Chairman; Carolyn K. Eggert; and John W. Tippin. Absent was Richard N. Bird, who was on vacation. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Adams led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS Commissioner Eggert requested the addition of Item 13.D. concerning Courthouse parking. - Administrator Chandler requested Item 11.G. be deleted as the attorney for Walgreens had asked that it be deferred. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) added and deleted the above items. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any additions or corrections to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 12, 19951, and Regular Meetings of September 19 and 26, and October 3, 1995. There were none. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board approved the Minutes of the Special Meeting of September 12, 1995, and Regular Meetings of September 19 and 26, and October 3, 1995, -as written. 1 BOOK 96 pnj'195 October 24, 1995 Boa 96 PAGE 386 CONSENT AGENDA A. Proclamation Designating November, 1995 as Epilepsy Awareness Month II PROCLAMATION Epilepsy affects more than 2.5 million Americans; and WHEREAS, epilepsy is the most common neurological disorder of childhood; and WHEREAS, epilepsy is still a serious problem that.can only be solved by ongoing research; and WHEREAS, supportive programs and services must continue to be provided while scientists search for more effective therapies and an ultimate cure; and WHEREAS, help from individuals, business organizations and foundations is vitally important in maintaining national research programs and services provided by Epilepsy Services of Southeast Florida for individuals and families struggling with epilepsy's effects: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that the month of November, 1995 be designated as — EPILEPSY AWARENESS MONTH in Indian River County, and the Board further urges all citizens in this county to support the local scientific community, health professionals, and epilepsy staff and volunteers working to improve the lives of people with** epilepsy. Adopted this 24 day of October, 1995. ,BOARD OF COUNTY CDNMSSIONERS nwiA RIVER Comm, FLORIDA �/���_�n eth Nacht, Cha B. Occupational Licenses Taxes Collected During September, 1995 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 13, 1995: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collect SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses DATE: October 13, 1995 Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 95-15, please he_infnr_med -t-hat-48-495i-00-vas Vol-lected in occupational license taxes during the month of September, representing the issuance of 1,286 licenses. 2 October 24, 1995 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) accepted the report. C. Administrative Policy Manual Amendments The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 10, 1995: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDACRECEIVED 1MEMORANDUMTO: James E. Chandler, County AdministratorTHRU: Jack Price, Personnel Director FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Manager, � DATE: 1 /' 0 October 1995 SUBJECT: Agenda Request; Administrative Policy Manual Amendments We request the Board's consideration on the October 24, 1995 consent agenda for the attached proposed amendments to AM 1000. 10, INCIDENT/ACCIDENT REPORTING. Only one policy change is proposed; the addition on Page 7 of 16 of Section 9: which outlines the County's compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it relates to workers' compensation. All other proposed changes are most appropriately described as "housekeeping" ones, such the change with the State of Florida, Department of Labor and Employment Security, Division of Workers' Compensation, reporting forms and the operating hours of Doctors' Clinic, and our staff pager number. Specifically, the following changes are proposed: Page 2 of 16: COMMENT: change name of Attachment A, a revised internal reporting form; change Doctor's Clinic operational hours Page 3 of 16: change Risk Management pager number, 7. change name of internal reporting form Page 4 of 16: delete specific references to corporate name of third party claims administrator, 10. change name of internal reporting form; shorten receipt time for internal reporting form to 24 hours (current practice) Page 5 of 16: 2. change name of State -required reporting forms; delete unused forms; delete requirement for departments to contact the third party claims administrator, change the name of internally used form; 5. clarify wage loss process in keeping with bargaining agreement Page 6 of 16: clarify wage loss process in keeping with AM 702.1 SICK LEAVE Page 7 of 16: shift responsibility to coordinate with third party claims administrator from departments to Risk Management (current practice); delete unused State form Page 8 of 16: change operational hours of Doctors' Clinic; delete reference to corporate name of third party claims administrator Page 9 of 16: change Risk Management pager number, update names of forms currently used Page 10 of 16: change Risk Management pager number Your consideration of this request Is appreciated. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the amendments to the Administrative Policy Manual, as requested by staff and presented in the memorandum. 3 mor 96 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 FACE 3)88 A Training for New Computer Programs The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 18, 1995: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Alice E. White Executive Aide DATE: October 18, 1995 SUBJECT: Training for new computer programs During budget hearings, you approved updating our computer programs to Windows and Word Perfect,. as well as training for the office staff. Instead of going to Indian River Community College for the training, they will bring their computer van to the Administration Building and conduct the training on site if we have at least 12 participants. There are other departments who are in need of the same training, so Jack Price and I were able to set up two 16 hour courses. The classes will be held 4 hours each day, 4 in the morning and 4 in the afternoon. The morning attendees will use 1 1/2 hours of their own time and 2 1/2 hours of paid time. The afternoon attendees will use 2 hours of their own time and 2 hours of paid' time. I respectfully request that the Board approve the attached agreement and authorize the Chairman to sign. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0; Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the proposal of Indian River Community College for computer program training, as requested by staff. PROPOSAL NOT ON FILE - STILL PENDING CONFIRMATION FROM IRCC E. Transfer of Inventory Items from Supervisor of Elections to Sheriff The Board reviewed Memoranda of October 18, 1995, August 18, 1995, and May 2, 1995: 4 October 24, 1995 4,--Sly!�qO •.Ole OyG•l A :y TO: October 18, 1995 ANN ROBINSON SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 1840 25TH STREET, SUITE N-109 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960-3394 TELEPHONES: (407) 567-8187 or 567-8000 TO: HON. KEN MACHT, CHAIRMAN, BOARD OF COUNTY �� COMMISSIONERS nn FROM: ANN ROBINSON, SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS 1''C1�../' RE: ITEM FOR BCC'S CONSENT AGENDA OF OCTOBER 24; 1995 The items listed on the attached pages were transferred to the Hon. Gary Wheeler, Sheriff of Indian River County. Three of the items had county tags on them. I understand that the Sheriff has a separate inventory from the BCC's inventory, so it would be better for inventory control purposes for you to officially approve this transfer. Please approve the transfer of these items from the Supervisor of Election's inventory to the Sheriff's inventory. Thank you. Ann Robinson DATE: August 18, 1995 FILE: SUBJECT: transfer of property to Sheriff's Department FROM: Joyce S. Guiliano � REFERENCES: Voting Coordinator August 18, 1995 3 computer tables 1 Everex 286 Step 12 at Comp Sys (1988) Co. Tag #10054 Serial #16D03-840-63887 1 IBM color monitor (1987) Co. Tag #9157 Serial #5135-1454685 UP &P y DATE ✓ O -C%' Ei October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 TO: Ann Robinson 1�-K FROM: Joyce S. GuilianoOn Voting Coordinator May 2, 1995 ma 96, Yvwv- 390 DATE: May 2, 1995 FILE: SUBJECT. transfer of property to Sheriff's Department REFERENCES: 10 folding metal chairs from Elections warehouse picked up by �Ap SlC-G'd' CO/740A j -1Iy9 05* -09- 95 - May 3., 1995 1 tan metal desk from North County office in Sebastian with righthand return County Tag #004006 1981 Steelcase 1 green metal desk from North County office in Sebastian picked up by/ 1) zr/o S - -W 9 05-'03- iS, - ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) approved transfer of the Supervisor of Elections' inventory items as listed above to the Sheriff's inventory, as requested by the Supervisor of Elections. F. Bid #6012 - Patch Paving - Trodglen Paving The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 12, 1995: DATE: October 12, 1995 TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Servic FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage SUBJ: Award Bid b`6012/Patch Paving Utilities Department BACKGROUND INFORMATION: Bid Opening Date: August 23, 1995 Advertising Dates: July 19, 26, 1995 Specifications Mailed to: Ten (10) Vendors Replies: Two (2) Vendors No Bids: Three (3) Vendors 6 October 24, 1995 BID TABULATION UNIT PRICE Trodglen Paving Co 1.25 - Asphalt Overlay Vero Beach, FL 3.25 --Asphalt Overlay w/Base 2.50 - Pavement Restoration 90.00 - Asphalt Road Crossing MacA.sphalt 2.75 - Asphalt Overlay Melbourne, FL 7.50 - Asphalt Overlay w/Base 3.65 - Pavement Restoration 85.00 - Asphalt Road Crossing RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the following: 1. Award the bid to Trodglen Paving as the lowest, most responsive, and responsible bidder meeting specifications in the Invitation to Bid. 2. Establish an Open End Contract with Trodglen Paving with a not to exceed amount of $50,000.00 during the period. Last yea's expenditures totaled $27,476.29. 3. Authorize the Purchasing Manager to renew",this contract subject to satisfactory performance; zero cost increase, vendor acceptance, .and the determination that renewal is in the best interest of the County. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) awarded the Bid #6012 to Trodglen Paving; established an Open End Contract with Trodglen; and authorized the Purchasing Manager to renew the contract, as recommended and set out in the memorandum. CONTRACT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AND RECEIVED G. North County Office Space - Lease Renewal - Robert E. Greene The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 1995: Date: October 17, 1995 To: -- Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thru: James E. Chandler County Administrator From: H. T."Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General Services Subj: North County Office Space - Lease Renewal 7 October 24, 1995 BOOK 76 PAGE 392 BACKGROUND Since August 1990 the County has been leasing 2,875 square feet of office space at the Sebastian Square Shopping Center. This space is occupied by Veteran's Services, Clerk of the Court, Property Appraiser, and recently the Utilities Department... The present cost is $7.25 per square foot and has been since 1992. ANALYSIS The lease has expired and the owner, Robert E. Greene has agreed to extend the lease for another three (3) years as the present rate. REECOMMENDATION Staff recommends Board approval to enter into agreement with Robert E. Green for three years, at an annual cost of $20,843.75. It is also requested the Chariman be authorized to execute all required documents to effect this agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the renewal of the lease agreement with Robert E. Green for 3 years at annual cost of $20,843.75, as recommended in the memorandum. LEASE AGREEMENT ..IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO -THE BOARD H. 66th Avenue Roadway & Drainage Improvements Release of Retainage - Carter Associates, Inc. Engineering Services The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 18, 1955: TO: James Chandler County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director SUBJECT: 66th Avenue Roadway & Drainage Improvements Release of Retainage - Engineering Services DATE: October 18,1995 Civil Engineering Services for Improvements to 66th Avenue Roadway and Drainage are complete. Carter Associates. Inc. Is requesting release of retainage In the following amount: Application for Payment No. 10 & Hnal $2,768.69 Staff recommends that the Board release the retainage held in the total amount of $2,768.69. 8 October 24, 1995 � r � ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) approved the release of retainage to Carter Associates, Inc., in the amount of $2,768.69, as recommended and set out in the memorandum. RELEASE OF RETAINAGE WILL BE PLACED ON FILE WHEN RECEIVED I. Resolution Supporting Partial Year Ad Valorem Assessments The Board reviewed the proposed resolution. (Clerk's Note: The Board had discussed this matter at length during their April 25, 1995, meeting.) ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Resolution 95-138 supporting partial year ad valorem assessments. RESOLUTION NO. 95-138 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, SUPPORTING PARTIAL -YEAR AD VALOREM ASSESSMENTS WHEREAS, property taxes are the primary source of revenue for public education (K-12) and public safety, including fire protection, law enforcement and corrections; and WHEREAS, local governments lose millions of dollars each year because structures are taxed as of January 1,_ and not from the date of completion or date of occupancy, which, in some cases, allows no ad valorem taxes to be paid on a structure for up to 28 months, while at the same time the property owner is receiving municipal or county services; and WHEREAS, this tax-free period causes other taxpayers in the community to subsidize new development, with some estimates 9 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 FAGE 304 RESOLUTION NO. 95-138 indicating that property owners annually provide over $60 million in property tax subsidies to new development (FY91 - $93 million; FY 92 - $63 million; FY 93 - $80 million); and WHEREAS, equitable partial -year assessments ensure the link between changes in the property value and the tax levy during each year; and will ensure monies to provide law enforcement for new development; and WHEREAS, we believe growth must pay for itself. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT•RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY CONN[ISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board strongly supports the concept of equitable partial -year assessments of ad valorem taxes on property for the portion of a year in which new construction is completed.' The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T p_Ljn , 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 Absent Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 24 day of October, 1995. BOARD OF C9PNTY COMISSIONERS INDIAN RPM COUN'1� FLORIDA By. Attest: J K. Bart Clerk 10 KEfM)Fth --IT-. dMCht Chairman October 24, 1995 M M M .t. Agreement with S.JRVVMD - Blue Cypress Lake Park The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 18, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler. County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director ?;9 SUBJECT. SJRWMD Lease Agreement - Blue Cypress Lake Park REF. LETTER: John Williams. SJRWMD. to Charles Vitunac dated 10/04/95 DATE: October 18. 1995 • •17 • MOM As a component of the Upper St. Johns River Recreation Plan. the US Army Corps of Engineers and the St Johns River Water Management District are planning to improve the existing boat ramp and parking lot at Blue Cypress Lake Park. The County will maintain the improvements once constructed. The attached intergovernmental agreement between St Johns River Water Management District and the County authorizes the District and the Corps to construct the needed park improvements at no initial cost to the County. The District will have a leasehold InteresC In the park for a period of 50 years. in addition. the County grants to the District and Corps the right to use the 5 mile Blue. Cypress Lake Road. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The Corps of Engineers and St. Johns River Water Management District must have the attached agreement executed prior to -construction of the improvements. The alternatives presented are as follows: Alternative No 1 Approve the attached intergovernmental agreement and authorize the Chairman's signature. Alternative No 2 Deny approval of the agreement and not permit the Corps and St. John's River Water Management District to construct the Improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends Alternative No. 1 whereby the agreement is approved for execution by the Chairman. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously_ (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) approved entering into an Intergovernmental Management Agreement with the SJRWMD for improvements to the existing boat ramp and parking lot at Blue Cypress Lake Park, as recommended in the memorandum. WHEN FULLY EXECUTED AGREEMENT IS RECEIVED, IT WILL BE PLACED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11 ROOK 96 C4'111;r 995 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 r� "; :�96 K. Agreement - New Horizons/Substance Abuse Grant The Board reviewed a Revised Memorandum of October 23, 1995: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 23, 1995 - REVISION SUBJECT: AGREEMENT WITH NEW HORIZONS AS REQUIRED BY SUBSTANCE ABUSE GRANT - CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On May 23, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved funding in the amount of $43,674.00 ($32,755.50 Federal and $10,918.50 New Horizon Match) for the Indian River County Adolescent Substance Abuse Counseling Program and Aftercare Program from the 1995/96 fiscal year Substance Abuse Grant. New Horizons has been providing the In House Jail Services under the auspices of the grant since October 1994. The state, as part of the requirements of the grant, would like written agreement between Indian River County and New Horizons outlining all the conditions. Indian River County's budget office and the Substance Abuse staff have drafted such an agreement and attached it for your review and approval. RECOMMENDATION Board of County Commissioners approve the attached agreement with New Horizons. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, *Commissioner Bird being absent) approved an agreement with New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc., concerning the IRC Adolescent Substance Abuse Counseling and Aftercare Programs, as recommended by staff in the memorandum. AGREEMENT ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD October 24, 1995 12 CIRCUIT AND COUNTY TUDGES' TRAVEL, TUITION, DUES Administrator Chandler reviewed Memoranda of October 17 and 20, 1995: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 17, 1995 SUBJECT: CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGE'S TRAVEL, TUITION, MEMBERSHIP/DUES FROM: /Cou:j�d h filer Joseph A. Baird ministrator OMB Director DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Circuit and County Judges' budget this fiscal year, requested funds for travel, tuition and membership/dues. During the budget workshop, July 11 and 12, 1995, these amounts were not cut from the Judges' budget. However, at the end of the budget workshop on Wednesday, July 12, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to cut approximately $495,000 to reduce the tax impact and to present the recommended budget cuts at the Board of County Commissioners meeting on Tuesday, July 18, 1995. Staff began working on the budget cuts immediately. The attached list of recommended cuts was completed on Monday, July 17, 1995. The short time frame only allowed meeting with those entities where. substantial dollar cuts were recommended, e.g., the Sheriff and the Emergency Services District. Below is a breakdown of the Judges' detail line item request: 13 October 24, 1995 a0o� 96 F,A97 1995/96 Requested 1995/96 BCC Approved Circuit Court: Travel $400 $0 Registration $400 $0 Membership/Dues $1,500 $0 TOTAL CIRCUIT $2,300 $0 County Court: Travel $1,850 $0 Registration $505 $0 Membership/Dues $750 $0 TOTAL COUNTY $3,105 $o TOTAL COMBINED $5,405 $p 13 October 24, 1995 a0o� 96 F,A97 BOOK 96 F.�.Jc 398 These particular line items were removed from the budget keeping with the County's policy statement. That is, the County was not going to pay for state expenses which were being passed on the County due to the state not funding their own departments. For the past several years, the County has been reducing its own travel, registration and membership/dues budgets, while leaving the same items generally the same level for state employees. The Judges have explained that the State of Florida pays only travel expenses incurred by Judges and Judicial Assistants for traveling within the circuit and only a few approved judges conferences. They are correct that Florida Statute 34.171 does state "unless the State shall pay such expense, the County shall pay all reasonable salaries of bai"hffs, secretaries and assistants of the Circuit and County Courts and all reasonable expenses of the Office of Circuit and County Court Judges." This catch all law is costing counties tremendous dollars and is the reason the Florida Association of Counties has an Article V task force that is looking at the impact of the cost of state court systems on counties and how they could reduce the growing expense. RECOMMENDATION Staff is requesting direction from the Board of County Commissioners on this matter and will implement the Board's decision. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 20, 1995 SUBJECT: CIRCUIT AND COUNTY JUDGE'S TRAVEL, ON, MEMBERS /DUES FROM: ;7es E. Chand er County Administrator Today, I met with Judges Vocelle and Smith regarding the travel, tuition and membership/dues funding that was cut from the budget. I related to them that staff recommended the cuts based on our belief that funding for those types of expenses for State employees should be a State responsibility and not the County's. The Judges indicated not funding those expenses could be a violation of Florida Statute 34.171 and, also, that an Attorney General opinion had addressed a similar issue relating to a County Court (attached). Both Judges suggested I seek an opinion from the County Attorney. County Attorney Vitunac advised me that the County could be in violation in that the expenses in his opinion would be considered reasonable. In view of the preceding, it is my recommendation the funding be provided. Budget Director, Joe Baird, concurs. Judge Smith asked that I provide the Board with the attached article from the Florida Bar News regarding Article V. 14 October 24, 1995 Charman Macht-agreed with the recommendation to restore the funds. Commissioner Adams felt there was a limit to what we can do, and she commented that we hardly have enough travel funds for our own staff. She empathized but felt they should be paying their own expenses. Commissioner Eggert pointed out that requests for travel for staff in the Administration Building are submitted to Administrator Chandler for scrutiny. She wondered if the Circuit Court had a similar method for oversight. Judge L. B. Vocelle, Chief Judge for the 19th Judicial Circuit Court, explained what the State pays for concerning travel funding. He advised there have been significant savings on the electronic recordings and recalled a court reporter refund to the County, from the State, in the amount of $4,924.56, which would nearly offset this request. Judge Vocelle reported that the Circuit has a volunteer guardian ad litem program, services for which the County ordinarily would have to pay. Commissioner Adams understood that the expert witness fees were up considerably this year. Judge Vocelle responded that everything possible was being done to keep costs down and they have a meeting with -the State Attorney and the Public Defender relative to the use of experts and payment of their fees. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Tippin, to restore the $5,405 funding requested for travel to the Circuit/County Court budget, with the understanding that there is good oversight on the use of those funds. Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin wanted efforts to continue through FACo to have a complete rewrite of Article V. Chairman Macht and Commissioner Adams voiced agreement. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird being absent). Judge Vocelle delivered a letter to the Board from Circuit Judge Charles E. Smith concerning the New Horizons jail substance Abuse program, a later item on the agenda. 15 BOOK 96 9 F. � •�� October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 PAE406 PUBLIC HEARING - PAVING & DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO IST STREET S.W. (R.D. CARTER -ROAM BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE & 58TH AVENUE VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of •� - in the Court, was pub - fished in said newspaper in the issues ofG1+.f' Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach. In said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has, neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. ;O•'Q,t 0111 W;scribed be ore np this day of / A.D. 19 P..�oT,q' 9, d • C '} (Business Manager) • Myr°mm. • r =_ Jona' Etprr� • fn BARBARA C SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC. tP : NO CC 198, Stoto of From. MO C,, - ss ,,,� aOp57? •• Cummiwu Numher. CC300/572 Olt- _ Signod: fJotary� BARBARA r; RPPAGI IF of RESOWMN NO. W128 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY GOMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE AND NTH AVENUE, PROVIDING THE TOTAL ESTIMATED COST, METHOD OF PAYMENT OF ASSESS- MENTS, NUMBER OF ANNUAL. INSTALL- MINTS, AND LEGAL D TK)N OF THE AREA SPECIFICALLY BENEFITED. WHEREA1% the CamPubic has petieotted forty PaW and orks it Mentatt for 181 Street SW (R d.. Cater between 66th Avenue and ISM AventkL WHEREAS. the constriction of oavitc and drdrr 205.09, mom River Cmrrty Code; aid coat will.. pestes aandbYprelimPW* Works Deperintent; and ft inary eesesarrleM io18 have been toW Amt 01 the- oaa. paving and drainage Improvements is' FOUR HUNDRED FORTY-SEVEN THOUSAND, TWENTY-THREE DDOOLLARS and SLXTY-TWO CENTS (5447,023.828 WHEREAS, the spedal assessment provifed her - Sunder shall, for any record owner of properly within the area spec . 1 i ffiepderobere in an,�amotnt Wlal coostual to ofof plop tb otp6�ttay Tex c=l s Fees ow 98205) *k nunber of am owned by this *at Wier bears W the total relrnber of acres �w5ithin ft areas specialty bene d and Ofty ;, 11 - tar right -01.1,,( 197.56) wl crone i rn ft T Fud; ad .. the special easessnierd amdue aid payalile, at the Office of ft Tax CdecW become of Indian Film Cooley Pq days � final determination of UIs ass isd ptaslr~ ant to Seotbn 208.08, River Couiry Cade; acid October 24, 1995 WHEREAS, any special assessment not paid wh* avid *011Y (90) daY period Mal beer Merest beilad Ore due data at a rete estehldred by Ore Board of Coirtty Commkilsbftere at the time of miaraft of the final assessment rot, and shelf be Pay" In two (2) tigital hShIltnads, the first to be mate twelve (1 rt10111h9 from the due date and a atter �eutert�aage of thep0roortp�e�O�e be du mature and the Board County Corimktsionermined that the fO" 11111SC116011prsop rOvalle - receive direct and special berre8t afr m Otesa� t0 wit. RIC Fertile Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 207.37 Ft of W 232.37 Ft. of S 30 A of TR 13, EXC N 25 Ft Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-26 The E 398.86 Ft of the W 631.23 Ft Less S 30 Ft RNV &Ore N 25 Ft of the E 207.37 Ft of the W 232.37 FT of the 630AofTit 13 id. RLv. Farre Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 347.54 Ft of the F x.08 Ft of Ore S 30 A of TR 13 LESS S 30 Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 S 30 A of TR 13, LESS E 207.37 Ft. of W 232.37 Ft. EXC N 25 Ft. THEREOF Ind. Rtv. Farm LESS CANAL Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 5 A of TR 14 Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 5 A of W 10 A of TR 14 LESS CANAL Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 20.29 A of E 30.29 A of TR 14 (•R BK 437 PP 441) Ind. Rtv. Farts Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 10 A of Tract 14 Ind. Rtv. Farre Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 10 A of TR Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 1h of W 10.11 A of E 30.34 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD RNV, & LESS ADDITIONAL 50 Ft for R.D. Carter RD RMI AS PER OR BK 722 PP 1006 Ind. Riv. Farts Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 1h of W 10.11 A of E 30.34 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD RNV or SK 734 PP 2621) W. RN. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 165 Ft. of W 10.11 A of E 20.21 A of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD RMI (or BK 737 PP 1298) 16 Ind. AM Farms Co. Sufi. PBS 2-25 W 5 A of E 15 A Of TR 15 LESS CANAL & RD RNV ALSO LESS ADD RMI AS RECORDED IN OR BK 845 PP 2451 Ird. MY. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E /5 A of TR 15, LESS W 5 A & ALSO LESS CANAL & RD RAN Ind. Rlv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 225 Ft of S 622.66 Ft. LESS RAN Ind. RN. Farms 00. Sub. PBS 2.25 E 169.20 Ft of W 394.20 Ft. of S 622.86 Ft. of TR 16 LESS RMI (OR BK 644 PP 1647) Inc. Riv. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 160 Ft of W 554.20 Ft of S 622.66 Ft of TR 16 LESS RD RAN (OR BK 674 PP 1699) ltd. Riv. Famis Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 160 FL of W 714.20 Ft of S 622.66 Ft of TR 16 LESS RD RNV (OR SK 670 PP 1553) Ind. RN. Fames Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 160 Ft of W 874.20 Ft of S 633.66 Ft of TR 16 LESS RM (OR BK 844 PP 1643) Ind. RW. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 S 622.66 Ft of TR 16 LESS W 874.20 Ft THEREOF LESS RNV OR BK 617 PP 291 1)) Ind Riv Farms 00 Sirb PBS 2-26 BEG AT NW COR OF TR 4, TH RUN E ON N LINE OF TR 4, 676.66 FT TH FT TO NUNEDGEIOF OMTING18 �SEC LAM THRUN S 144 OSEDGE37 MIN OFLLAAKKE,TC E HRUNN711DDEG16AN 26 SEC E ALONG SLY EDGE OF LAKE 119.61 FT, TH RUN S 19 DEG 03 MN 54 SEC E 409.78 FT TO S LINE OF TA 4, TH RUN S 89 DEG 56 MN 10 SEC W ALONG S LINE 97828 FT, TH RUN N 00 DEG 16 MN 05 SEC W 1334.15 FT TO POB LESS DITCH & RD RAIN'S Ind Riv Farre Cc Sub PBS 2-25 BEG AT A PT 676.66 FT E OF NW COR OF TR 4, TH RUN S 13 DEG 18 MIN 49 SEC W 418.88 FT TO N EDGE OF EXISTING LAKE, TH RUN S 14 DEG 37 MN 00 SEC E THROUGH LAKE 594.99 FT TO SLY EDGE OF LAKE, TH RUN N 71 DEG 16 MIN 26 SEC E ALONG SLY EDGE OF LAKE 119.61 FT, TH RUN S 19 DEG 03 MN 64 SEC E 409.78 FT TO S LINE OF TR 4, TH RUN N 89 DEG 56 MN 10 SEC E 350 FT TO BE CDR OF TR 4, TH RUN N 00 DEG 16 MN 00 SEC W ALONG E LINE OF TR 4, 1332.70 FT, TH RUN W 651.66 FT TO POB, LESS DITCH & RD RWS Ind. Riv. Farre Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 10 A of TR 3 OR SK 630 PP 1957) RW. Farms OD. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 10 A of E 30 A of TR 3 LESS CANAL Ind. RN. Farts Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 5 A of W 10 A of the E 20 A of TR 3, LESS CANAL Ind. RW. Farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 the E 10 A of E 20 A Of TR 3 & ALSO W 5 A of W 10 A of E 20 A of TR 3, LESS CANAL Farms LESS CANAL Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 1h of TR 2, Ind. Riv. farms Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 W 1/2 of E It of TR 2 (OR SK 616 PP 1937) ird. iv. Farts Co. Sub. PBS 2-25 E 1h of E 112 of TR 2 (OR BK 492 PP 829) Ind. Riv. Farms Co. Sub PBS 2-25 TR 1 LESS R/WS OR BK 655 PP 1170 & OR BK 654 PP 1096) NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN. DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: In thea Theforegoing recitals are affirmed and ratified 2. A project providing forand drainage Im- ts to 1st Street CD. Carter Road) 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue; heretofore designated as Public Works Project No. 8836 is above aapproved subject plicable to the 206, et terns outlited requirements seq: Indian Rim County Code. The foregci� resolution was offered by Co nisi Saner Adams who proved its adoption. The motion was seconded try Commissarter Bid and, upon being put to a vote. the vote was as follows: Charman Kenneth R. Macht Aye fte•Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner John W. Ti�m Aye Commissioner Richard N-% Aye Commnssaw Carolyn K. Eggen Absent The Charman thereupon declared the readubon Passed and adopted the 3 day of October. 1995. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Bv-s-Kenneth R Macht. Chavman Affest -s Jeffrev K Barton. Clen, -s-Rv R Borman D C Ort - quo.- 1241153 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach. Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumane, 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�d,4i in the matter of 6aA"-'k.4" -In the �/ ���✓/�/ /•ry Court, was pub. z/ lished In said newspaper in the issues of �+-�Uf�6}iU // z "6' Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River coun. ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. SwOrAd �iepribed befghre me�his day o A D. 19 • �YC°nm ' G : d (Business Manager) line '99 EYPr s ` I11 = BARBARA(, SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC. ,.1 Alio. CC3M5,97 j "-� • —`qT1 .' C u Mmswn Number GC300572 'nil i Or FLOC' - Nonary BARBARA C SPRAGUF LrJ A RESOLUTIONUTION OF IINDDIjA.BNq�R COUN- TY. FLORIDA, SETTING A TIME AND PLACE AT WHICH THE OWNERS OF PROPERTY ON 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) BETWEEN 88TH AVE- NUE AND 58TH AVENUE, AND OTHER IN- TERESTED PERSONS MAY APPEAR BE- FORE THE BOARD OF COUNTY COM- MISSIONERS AND BE HEARD AS TO THE PROPRIETY AND ADVISABILITY OF MAK- ING PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVE- MENTS To SAID PROPERTY AS To THE COST THEREOF, AS To THE MANNER OF PAYMENT THEREFOR, AND AS To THE AMOUNT THEREOF TO BE SPE- CIALLY ASSESSED AGAINST EACH PROPERTY BENEFITED THEREBY. WHEREAS, the Board of County Cartinisslbners Of Indian River County has, by Resolution No. 95• 128. detennlied that it IS necessary for the public welfare of the citizen of Ure camty, and perrticudeerrtyas to those 1vh"-11rXVy wdftin the areathat Pavng and doge ids be made to said property; WHEREAS, the Board of County C,arro►ftsioneTs has caused an assammed rob to be completed and filed with the Clark to the Board; and WHEREAS. Sectlwn 206.06, Indian River County Code. requires that the Board ofCommis. siaiers Shall fit a time and place at which the own- ers of the Propels to be asses�spedearor any other rd ofInterested therell and be heard as tore o the propriety and advimbility of making paving and Inn Mn Provemen to said property, as to the coat f as to the manner of payment therefor, and as tagainst each o the amount VOW to be assessed BOARD%i M RE Q COUNTY LVED B THE DIANRNEA COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: CORIT1111118imers shall meat at the Courcy CartMori Chanters in the C Attty AdmYt- istration Building at the hour of 9:05 AM. on Tues- day, October 24. 1995, at which ttrneethe owners of the otlw kW- sateMin Parsons may appbe ear before said Conryliesim beImproved�ooved andel the to propartles toy. be area to assessment plattaard roe Woody with w the rm�special . AP In the construction of sold the Properties to be spts and the m benemay review the assessment plat showing the area to be as- aevsed. the essessmaht lop, the plans and sped- ficatiom forthe cost thereof at Ifo' and an Off the Cl to�tt e Board anye oweek f the � m 88:30 A.M. urdp 5:00 P.M. shat be given by the DWard at PW*'Wodm by two pub6catiord in the Vero Beach Press Jouinfd Newspaper a week apart. The last Publication sal lbe at least one week prior to tie date of the hear - The Indlen Rim pW Works shall give the oLW of each yD"aftentoto be* VeOlally assessed at least tan days notice in willing rmifrg a oGum �op)r of and trioti to which shelf be off � ProP arty w�wners at Ida last known address. The resdudon was moved for adoption by Coni- MISsioner Adams. and the inoth was secmded by Comnnbsiorner Bird, and. upon beteg put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kerineih R. Mac ht Aye VicaChahnan Fran 8 AdaAye Commissioner John W.ms Aye UmftWlw Richard 11 Bird Aye COMMISSiaier Carolyn K. E Absew The P assed and adopted tw 3 cr a� the dreaolutlon OCL -11. 17,1996 ' 1241217 Public Works Director Jim Davis briefly reviewed a Memorandum ;of October 16, 1995: 17 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 Fit 402 TO: James Chandler County Administrator -.-- THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Direct and Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM: Michelle A. Gentile, C.E.T. f p� Civil Engineer ► I r ` SUBJECT: Public Hearing for the Paving & Drainage Improvements to 1st Street SW (R.D. Carter Road) between 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue DATE: October 16, 1995 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On October 3, 1995 the Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 95-128 providing for certain paving and drainage improvements to 1st Street SW (R.D. Carter Road) between 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue and adopted another Resolution 95-129 setting the date and time for a Public Hearing to discuss the advisability, cost and amount of the assessment against each property owner. This hearing is scheduled for October 24, 1995. 1st Street SW (R.D. Carter Road) is a property owner initiated public improvement assessment project. Some of the property owners who signed the petition have relocated since its submittal in 1988. Right-of-way acquisition has delayed the project. The Petition was originally signed by 69% -of the Property Owners. On October 10, 1995 the Public Works Department staff met with the property owners to discuss any questions relative to the paving of 1st Street SW. All of the property owners in the benefited area were notified of this informal meeting. Approximately 12 property owners attended, many stated that they were concerned with the cost of the project and with recent maintenance on the road. 1st Street SW (R.D. Carter) between 66th Avenue and 58th Avenue is classified as a collector road and therefore the assessment is split 50% to be paid by the property owners and 50% to be paid by the county. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that motions be made to approve the assessment roll, and confirming resolution with changes, if any, made after input at the October 24, 1995 Public Hearing. Revised confirming resolution and assessment roll will be forwarded to Chairman of the Board for signature. The Assessment Roll and assessment plat are on file with the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioner's office. Director Davis hoped to eliminate the 10% contingency fee of $40,638 which was included in the preliminary cost estimate. 18 October 24, 1995 PRELIMINARY COST ESTIMATE FOR: IST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) PROJECT 8836 TOTAL L.F. 5,280 TOTAL ACRES 261.02 1. ENGINEERING $28,820.00 2. CONSTRUCTION $294,947.00 SUB -TOTAL $323,767.00 3. ADMINISTRATION $9,822.38 3.03378% OF ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTION 4. RIGHT-OF-WAY $59,273.70 5. UTILITY RELOCATION $13,522.00 SUB -TOTAL. $406,385.08 5. 10% CONTINGENCY $40,638.51 TOTAL COST OF PROJECT $447,023.59 50% TO BE PAID BY THE COUNTY $223,511.80 50% TO BE PAID BY PROPERTY OWNERS $223,511.79 2% TAX COLLECTOR'S FEE $4,470.24 TOTAL $227,982.03 COST PER ACRE Director Davis added they had recently learned that some of the FP&L poles are in the existing right-of-way, so utility relocation cost probably can be eliminated. If those two costs are deleted, the assessment could be reduced to $770 per acre. He explained in detail how the 261 acre benefitted area was defined. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. William C. Wodtke, Jr., 6325.1st Street S.W., advised that the original estimated assessment for a 10 -acre property was between ;$2,500 and $3,000. After 8 years of frustration, the estimate was 19 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 03 BOOK 96 PATE 494 $8,700, considerably greater. Because it was anticipated that the road was going to be paved, proper maintenance was not done subsequent to the installation of a gas line, which he claimed destroyed the base of the road because it was not put back in the original condition. Mr. Wodtke wanted the road paved, but felt the project was not acceptable at the price. He urged the Board to either set it aside or, if the cost can be brought to $600 to $620 per acre, then approve it. Subject to that, he wanted assurance that proper bases be put on the road and that it be maintained properly. Norman Hensick, of 425 32nd Avenue S.W., advised that his corporation owns property on the road. At a meeting a couple of years ago, his cost was estimated at about $6,000 to $7,000. His actual assessment, however, is $14,551. He would like to see the road paved, but at a reasonable cost. He agreed with the previous speaker that if the cost could be brought down to $600-$620 per acre he could live with it. The engineering and construction costs for one mile of road seemed high to Commissioner Adams. Director Davis advised it was a conservative cost estimate. We prefer to bill the property owners less than what we told them it would be. Some things, such as eliminating the paved shoulders, could be done to lower the cost. Hopefully, we can get it down to $620 per acre. Commissioner Adams thought paved shoulders were beneficial, but everything should be looked at in order to reduce the cost. Mr. Wodtke believed the road was unique in petition paving, because the contractor for the City of Vero Beach had not restored the road to its prior condition after installing the gas line. He suggested, because of those circumstances, that the County take a look at reducing the assessments. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Tippin felt the assessment had to get down to $600 somehow. He wanted staff to see what can be done about reducing the cost of assessments. He wondered about the proposed road base. 20 October 24, 1995 Director Davis advised the road had been designed with an fl- inch base, standard thickness for a collector road. He indicated, however, there were other things that could be done such as seeding instead of sodding. Also, he thought there was a source for fill, so it would not have to be purchased. He pointed out that the drainage system was about $80,000, but water treatment is mandated by St. Johns River Water Management District and State water quality requirements. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being abient) adopted Resolution 95-139, conditioned on staff being able to reduce the per acre assessment to $620 or less. From the audience, Mike Asafaylo asked about payment and Director Davis explained the process advising that the assessment was due upon completion. If paid in full within 90 days, there was no interest. If paid out over two years there would be interest at 8%. A lien would be recorded on the property today if adopted by the Board. Mr. Asafaylo also asked about maintenance on the road prior to construction, and Director Davis advised that some of the bad areas have already been fixed and the County will maintain the road until construction begins. Construction will begin after the first of the year, following the completion of the 79th Street and Vero Lake Estates projects. Confirming (Third Reso.) 2/7/95(ENG)RES3.MAG\gfk RESOLUTION NO. 95- 139 A RESOLUTION OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONFIRMING THE ASSESSMENT ROLL FOR CERTAIN PAVING AND DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS TO 1ST STREET SW (R.D. CARTER ROAD) BETWEEN 66TH AVENUE &- 58TH AVENUE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County adopted Resolution No. 95-128, providing for certain paving and drainage improvements to 1st Street SW (R. D. Carter Road); and WHEREAS, said resolution described the manner in which the special assessments are to be made and how the special assessments are to be paid; and 21 October 24, 1995 BOOK Fl,jl.'405 Bog 96 Fnn 4,06 WHEREAS, the resolution was published as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of -County Commissioners of Indian River County passed Resolution No. 95-129, on October 3, 1995, which set a time and place for a public hearing at which the owners of the properties to be assessed and other interested persons would have the chance to be heard as to any and all complaints as to said project and said special assessments, and for the Board to act as required by Section 206.07, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, notice of the time and place of the public hearing was published in the Vero Beach Press Journal Newspaper on October 11, 1995, and October 17, 1995, (twice one week apart, and the last being at least one week prior to the hearing), as required by Section 206.06, Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the land owners of record were mailed notices at least ten days prior to the hearing, as required by Section 20-6..D-6, ._Indian River County Code; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County on Tuesday, October 24, 1995, 9:05 A.M. conducted the public hearing with regard to the special assessments, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY# FLORIDA, as follows: 1. The foregoing recitals are affirmed and ratified in their entirety. 2. The Board finds that the properties assessed by this resolution will receive special benefits equal to or greater than the cost of the assessment. 3. The special assessments shown on the attached assessment roll are hereby confirmed and approved, and shall remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the properties assessed until paid in ful-1. The Final Assessment costs will not exceed $620.00 per acre. 22 October 24, 1995 RESOLUTION NO. 95-139 4. The County will record the special assessments and this resolution, which descrT bez the properties assessed and the amounts of the special assessments, on the public records, which shall constitute prima facie evidence of the validity of the special assessments. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i n and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Kenneth R.;.._Macht ° Aye Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Aye' Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 24 day of October , 1996. BOARD OF INDIAN„R By t• Jeffr—ey K. Barton Clerk Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL 23 October 24, 1995 C�OOMMI h Yr I R. MACHT; n �Ind-an River County A�vrwe: Dste Adrninistration ;crJaet ! /y „sk -.ianagernent Department Divia.on �� y7 Boor 96 1-37 Boor 96 PvJE 408 y PUBLIC HEARING - CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY FOR CLASS "E" CERTIFICATES - WHEELCHAIR NON- EMERGENCY ON EMERGENCY TRANSPORTATION SERVICES VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press•Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement, being a " T in the matter of�%°/%[, tif//G✓ in the /I,Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of l� 9 �/ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and aff lant 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 ad %gjp,grrlent for publication in the said newspaper. p�oq,QpRA •'•sp , ' x.10 T " $8'Q cribed bejgre mp this day oA.D. 19e6" l� _ ttp '��m G'Di. 1Me MBARBARA C CPRAGl1F, NOTARY PURLId� irtess Manager) N . No C& 1g,)" State of Ronda. My C-1-m6mn f 1P June 211997 �'^-::S �� . '.�•, ...'�c... .✓,i'jid�' e+�rde'',�,�'� ', '`rte,-,�K�^'r Sued. Notary RARRARA r. SPRAGUF Re PUBW IEARNO —BCC—11N24/98 On Tuesday — October 24, 1995, at M am., the Board Of of Indian River Pbride�vva sCotnty AdmiNstra lioon at 1840 25th Sheet, Vero Beach. FL, to consider am —t -m n1 ad C19mits; W Center nnccLuriAln I MANUFORTATION AND . SER. VICES wlWn Men River CAnty. ArIcne (IltsinaW In ft should be present at the PLAft hearing aid wil be - given an apporhaly to spa* tr or against ft; mn Am kW* who may to any decision which rtI� be made at this wil need to ensure tl� a verbatim record of tls MMOMP is made, which Is testimony end 01001100 upon which the appealAMM who needs a special acoomiradaum for this n=MZY 0011 with Act A� �Y'8 Cwd*wins W00, E•xL 408. at least 48 hours In advance of the Octmee ,1985 1241388 807 Emergency Services Director Doug Wright reviewed a Memorandum of October 17, 1995: TO: The Honorable Board of County -Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Adm4 istrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director` Emergency Services DATE: October 17, 1995 SUBJECT: Approval of a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Class "E" Certificates to Provide Wheelchair Non -Emergency (Ambulatory) Transportation Services for Applicants Noted Who Are Currently Under Contract with the Indian River County Transportation Coordinator It is respectfully requested the information contained herein be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS During the regular meeting of the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board on August 31, 1995, the Board voted to 24 October 24, 1995 recommend to the County Commission that an ordinance be adopted to require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for the purpose of regulating non -emergency medical (ambulatory) transportation and wheelchair services. On September 19, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing regarding the establishment of proposed regulations governing -these services. The result of that meeting was approval of amendments to Chapter 304 of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, to include regulating wheelchair non -emergency (ambulatory) services with the amended ordinance titled "Life Support and Wheelchair Services." At this same meeting, the Commission directed staff to immediately begin the Class "E" certificate process for providers currently under contract with the Transportation Coordinator. The Board further directed staff to have the matter scheduled for a public hearing for consideration of the issuance of the certificates prior to November 1, 1995. Therefore, staff has taken the approach, due to time constraints, that the existing „1?rov oerseunder contract are essentially "grandfathered" in and the applicant investigation has been less than that which is normally conducted. The Public Hearing has been advertised as required by law and the following is a list of providers who have submitted applications for a Class "E" certificate and who are currently under contract with the Council on Aging. A cursory investigation has been conducted as well as an on-site inspection of vehicles and equipment. Ron Knight Indian River Yellow Cab, Inc. 7800 Industrial Street Melbourne, FL 32904 Molly Hench American Red Cross 2506 17th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dr. Harry Hurst Association for Retarded Citizens 1375 16th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 James Ross City Cab of Vero 4349 45th Avenue Vero Beach, FL 32960 Bud Gibbs Veterans Council P.O. Box 2164 Vero Beach, FL 32961 Dennis Carmondy All Florida Transport P.O. Box 780924 Sebastian, FL 32978 Glenn Sheffield IRMH 1000 36th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Tom Fritz Council on Aging 694 14th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Rose Migliore Able Transport P. 0. Box 834 Roseland, F1 32957 Pursuant to the ordinance, a fee of $100 was received from each of the above listed certificate applicants except the Veterans Council and the American Red Cross. The two organizations respectfully request a waiver of the $100 filing fee based on Section 304.05 of the Code of Laws and Ordinances since they do not charge a fee for the transportation service. It should be noted that the Sebastian River Medical Center opted not to apply for a Class "E" Certificate although the organization is currently under contract with the Indian River County Transportation Coordinator. The Medical Center understands that taking this action will preclude the facility from providing wheelchair non -emergency (ambulatory) services after November 1, 1995. 25 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 FacE 409 BOOK 96 FAn 410 The applications of each of the applicants are on file with Alice White, Executive Aide to the Board of County Commissioners. The applications were not included --in the agenda package due to the substantial volume of the documents. Based on the investigation conducted by staff, no creditable reason was found to deny the above applicants a certificate and therefore, issuance is recommended. RECOMMENDATION Subject to completion of the Public Hearing, staff recommends the Board approve -the issuance of a Class "E" Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity to provide wheelchair non -emergency (ambulatory) transportation services for each of the above listed applicants for a period of two years, subject to the provisions of Chapter 304, as amended, of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. Staff further recommends the Board waive the $100 filing fee for the Veterans Council and the American Red Cross predicated on the fact no fee is charged for the transportation service. Director Wright advised that an application had been received from Able Health Services which will be processed routinely. Commissioner Eggert felt that was the intent. She thought they needed to establish need based on the applicants that are currently under contract. She thought that should take at least 2- 4 months to establish and then they should process in the usual way as done for ambulances. She explained the difference between "need" and "desire", which appeared to be frustrating some people. Commissioner Adams suggested 6 months, but Commissioner Eggert thought that in fairness it should take no longer than 4 months. She felt that if a "need" were established before that, then they should do it sooner. Tom Fritz, Council on Aging, will have finalized his Medicaid contract by the first of the year. Commissioner Eggert suggested lowering the fee to $50 in this instance because the whole investigative process was not necessary. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Gary Burdsall, president of Able Aviation, Able Ambulance, and Able Health Services, requested a Class "E" certificate be issued today. He was shocked he was not included and explained he wants to provide service for "private pay" only, not Medicaid patients. He explained he has been doing wheelchair transport in the county since 1993 and because he was not aware of the Medicaid -rul-es, the - had been accepting Medicaid transport. He stopped when advised of the requirements. He cautioned that his service in the county 26 October 24, 1995 would cease November 1st if he was not granted a certificate today. Mr. Burdsall defended his base in St. Lucie County, advising that it was because of the needs of the Caribbean/US Rescue Group. He advised they fully intend to have a facility in Indian River County and have talked to Sebastian 'hospital about it. He felt that residents in Indian Ri'verCounty need his services and enumerated names of writers of numerous letters of support. He has a contract for evacuation assistance with one facility, which was necessary for their licensing. Once again, he stressed that the service he was asking to provide was for private pay individuals, not Medicaid recipients. Mr. Burdsall asked for questions. In response to Commissioner Adams' question, Mr. Burdsall admitted he had composed the letter of support. Carol Bepler, one of the owners of Able Transportation of Sebastian, complained that Mr. Burdsall was taking business away by lowering prices.- She indicated that- because of his low ball pricing she may be unable to stay in business. Her company has been in the county six years and she is proud of the services. She urged the Board to keep local workers. Bruce Miller of Royal Palm Convalescent Center had concern for people who are paying out of their pocket and felt they should be able to use the lowest priced provider to get quality service. He could not understand government restrictions. He was aware of problems with poor equipment and poor service, but felt the market would determine who remains in business. Commissioner Eggert urged that Tom Fritz should be notified anytime a problem with service or equipment is experienced. Mr. Burdsall rose to respond, advising that he did not slash prices to hurt other operations or drive them out of business. They only offered their normal $40 round-trip doctor visits. Tom Fritz, director of transportation for the Council on Aging, thanked the Board for moving to put some discipline in the system. He asked that copies of Mr. Burdsall's letters of support go to the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board. He would be delighted to read them and any letters of complaint. Requests for qualifications for additional service are due back to 27 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 F� ,; 411 BOOK 96 FnUE 412 the following week to look at assigning Medicaid contracts the last week of November. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. Commissioner Eggert appreciated Gary Burdsall's feelings. She felt it was very important to accept the providers brought forward today and to -take a minimum of 2-4 months to establish need. Others can be processed right after that. She knew that Mr. Burdsall has been providing good service. The process has been followed routinely for ambulance transportation and she felt it should be done for wheelchair transportation as well. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, to accept the providers brought forward today by staff for their Certificate of Need; to waive the filing fee for the Veterans Council and the American Red Cross, because they charge no fee; and reduce the application fee. to $50 for the others. When County Attorney Vitunac advised that the filing fee was set by ordinance, Commissioner Eggert asked if the fee could be adjusted in this unique situation because investigations did not, have to be done to the same degree. County Attorney Vitunac agreed this was a unique situation and the fee could be adjusted. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird being absent). ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) approved a moratorium on applications for two months while need is established and that we begin processing new applications February 1, 1996. 28 October 24, 1995 (CLERK'S NOTE: r THE CHAIRMAN ASKED THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE RELATED PUBLIC HEARINGS BE HELD SIMULTANEOUSLY. THERE WAS NO OBJECTION.) PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS: FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, HOUSING ELEMENT, AND TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 298+ ACRES REDESIGNATED FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1 AND REZONED FROM RS -1 AND RM -6 TO CON -1 PUBLIC HEARING - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 36.5 + ACRES REDESIGNATED FROM M-1 TO C/I AND 36.5+ ACRES REDESIGNATED FROM C/I TO PUB P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER �� JOur11c1i STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J.J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) Sworn to and subscribed before me this October 24, 1995 96 PnUE413 day o A -D ' Mxpires ; to My comm. E Business Manager June 29, 1997 BAR9ARA C. SPRAGUE. NOTARY PUBLIC. SW%d Fl"a. My Comms -n L,cp, June 29.1987 NO. C C3U0572 tp Commisswn Number. CC300572 • •• F 0 ' r�OP`• Notary B B A 29 October 24, 1995 96 PnUE413 BOCK 96 PAGE 414 Subject C/I M-1 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 1995, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Com- missioners will make a final decision to amend the county's' Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are included W M-1; in the proposed ordinance 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- EMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-298 ACRES ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 9th STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO. C-1; AMENDING THE FU- TURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY REDUCING THE 9TH STREET, S.W. (OSLO ROAD) & 74th AVE- NUE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-630 ACRES TO +/-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 & 1-95 COMMER- CIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-732 ACRES TO +/-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU- TURE'LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87th STREET AND 55th AVENUE FROM C/I TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION -FOR +/-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82nd STREET, +/-178 FEET EAST OF U.S. 1, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 82nd STREET, +/-150 FEET EAST OF U.S. #1, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE - LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-5.5 ACRES NEAR THE 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 may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of theseproposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel- opment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on week- days. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners -s- Kenneth R. Macht_ Chairr 30 October 24, 1995 Subject Property 10 Subject C/I M-1 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider a proposal to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and to change the text of the Comprehensive Plan. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, October 24, 1995, at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing the Board of County Com- missioners will make a final decision to amend the county's' Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are included W M-1; in the proposed ordinance 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- EMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-298 ACRES ALONG THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF 9th STREET, S.E., FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO. C-1; AMENDING THE FU- TURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY REDUCING THE 9TH STREET, S.W. (OSLO ROAD) & 74th AVE- NUE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-630 ACRES TO +/-593.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 & 1-95 COMMER- CIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM +/-732 ACRES TO +/-768.5 ACRES; AMENDING THE FU- TURE'LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-15 ACRES AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87th STREET AND 55th AVENUE FROM C/I TO M-1; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION -FOR +/-8.8 ACRES ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82nd STREET, +/-178 FEET EAST OF U.S. 1, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-0.7 ACRES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 82nd STREET, +/-150 FEET EAST OF U.S. #1, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AMENDING THE FUTURE - LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR +/-5.5 ACRES NEAR THE 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 may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of theseproposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Community Devel- opment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on week- days. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 extension 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners -s- Kenneth R. Macht_ Chairr 30 October 24, 1995 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Flprldd ` 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 i afL� 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 is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Ama,A'M1!kjVR?s4bscribed before me this day of A.D. 19 • • �yCo �%' : (Business Manager) �r7�e 717 0 BARBARA C SPRAGUE, NOTARY PUBLIG. State of Florida. M Commismn L• June 29. 1997 �� . Rid ry Oi�p Y P Notary: BARBARA C SPRAGNF - subject op" NUT= — PUBLIC NEApgtp Notice of hearing ardinariceto otinsider theResidential Drtrl6ng hind fr' RAS -1, Singl9. RM -8. lct (up to 1 Unit/acre) and tadts/alxe C-01.1. P � dto ation zero owned Wman . The Is River Water Marm9erte is n� F north of Oslo prol" is � (" g tabrV the ) he suboct� Des north telt 298 acres. The in 11 of Sections 18, 19,Zin otTownshlp �RFbrlde hying and kdian River d pd* hearing 1`1014i ands vrft interest and be held by the Board OP to be heard, will 81011 Colt Wart River ��8ne County Adm9=4 Corrmlls- of d. in bated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Mach, Flor- 116 on The Tms aOCLober 24,19%, at 9-M a.m. opt another Z0111011 distrptdistrbl ��� ter, q1tistild, provided it is caftory- the Benne general use � at t 111) wNM may r� derision r�rnade,00 aah �battn moon! bf theme need to en - made which the appeal is begad. Anyone who needs a sthispecial acoom wdethn for with ��ActmnW ae extension 223 at beatAhaus at hIn at Oof andan River L'OtC11y Board of County Oct 13,879 ff�i 1241918 Community Development Director Bob Keating reminded the Board that these items had been approved by them in June for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA). They have been reviewed by DCA and other State agencies and came back with no objections. He advised that today is the final hearing for adoption of these amendments. Director Keating then reviewed a Memorandum of October 16, 1995: 31 October 24, 1995 booK 96 Fni415 B©ax 96 PNOF 416 TO: James E. Chandler -County Administrator -- D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE 6�4 !9amf L -, I �d ^ i Robert M. a i g, P Community Developm Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP �'�• Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 16, 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 October 24, 1995. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On February 13, 1990, Indian River County adopted its comprehensive plan. As required by state law, all development activities must be consistent with the comprehensive plan, and all county activities must conform to plan policies. Occasionally, the plan must be updated to reflect the latest and best available information and to address changed conditions. Additionally, the plan must periodically be reviewed and revised in order to reflect the community's changing needs and desires. 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. On June 13, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on 32 October 24, 1995 177 � � s September 5, 1995, did not contain any objections to the proposed amendment. The ORC Report did, however, contain one comment pertaining to the proposed amendment. That comment will be addressed in the analysis section of this staff report. In contrast to objections, comments cannot be used as a basis for finding an adopted amendment not in compliance. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested amendment. DESCRIPTION OF THE AMENDMENTS BY ELEMENT In this section, the proposed amendments to each plan element will be discussed. The purpose is to identify the various portions of the plan needing amendment 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 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 toi • 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 Zircul:ation 'Element defines minimum roadway levels of service (LOS) based on several sources of 33 October 24, 1995 Boa 96 wi-) . Boa . 96 muz 418 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 LOS standards. Presently, LOS standards differ between state roads and non -state roads. The proposed amendment to Policy 2.1 will result in the county using the state road LOS standard for all 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. 60, 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. 34 October 24, 1995 M Consistent with state regulations-, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepazed 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 alignment for the Citrus Highway in Indian River County. ° 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. Finally, this section will address the ORC Report's comment. CONSISTENCY WITH THE IYE 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 35 October 24, 1995 Bou : 96 PnE419 Boa 96 420 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. 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 a landfill was 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 should 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. 36 October 24, 1995 - 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 these data. Policy 2.1 also incorporates these 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 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 Objectives 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 stealing with the Citrus Highway. 37 October 24 1995 BOOK 96 PAPE 42.E - Housing Element Housing Element Objectives 1 and 4; and 5.1; as well as Economic Development Policies 8.1 and 8.3; all dealing with housing in the county are particularly Element portion of this request. Boor 96 Policies 1.5, 4.2, 4.4, and Element Objective 8; and the provision of affordable applicable to the Housing 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. Traffic Circulation Element Policy 1.11 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 MOT 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 liven to 38 October 24, 1995 ® M M M M M 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. 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 concluded 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 no 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 39 October 24, 1995 423, 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. 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. 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 An 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. THE ORC REPORT'S COMMENT AND STAFF'S RESPONSE The Department of Community Affairs' Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report states that the proposed amendment to add the Citrus Highway Corridor to the Future Traffic Circulation Map may precipitate requests for increased densities and intensities of land use along the roadway, thus encouraging urban sprawl. Therefore, the ORC Report states that the county should adopt objectives and policies that specifically protect the purpose of the road. Staff feels that existing comprehensive plan policies to discourage sprawl, strip commercial development, the premature conversion of agricultural land to urban uses, and development without adequate infrastructure, will ensure that the proposed highway remains primarily an agricultural route, as it was originally intended. Any request to increase land use density or intensity along the highway would require the adoption of a land use amendment to the comprehensive plan. Furthermore, both the Hoard of County Commissioners and reviewing state agencies would have to find such a request consistent with the county and state comprehensive plans, both of which contain policies discouraging sprawl. For those reasons, staff feels that creating and adopting the policies suggested in -tile ORC Report is unnecessary. 40 October 24, 1995 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County, Commissioners adopt the proposed amendments. Next, Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of October 11, 1995: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DE TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE ober M. Rea in , AI Community Develo men Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel to Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 11, 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 October 24, 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-21 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 -11 Public Lands Conservation District (zero density). 41 October 24, 1995 som 96 r' 4205 BOOK 96 prE 426 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 end 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. On June 13, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations,' DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on September 5, 1995, did not contain any objections to the proposed amendment. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use amendment. At this time, the Board must also act on the proposed rezoning. Existinq 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 zoned 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 gest 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 42 October 24, 1995 retention and open space requirements-. This tract is looted 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 SquareShappiriT 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. 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 -21 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-21 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 uses 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 ±2.33 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 43 October 24, 1995 Bou 96 F,, JE 427 Boa 96 F*01 X28 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. 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. 44 October 24, 1995 a ® � 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 - (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* * reflects 650 units (based on 65 acres at 10 units/acre) as well as an additional 233 6nits tranferred from the 233 acres of C-2 land at 1 unit/acre 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. 45 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 PAGr 429 BOOK 9)6 E :30 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. 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 das X-2 And -C-1. ice then, the site has been purchased for conservation purposes by Indian River County and the St. Johns River Water Management District. 46 October 24, 1995 M The acquisition of the- site= by public agencies cons=titutes= s 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 -oi ecosystems, or merit preservation as vestiges of once common 1county 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. 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. 47 October 24, 1995 booK 96 � JE :3 . Potential Impact on Environmental Oualit 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 under 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. DCA Objections As indicated in the Description and Conditions section of this staff report, DCA did not have any objections to the proposed amendment. CONCLUSION 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request -to redesignate the subject property to C-1 and rezone the subject property to Con -1. During his review of this item, Director Keating used aerial photographs and a site map to illustrate his explanation. 48 Octo4, 1995 M :1VENQ� _ _ — It. L � Of i la m TOOTHXX qy 1 Ca 7 98th •AVE I - F orT IMP f7 m r a7,.rt:it:t � ILL L- r ur F c �• -- - CA you L---� •� r x i 1 y • I PARK T' .� AVE.) A n r 3'1 N[--i"E.) f4TM AVE. ^ (130TH e � RL(129TH - — -- 3 J L -- LAND - - LAND USE 49 October 24, 1995 Beer 96 PArE 4.33 Finally, Director Keating reviewed a Memorandum of October 13, 1995: I TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D,,ZWTNENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Rea ng, CP Community Develop t Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICPA -i(- Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 13, 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 COMPREHENSI`/E PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 36.5 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 95-01-0188 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Hoard of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 24, 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'a Solid Waste Disposal District (SWDD) in 1994 for future landfill expansion, will be referred to as Subject Property 2. The request involves changing the land use designation 50 October 24, 1995 of this tract from C/I to PUB. A concurrent rezoning Of_Suhject Property 2 is not part of this request. 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. On June 13, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners -voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received. on September 5, 1995, did not contain any objections to the -proposed amendment. The ORC Report did, however, contain one comment pertaining to the- proposed amendment. That comment will be addressed in the analysis section of this staff report. In contrast to objections, comments cannot be used as a basis for finding an adopted amendment not in compliance. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use amendment. 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. 6-0, 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. October 24, 1995 L 51 Boa 96 Pv),F 435 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. _ 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 52 October 24, 1995 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 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; • potential impact on environmental quality; and • the ORC Report comment and staff's response. 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 ohel.lenging 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 53 October 24, 1995 BOOK '6 FAf�E•) F_ boa 96 fAu 438 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. - 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 October 24, 1995 M 54 M M 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 becausethe requested land use designation changes would not increase the potential land use intensity 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 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. ZDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts v �F 4 39 October 24, 1995 55 BOOK 96 p J r BOOK 96 RAN 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, staff feels that the proposed amendment will not increase potential incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property 1. -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 3.3.3. -This policy requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use am A- en ent request. These criteria are: October 24, 1995 56 M • 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 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. 57 October 24, 1995 Boa 96 FA.'H 441 L ROOK ��. r Rased 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- 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' amendMeni reconfigures -the two subject M-0des to better provide for growth, the proposed amendment implements Economic Development Element Policy 6.2. 58 October 24, 1995 M M As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined that the proposed.land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Potential Impact on Environmental Quality 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. The ORC Report Comment and Staff Resvonse The Department of Community Affairs' Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report comment states that the county should do a complete and cumulative traffic analysis for each of, the proposed land use amendments. County LDRs, however, require that the county do such a traffic analysis only for land use amendment requests that increase the density or the intensity of the use of land. That traffic analysis is done as part of the concurrency review. When there is no increase in density or intensity, a project or plan amendment request is exempt from concurrency review. Since it has been demonstrated that there is no density or intensity increase associated with this request, there is no need for a traffic analysis. It is important to note that a detailed and specific concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any development on either subject property. That concurrency analysis will address - facility service levels and demand, and will contain'a traffic analysis. 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. RECONNENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to redesignate Subject Property 1 to C/I and redesignate Subject Property 2 to PUB. The Chairman opened the public hearing to consider all three agenda items and asked if anyone wished to be heard in the matters. Sam Culbertson, 736 Eugenia Road, Vero Beach, explained that he is the general partner in a partnership that owns property directly across SR -60 from the proposed site of the industrial ,park, and also represents the owners of the property just to the 59 BOOK 96 SAGE 4 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 PAu 444 south, about 42 acres in total. He believed it would benefit the county, but wanted assurances that the industrial park would, in fact, be built. He asked if it was possible at this time to put either an infrastructure requirement on the property owners or a time requirement so that it actually is an effective redesignation. He concurrently asked if it would be proper to request the PD zoning, so the owners would not come back later and ask for CG zoning to bring more retail into the area. County Attorney Vitunac explained that the Code did not allow for conditional Comprehensive Plan zoning, but it does allow the Board to look again at the issue annually to see if the zoning is proper. One factor, inactivity, would indicate it is not proper. Director Keating assured Mr. Culbertson that policy 1.24 in the Comprehensive Plan would require reversion if the development does not commence in two years. Commissioner Eggert viewed it as a good faith effort at this time. She explained that the Council of 100 had looked for a developer of an industrial park and this is a first step in the process of designating 100 acres toward that objective. She thought the developers understood about the rezoning. She is looking forward to it happening, we will know quickly if it goes awry. Mr. Culbertson asked about concurrent PD zoning, and Director Keating responded that a specific plan has to be developed before PD rezoning would occur. R. J. McMillan, of 305 Live Oak Road, a partner in a nearby 14 -acre parcel on I-95, which he identified on the site map, stressed that he favors an industrial park there. He felt Scott Lambeth would do a good job, but he was told they needed 120 acres to start. He was concerned what would happen if they could not get the additional acreage. He questioned why the County had, he felt, gone overboard on land swapping to help a private individual along. In order to give his support, he wanted restrictions placed now so that no commercial would be allowed there later. Chairman Macht felt that all the necessary elements (location, utilities, and affordability) had converged on this particular piece of property to make an industrial park feasible. He had been disappointed with the previous lack of enthusiasm on the part of the business community. His objective was to see light industry attracted to provide jobs for people who badly need them. He Octob=4, 1995 - thought this was the best opportunity to do that and regarded it as a challenge to the business community. Otherwise, at the end of two years, he would support a reversion back to its primary land use. Commissioner Eggert advised that this is part of the Economic Development Strategy Plan approved by the County Commission and restrictions will come with the,rezoning. Commissioner Adams.bbserved that the point being raised was probably a very good philosophical point. She was grateful that Mr. Lambeth had agreed to work with the County and suggested the Board may need to look at some type of "economic mitigation". Commissioner Eggert advised that the Economic Development Council would be watching carefully. Frank Mestrick, president of Forrest Park Owners Association, 590 W. Forrest Trail, was concerned about the 298 -acre Oslo Road riverfront property. Director Keating advised that the proposed changes provide for conservation on that property. They are currently working on a management plan for the property, which calls for a small parking lot near Oslo Road, some trails and an observation dock in the southern part of the property, and walking paths and boardwalks mostly to get to the wetlands. The major part will be done near Oslo Road and will take place within months. There are no plans to do anything near Forrest Park. Penelope Hessen, 138 Anchor Drive, voiced concerns about Vero Tropical Gardens, fearing her property would be devalued. Director Keating explained the natural buffering elements and distances and the additional buffering which would be required. Access would be from SR -60. He gave assurances that there will be an opportunity in the future to come back. Sam Rohlfing, 2310 98th Avenue, requested that all information on special buffers and set backs, every possible detail, be provided to homeowners in the area as soon as available. Debb Robinson, president of Chamber* of Commerce, felt there might be some misunderstandings about the industrial park. She explained in detail that the intent was to bring jobs to Indian River County to support the community and the ad valorem tax base. It is to be a clean, light industrial, office park environment, not smoke stacks. She wanted to assure everyone that Director 61 Box Uo .t October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 FAGUE446 Keating's buffer requirements were never light. She emphasized how the business community has worked together to plan this initial joint venture for economic development, and it should not be considered as a boon to certain land owners. With respect to the two-year reversion, she described it as a "use it or lose it" philosophy. She strongly supported adoption. There being no others who wished to be heard, the Chairman closed the public hearing on all 3 agenda items. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent) adopted Ordinance 95-25, amending the text of the Future Land Use Element, the Housing Element, and the Traffic Circulation Element of the Comprehensive Plan. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent), adopted Ordinance 95-26, amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for ±298 acres located along the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon, north of Oslo Road, from M-2 and C-2 to C-1. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent), adopted Ordinance 95-27 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying zoning map from RS -1 and RM -6 to CON -1, for the property located along the west bank of the Indian River Lagoon, north of Oslo Road. C October 24, 1995 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, -Commissioner Bird being absent), adopted Ordinance 95-28 amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for ±36.5 acres located at the northwest corner of SR -60 and 98th Avenue, from M-1 to C/I, and enlarging the SR -60 & I- 95 Commercial/Industrial node from ±723.8 acres to ±760.3 acres; and by changing the Land Use Designation for ±36.5 acres located between 9th Street SW and 13th Street SW, on the east side of the 82nd Avenue right-of-way, from C/I to PUB, and reducing the 9th Street SW & 74th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node from ±625.56 acres to ±589.06 acres. ORDINANCE NO. 95- 25 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT, THE HOUSING ELEMENT, AND THE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. in 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 approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 13, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and 63 447 October 24, 1995 ma 96 PA�aE 448 ORDINANCE 95-25 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 28, 1995, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on September 5, 1995, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this - comprehensive plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on October 24, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan • Revision to Policy 1.27 of the Future Land Use Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to the Definition of Affordable Housing in the Housing Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Policy 2.1 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Policy 8.3 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A.2 • Revision to Policy 8.5 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. 64 October 24, 1995 M ORDINANCE 9525 • Revision to the Data and Analysis of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Table 4.1 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Table 4.7.3 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Table 4.8.3 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Figure 4.11 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Figure 4.13 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. • Revision to Figure 4.13.2 of the Traffic Circulation Element, as shown on Attachment A. SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. 65 Boa 96 wil449 October 24, 1995 Boa 06 PA.n 450 ORDINANCE 95-25 This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 16th day of October, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the 24th day of October, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ayp Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams -Ayp Commissioner Richard N. Bird Abspnt Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ayp Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye BOARD OF//COUTY�IONERS OF IND% RIN&/ BY: . Macht, ATTEST BY: K: B - n, ClC Acknowledgment by the Department oState of the ate of Florida this 1st day of November , 1995. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of 11/06 , 1995, at 11;30 A.M./RM and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. -- APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY (? N 4r-- Wam G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney Robert -M. Rea in A C;Wector Cate Community Develop ent u\v\j\cpa1-95.ord IRM ATTACHMENT A REVISIONS TO TSB COIWREHENSXW PLAN 1. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.27 and Definition of Affordable Housing 2. Traffic Circulation Element Policies 2.1, 8.3 and 8.5 3. Traffic Circulation Element Data and Analysis Page 9 4. Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.1 5. Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.7.3 6: Traffic Circulation Element Table 4.8.3 7. Traffic Circulation Element Figure 4.11 8. Traffic Circulation Element Figure 4.13 9. Traffic Circulation Element Figure 4.13.2 66 October 24, 1995 M M M ORDINANCE 95-25 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.27' The Public Facilities designation is intended for public facilities and services including, but not limited, to government offices, service centers, public utilities and transportation facilities, schools, parks, libraries, police and fire stations, and landfills and related uses such as recycling equipment operations, composting facilities and operations, incineration of solid waste, borrow pit operations for fill material, industrial waste and leachate treatment and management, and equipment storage and maintenance. Not all public land uses are shown on the Future Land Use Map. Public facilities are not limited to the Public Facilities Land Use Designation. DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING Housing occupied by a household paying housing expenses which do not exceed 30% of the household's gross income. Monthly housing cost for owner -occupied housing shall include mortgage principal and interest, taxes, and insurance. Monthly housing cost for renter=cccupied housing shall include contract rent. However, it is not the intent to limit a household's ability to devote more than 30% of its income for housing. Programs and policies of the Comprehensive Plan with regard to affordable housing shall be limited to those households in the very low- (less than 50% of median income), low- (50-80% of median) and moderate- (80-120% of median) income groups. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY 2.1 No development project shall be approved if the projected impacts of the project would serve to reduce service levels of any roadway on the traffic circulation system below the standards identified in Policy 1.1 Conditions applicable to this policy are as follows: c Development project shall be defined as any activity which requires issuance of a development order. This includes: comprehensive plan amendment, rezonings, site plan approval, preliminary plat approval, preliminary PD approval, DRI development order approval, preliminary PD approval, DRI development order approval, and building permit approval for single family structures. c Projected project traffic shall be based on the application of ITE trip rates (Trip Generation, 4th Edition or subsequent editions), Indian River County trip rates, or applicant derived/county approved trip rates for the proposed use(s) to the project. c Existing service level will be derived by using the peak hour/peak season/peak direction traffic volume ranges or average travel speeds of -a link. Volume shall be the sum of existing demand and committed demand. This is described in the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. 67 Boa 6 � �,E 451 October 24, 1995 poor, 96 FACE 452 ORDINANCE 95-25 c Capacity shall be calculated as specified in the latest edition of Florida's Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual, "Generalized Daily Level of Service Maximum Volumes for Florida's Urban/Urbanized Areas", using peak hour/peak season/peak direction default table assumptions. The state roadways portion of the default tables will be used for all such capacity analyses. If based on the above analysis, the proposed development does not meet approval requirements, the developer may choose to conduct a more detailed traffic impact analysis as described in Policy 2.2. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY 8.3 The county will use the Indian River County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and the MPO Advisory Committees to promote intergovernmental coordination with the municipalities in the county. _ TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT POLICY 8.5 The county will continue to coordinate with the plans and programs of all transportation facility providers, especially FDOT and the Indian River County MPO. The county will meet annually with representatives from each entity prior to formal adoption of individual transportation plans. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS PAGE 9 LEVEL OF .SERVICE A LEVEL OF SERVICE D - Uninterrupted flow - Low speeds - No restriction on - Major delays at signals maneuverability - Little freedom to maneuver - Little or no delays LEVEL OF SERVICE B LEVEL OF SERVICE E - Stable flow conditions - Lower operating speeds - Operating speed beginning - Volumes at or near capacity to be restricted - Major delays and stoppages LEVEL OF SERVICE C - Speed and maneuverability restricted by higher traffic volumes - Satisfactory operating speed for urban conditions - Delay at signals LEVEL OF SERVICE F - Low speeds - Stoppages for long periods because of downstream congestion The level -of -service for roadway links is determined by comparing the traffic volume to the roadway capacity. The result is used to identify the LOS. In Indian River -County, LOS "C" is'considered the minimum accepted standard for rural principal arterials and rural freeways during peak hour/peak season and peak direction conditions. The peak M. October 24, 1995 ORDINANCE 95-25 hour/peak season parameter is considered the 100th highest hour of traffic activity during a year; however, peak hour/peak season is generally regarded as comparable to the 30th highest hour of traffic activity during a year established by FDOT. During peak hour, peak season, peak direction conditions, level of service "D" is the minimum accepted standard for all other freeway, arterial and collector roadways. In calculating level of service, the county uses the latest edition of FDOT's generalized tables showing the level of service maximum volumes for urban/urbanized areas. The county uses the FDOT generalized .tables applicable for state roadways in performing level of service calculations for roadways under state and county jurisdiction. The relationship between number of lanes, capacity and level of service is provided in Table 4.1. These planning capacities were derived from the latest edition of FDOT's Generalized Daily Level of Service Maximum Volumes for Florida's Urban/Urbanized Areas default tables. The portion of Table 4.1 relating to state roadways in applicable to all roadways in Indian River County; since the county uses this portion of the table in its level of service calculations. The capacities used in the Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure (FSUTMS) model reflect typical arterial conditions, where traffic entering and existing driveways as well as local intersection operations impede the free flow movement on the roadway. Conceptually, there are no such impedances on a bridge, and as a result, bridge capacities are usually higher than arterials. However, this greater capacity is not that meaningful within the context of overall operating conditions of a road. 69 October 24, 1995 Boa 96 FaIa 4513 NN 96 FACE 454 ORDINANCE 95-25 GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS* STATE TWO-WAY ARTERIALS FREEWAYS UNINTERRUPTED FLAW Cs•eup A (ter than 0.60 slgmlised intersections per mite (Waratiagu par a Group I (within urbanized sues• over 5".000 apaeitb aeudyde a ta09tly4 ualeternuptad pesaloaa and and !ceding to or within 5 miles Of primary city control business distrtat) _ the portioaa wabjeca so capacity eamaswiale mbmdd be evaluated aepenlolya LeO6w Level of service A B C D E Lams Level of Service 2 Undiv. 4.600 12.000 16300 20.000 24,700 A B C 4 D E 4 Div. 11,000 28,000 36.700 42800 60200 6 25`M 40.000 57,100 66,900 60,000 74,100 6 Div. 16,400 42.400 66,300 64800 7b.300 75 66.600 103.400 6 80,100 111,200 8 Div. 20,?00 63100 69 200 60,600 a 00 'W 114,200 197.900 10 64.800 100x00 149,200 142,700 172,300 12 76,800 117,000 166,800 2111,600 I86,900 218,700 DMILRUPPED FLOW 14 86x00 132,900 189AN 228x100 246JO0 Croup B (0.60 to 2.49 signalized interactions per mile) Group 2 (within urbanized any and not in Group 1) Lemr Leval or service laws Divided A•• g C D FM Laval of service 2 Undiv 11.6110 14.700 163011 4A C D 24� 37B� E - 4 Div. 26,900 31.900 34,200 34.200 6Uiv 40,.700 � 64.200 _ C 6 89,100 48.400 61,200 61,200 8 Div. 49.900 59AM 62,800 62,800 I. 8 48,400 74,600 106,400 126,,600-.138.200 A 10 60.400 96,300 139.000 180 172,700 s 12 70,600 109,000 155,400 187,700 XII S 14 77.9011 120.900 171.600 207300 222.700 Croup C (2.60 to 4.50 signalized intersection per mile) 1 NON -STATE ROADWAYS LAnest Level of service 18A,lOR CITY/ODUNTT ROADWAYS Divided A•• B•• C D Lema 2 Undiv. 9.600 13.400 1. -EE 5,000 4 Div. Divided Aa Leval of service C 211,500 29,400 6 Div. 32� 31,300 45.000 48,600 D 2 Undiv. 10,800 13,400 E 14,700 8 Div. 381•610 6 AN 60.400 4 Div. 6 Div. 23,800 44'M S' . 36.M 44,700 47,900 m Croup D (more, than 4.50 signalized intermlions per mile cad not within Primary city central business distrdistrict of urbanized OTRBR BIGNALTlBD ROADWAYS arca over 600.000) C (s(gm k -d intersection analysis) L A Lamw Level of service Lens,s Lov421 of Service Divided A" g.. C D E Divided A— g•• C.. D E 9 2Undiv. 5.200 10300 11,700 2 Undiv. ' 11.600 14.700 4• U 11,600 28,800 25,W 4 Div. • 24.600 38,11110 6 Div. 38.700 49,00 8 Div. 48.000 60.100 ADJUSTMENTS DrAMR130UMMMED Group E ;more than 4.50 sl signalized intersections per mile and within ("'ter car Pe -Pending two-way volume indicated percent) Primary eitYxmtral business district of urbanized arae over 500,000) C [aures Median Lett Tum Bays Adjustment Factors L 2 Divided Yn . 5% Leresi m"' of Service L A 2 No 1616 Divided A" g.. C— D E Multi Undivided Ya 616 2 Undiv. 13,000 14,700 s Multi Undivided No 20% 4 Div. - 6 Div. 28.8 32.000 111 44,100 49.000 8 Div' 54,700 Goa 00 ONIi-WAY (altar csmsspoading two-way volume indicated percent) OneWay, Corresponding Adjustment Lean 71se•Way Lams Factor 2 4 • 40% 8 g -40%, 4 8 -40% 6 g -25% The !able don not constitute a standard and should be used wily for p•nersl planning aPpScatims, The compute models from witieh thi far more specific planning appiicatiorm The table and dortving computer s table is derived should les ld b models Values shown an annual average daily taalfte (AADT) maximum cel— 2 Highway Capacity Manusl should net be used f (based ar corvi�r or irUarspction dedgn, where opo reacted tshi on K100 tatters. not peak to daily use use d ratios) fur lav"'s of ssevfee, and ars basad an vhm.a rad ar bo and Florida tra(lic, roadway said sigrrliyWm data. The tan,.es input value ssaumpa mor sod lav"' •• Cannot be achieved. the 1985 Volumes are comparable because inlersoclion of service r the {nark. capacities are reached. Source: Florida Department of Transportation, 1991. IFD 04/1'1/92 70 October 24, 1995 1 1 1 In N I In 0) z z H d x O GENERALIZED ANNUAL AVERAGE DAILY VOLUMES FOR FLORIDA'S URBANIZED AREAS (cont.) LOS FREEWAYS UNINTERRUPTED STATE TWO -WAV ARTERIALS NON -STATE ROADWAYS MULTILANE 1�AFX9 A83iJl)dP!'IffNS '. FRRRWAY6 STATE TWO•WAT ARTERIALS Claim Other Slgeallaed NON-9PA112 ROADWAYS Group Arterial@' Roadways Group (v/e) (average travel @pend) (intersection v/c) (average travel speed) (stopped delay) A 10.35 NA > 35 mph > 30 mph > 26 mph < 1.00 Two-Lne H c 0.54 < 0.45 > 28 mph 724 mph i 19 mph < 1.00 716 am Other 10.77 1 2 Undivided* A" H C D E Major signalised TRAFFIC CHAHACTRLtimmeA 71.00 > 13 mph 710 mph > 7 mph 71.00 -> ; 60 see F >1.00 >1.00 713 mph <10mph < 7mph 1.00 ;60 see Planning analysis hourEctair ( ) .068 .092 .091 .091 .091 .086 AN .091 .091 Directional distribution factor (D) .568 .668 568 •668 .568 •568 .568 .568 .568 Peak hour factor (flip) .950 .950 .926 .925 .976 .925 .925 .925 .925 A4juded saturation now rate 2 to 8 tone facility 1950 1900 1850 1860 1850 1850 1850 1850 1800 8 -lane facility 1850 1900 175A4 Inn 17110 1700 1700 1700 NA NA 16 -lane facility 1950 19W NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 12 -lane facility 1900 1850 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA 14 -lane futility 1650 1750 NA NA NA NA NA NA NA Turns from exclusive lanes NA NA NA/32 .12 .12 .12 .12 .12 .16 ROADWAY CHARACTERISTICS Through laries 4.14 4.14 2.9 2.8 2.8 2.8 2-8 24 2.8 Arterial classification NA NA NA I 1 If 111 1 NA Posted (design) speed (70) (70) 50dNA 45 40 35 30 45 NA Medians Yee Yee No Yes Yes Yes Yee Yes Yes Yes Left tum bays NA NA Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yoe Yes SIGNAL CHARACTRRWrICS Signa intenstion GRa NA NA NA 1.5 3.0 5.0 7.5 . 2.5 • NA Arrival type NA NA NAi3 3 4 4 4 4 3 Signal type NA N9 NA/Act Act semi Semi Sami Semi Semi Cgele1,0&'r• NA NA NA/90 I2u 120 120 120 12D 120 Weighted effective green W) NA NA NA1.42 .42 .42 .42 .42 .40 .32 *Same as corresponding input assumption for arterial Groups B-E. Croup A is a special case. "The first input value is for the uninterrupted section of the facility sad the socond input value is for a signalized interseetioa. LOS FREEWAYS UNINTERRUPTED STATE TWO -WAV ARTERIALS NON -STATE ROADWAYS MULTILANE Claim Other Slgeallaed I . 11 ill All Arterial@' Roadways (vie) (v/e) (average travel @pend) (intersection v/c) (average travel speed) (stopped delay) A 10.35 NA > 35 mph > 30 mph > 26 mph < 1.00 < 6 see H c 0.54 < 0.45 > 28 mph 724 mph i 19 mph < 1.00 716 am C 10.77 < 0.60 > 22 mph =18 mph > 13 mph < 1.00 <269m D < 0.93 < 0.76 > 17 mph ;14 mph > 9 mph 71.00 < 40 we E < 1.00 71.00 > 13 mph 710 mph > 7 mph 71.00 -> ; 60 see F >1.00 >1.00 713 mph <10mph < 7mph 1.00 ;60 see *Same as state arterials 11313 04/12192 ft 4. t -i O O r1 IX Boa 96 rnE 456 ORDINANCE 95-25 { R$w ti., 8 m �nt�n� p� n �p � 211!_1111111121211 uAvA1PjIq I* Mc o INV _111818% CC cccccc fa 40 T 000m0Ql $ ,y 9.!398p�p O �9YY m� m b $1aSa�i��Oa�glKilS mmcccccccccccccccccccccccccc�c�ccCc�c�Ccccl� 1ANfim mm Um V m wOaY�l i01110eeOPe+wof bid+ ���� �pPP �I ♦ O p O� q♦+ Y+ q q y fit �cY3S3Y3ai4b'Si38'b'fiSao�iSaoSSSeSS0000SSSSaSSaBBaSI ��� I _ nn000000000ca000000000000000000000000000001�� nnnnnnononnnoonnnenoeanoonnoonnoo �naa�on mmccccccccccccccccccccccccccccbtt�tttttEtbl ��saassasaaaasaaaaaaaaeaaj�asaaaaaaeaeaaBBl��� I� eeaaaexsoaaaaassczoeaaasas�jsaaaaaaeaaaeaaal����l 18.3a 72 October 24, 1995 0 -1 it ISS 3 m ORDINANCE 95-25 TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT TABLE 4.8.3 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ADDITIONAL ESTIMATED RIGHT-OF-WAY NEEDS FOR ROADWAYS THROUGH YEAR 2010 LOCATION 510 to 57th St. 57th RIGHT- ESTIMATED ESTIMATED to 12th St. 12th St. to 8th St. 8th OF -WAY COSTS TIMEFRAME Ave. (C.R. 510 to 33rd St. NEEDS Oslo Rd.) Old Dixie Hwy. (4th St. Varies - 801+ 11500,000 2000 to 23rd St. SW) drainage 20th Oslo Ave. Road) (12th St. to 80' needed 500,000 2000 varies 27th Oslo Ave. Rd. (S.R. 60 to 100' needed 850,000 2000 43rd Oslo Ave. Rd. (S.R. 60 to 80'/50' needed 600,000 2000 66th Avenue (Phases): CR 510 to 57th St. 57th St. to 53rd St. 53rd St. to 12th St. 12th St. to 8th St. 8th St. to 9th St.. SW 58th Ave. (C.R. 510 to 33rd St. & 12th St. to Oslo Rd.) 74th Ave. (C.R. 510 to Oslo Rd.) 1001 -needed existing R/W varies 700,000 50,000 700,000 100,000 450,000 50'to701, needed 21500,000 100' needed existing R/W varies 82nd Ave. (S.R. 60 to 110M I needed CR 510) 82nd Ave. (SCL to S.R. 60) 110' needed Roseland Road 20' needed 80' existing 73 October 24, 1995 2,000,000 1,100,000 17600;666 1,100,000 300,000 BOOK 2005 1992 1992 1992 2005 2005 2010 2010 2010 2005 96 PAGE 457 80094V 96 PA -E 458 ORDINANCE 95-25 Figure 4.11 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 0 -Municipal Boundaries 4th DT 1st ST SW ath ST OW MST SW 13th ST SW I Tth. ST srr C 4 LANE COMMITTE 21tat ST aW so. 10 2010 NEEDS PLAN IMPROVEMENTS 1996 COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS' -- 3 LANE mass 2LANE 4 LANE "n8-1 4 LANE 6 LANE 6 LANE Source: Wilbur Smith & Assoc.,Aug.1989 Revised: Npv. -1993 -OCT. 1995 * 74 October 24, 1995 MA, . arif 4199th T� oath 8,0 $I at 871 f7th 53rd I= 4"—ft a 46th T: 4181 "0 37th ST!MEM " Ak", .A ���� 4th DT 1st ST SW ath ST OW MST SW 13th ST SW I Tth. ST srr C 4 LANE COMMITTE 21tat ST aW so. 10 2010 NEEDS PLAN IMPROVEMENTS 1996 COMMITTED IMPROVEMENTS RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS' -- 3 LANE mass 2LANE 4 LANE "n8-1 4 LANE 6 LANE 6 LANE Source: Wilbur Smith & Assoc.,Aug.1989 Revised: Npv. -1993 -OCT. 1995 * 74 October 24, 1995 1 1 I L N W U z CH� L� 0 Scale: 0 t 1 3 miles Date : Dec. 1989 Revised: Nov. 1993 8 Oct . 1995 Source: Wllbu Smith 8 Assoc., Aug. 1989 • O M • • 'S f M � � 2010 FUTURE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MAP ROADWAY LANEAOE 2 LANE ROADWAY dam" 4 LANE ROADWAY XKM 8 LANE ROADWAY wwJw" * 4 LANE EXPRESSWAY J M C - ac 0 0 Ca u I J i 1 (L.A.F.) w � p' i • o Q O . i Flour. 4.13.2 IJ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FUTURE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MAP SERIES STfH fT LO w zll� N in rn TTCM U o o Z H vn O i 1 (L.A.F.) w � p' i • o Q O . i Flour. 4.13.2 IJ INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FUTURE TRAFFIC CIRCULATION MAP SERIES Scale: e ' ' e i1les FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS & THOROUGHFARE PLAN — 2010 Date : Dec. 1989 28wa111 Urban Principal Arterial -QM Rural Principal Arterial Revised : Jan. 1991 • OoL 1905 Urban Minor Arterial Fdon-Rural Minor Arterial Source: Indian River County Planning Division, Aug.1989 11>✓ Collector (L.A.F.) Limited Access Facility 1 X, STfH fT SSs:za, �::v.. a or a a ffati flured ti<; ago ``' •': 4616 �. 4616 OT pe •••:':�: 4141 ST ^''. : ' sigh fT ' 1141r4 2 8611181 tfa 1T Is"81 fn n 4a fT lot ST o fan fnfT logo ST f■ (L.A.F.) 2116.8T .■ ,4r TIS 21281 ST f■ Scale: e ' ' e i1les FUTURE ROADWAY FUNCTIONAL CLASS & THOROUGHFARE PLAN — 2010 Date : Dec. 1989 28wa111 Urban Principal Arterial -QM Rural Principal Arterial Revised : Jan. 1991 • OoL 1905 Urban Minor Arterial Fdon-Rural Minor Arterial Source: Indian River County Planning Division, Aug.1989 11>✓ Collector (L.A.F.) Limited Access Facility 1 X, ORDINANCE NO. 95-26 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±298 ACRES LOCATED ALONG THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF OSLO ROAD, FROM M-2 AND C-2 TO C-1, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan.,on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its 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 approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public -Hearing on. June 13, 1995, after - advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 28, 1995, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on_September 5, 1995, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this comprehensive plan amendment, and 77 BOOK 96 PnUE 461 October 24, 1995 ma96 ,62 ORDINANCE 95-26 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on October 24, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed.to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST; THAT PORTION OF SECTION 19 AND GOVERNMENT,LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST; AND ALL OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19 AND RUN S.89.4414411W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID LINE BEING THE CENTERLINE OF THE 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY OF OSLO ROAD, FOR 305.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00.11'3111W. FOR 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LIEN OF SAID OSLO ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE RUN 5.89.44144"W., ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID OSLO ROAD, FOR 568.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.12.19105"W. FOR 1620.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 102.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1018.80 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N.89.58150"W., 1018.80 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 383.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.12.19105"W., 195.51 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE 160 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, FOR 2.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89.58150"W., 1016.80 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19,- FOR 200.13 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE RUN N.12.19105"W, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, FOR 102.35 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 102.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1018.80 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89.58150".E,, ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 102.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1018.80 7EET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 1819.26 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89.58'50"E, 916.80 FEET SOUTH OF AND 78 October 24, 1995 ORDINANCE 95-26 PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, FOR 675.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00911'31"W., 675.60 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID. SECTION 19, FOR 916.80 FEET TO. THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID.. SECTION 19; THENCE RUN 5.89.58150"E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 299.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00*14117"W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 10 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR 1316.30 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N.89.43127"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR 644.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00.11131"W., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 1319.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE RUN N.89.27159"W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 18, FOR 3.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00.14105"E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6 FOR 1334.79 FEET; THENCE RUN S . 89.34 ' 21"E . , ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6, FOR 1309 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SAFE UPLAND ELEVATION LINE (ELEV. OF 0.6 N-.G.V.D) OF THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER AS FIELD LOCATED ON JANUARY 15, 1990; THENCE MEANDER SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID SAFE UPLAND ELEVATION LINE FOR APPROXIMATELY 6,500 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 330.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4; THENCE RUN S.89.44101"W., 330.00 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 822 FEET, MOR OR LESS; THENCE RUN N.00.14'17"W. FOR 319.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89*44101"W., 649.00 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 1675.78 FEET TO EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89.44144"W., 649 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, FOR 304.22 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00.1113111E., 304.22 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST' 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 599.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 297.9329 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Is changed from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) and C-2, Conservation -2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres) to C-1, Conservation -1 (zero density) and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly. SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or -motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severabilit It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County -.-Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. October 24, 1995 BooK 96 m,,464 ORDINANCE 95-26 SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 16th day of October, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the 24th day of October, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner John W. Tippin' BOARD OF OF IM114 BY: ATTEST BY: Acknowledgment by the Department of �t this 1st day of November , 1995. Aye Aye Absent Aye Aye . Macht, �.K.. Ba �n, Cleyl:kC jp� of the S to of Florida Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of 11/06 , 1995, at 11:30 A.M. /. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Qr\ )j lc� Wiliam G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney monert M. Keatin , AI Indian giv, cn Avproved Community Devel me irector Admin Date u\v\�o legal /o j rpcpa.ord Budge 1 l 0� Dep t. Risk M gr. 80 October 24, 1995 M M ORDINANCE NO. 95- 27 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -1 AND RM -6 TO CON -1, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ALONG THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER LAGOON, NORTH OF OSLO ROAD, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that -the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: THAT PORTION OF GOVERNMENT LOT 6 IN SECTION 18, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST; THAT PORTION OF SECTION 19 AND GOVERNMENT LOTS 1, 2, 3, AND 4 IN SECTION 19, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST; AND ALL OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19 AND RUN S.89.44144"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, SAID LINE BEING THE CENTERLINE OF THE 100 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY OF OSLO ROAD, FOR 305.00 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00*11'31"W. FOR 50.00 FEET TO THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LIEN OF SAID OSLO ROAD, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THIS DESCRIPTION; THENCE RUN S.89.44144"W., ALONG THE NORTHERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID OSLO ROAD, FOR 568.32 FEET; THENCE RUN N.12e1910511W. FOR 1620.99 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 102.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1018.80 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N.89.58150"W., 1018.80 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 383.36 FEET; THENCE RUN N.12.19'05"W., 195.51 FEET EAST 81 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 FA.F 465 ORDINANCE 95-27 OF AND PARALLEL TO THE EASTERLY LINE OF THE 160 FOOT WIDE RIGHT OF WAY OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, FOR 2.06 FEET; THENCE RUN N.89.58'50"W., 1016.80 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 200.13 FEET TO THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF SAID U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE RUN N.12.1910511W, ALONG THE EASTERLY RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, FOR 102.35 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 102.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1018.80. FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89e58'50"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OFTHE SOUTH 102.00 FEET OF THE SOUTH 1018.80 FEET OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 1819.26 FEET TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89.58'50"E, 916.80 FEET SOUTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, FOR 675.60 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00*11131"W., 675.60 FEET EAST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE WEST LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 916.80 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89*5815011E. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 299.64 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00.1411711W., ALONG THE WEST LINE OF THE EAST 10 ACRES OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR 1316.30 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN N.89@43127"W. ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19 FOR 644.19 FEET; THENCE RUN N.00*11131"W., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 1319.21 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE.OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 18; THENCE RUN N.89*27159"W., ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 18, FOR 3.61 FEET; THENCE RUN N.0091410511E., ALONG THE EAST LINE OF THE WEST 10 ACRES OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6 FOR 1334.79 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89.34921"E., ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 6, FOR 1309 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE SAFE UPLAND ELEVATION LINE ( ELEV . OF 0.6 N. G. V . D) OF THE WEST BANK OF THE INDIAN RIVER AS FIELD LOCATED ON JANUARY 15, 1990; THENCE MEANDER SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID SAFE UPLAND ELEVATION LINE FOR APPROXIMATELY 6,500 FEET TO THE NORTH LINE OF THE SOUTH 330.00 FEET OF SAID GOVERNMENT LOT 4; THENCE RUN S.89944101"W., 330.00 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 191 FOR 822 FEET, MOR OR LESS; THENCE RUN N.00*14117"W. FOR 319.00 FEET; THENCE RUN S.89*44'01"W., 649.00 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 1675.78 FEET TO EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19; THENCE RUN S.89*44144"W., 649 FEET NORTH OF AND PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4, FOR 304.22 FEET; THENCE RUN S.00.11131"E., 304.22 FEET WEST OF AND PARALLEL TO THE EAST LINE OF THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 19, FOR 599.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTAINING 297.9329 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Be changed from RS -1 and RM -6 to CON -1. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in the Indian River County Land Development Reggu ations. 82 October 24, 1995 ORDINANCE 95-27 Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 95- 26 in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10). Approved and adopted by the Board -of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 24th day of October, 1995. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 13th day of October, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the 24th day of October, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner John W. Tippin - Ave Aye Absent Ave Ave BOARD OF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI RIVER CO BY: l" Kenneth R. Macht; Chairman ATTEST BY: 1:��IQ n t ey K. B on, Clerk 6y .0 Acknowledgement by the Department o State of the to of Florida this 1st day of November , 1995. Acknowledgement from the Department of State received.on this day of 11/06 , 1995, at 11:30 A.M. /. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY William G. Collins II; Deputy County Attorney Community Development n\v\j\orP==.offi 83 Indian Rlvtr 4 App OVed Adm(n. Date Legal 8udge1 Dep 1. frisk M V` October 24, 1995 boa 96 PA,E 467 BOOK 96 PACE 468 ORDINANCE NO. 95-28 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±36.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF S.R. 60 AND 98TH AVENUE, FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND ENLARGING THE S.R. 60 & I-95 COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM ±723.8 ACRES TO ±760.3 ACRES; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±36.5 ACRES LOCATED BETWEEN 9TH STREET S.W. AND 13TH STREET S.W., ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE 82ND AVENUE RIGHT-OF-WAY, FROM C/I TO PUB, AND REDUCING THE 9TH STREET S.W. & 74TH AVENUE COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM ±625.56 ACRES TO ±589.06 ACRES, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian _ River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its 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 approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on June 13, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Florida Department .of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 28, 1995, for the State. review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and 84 October 24, 1995 WHEREAS, Indian River County Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) ORDINANCE 95-28 received the Objections, Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on September 5, 1995, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this comprehensive plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on October 24, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: Tract 8 of Section 4, Township 33 south, Range 38 east according to the last general plat of lands of Indian River Farms Company Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 2, page 25 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida. Said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Less and except road right-of-way for S.R. 60 subject to all easements, rights-of-way, reservations and restrictions of record. Is changed from M-1, Medium -Density Residentia1-1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node: C The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly; and c Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to add ±36.5 acres to the S.R. 60 and I-95 Commercial/Industrial Node; and 85 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 PAGE 409 ma 06 PAu 470 ORDINANCE 95-28 The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: Parcel 1 The west one-half (1/2) of Tract 4, Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, filed in the office of the Clerk -of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, -in Plat Book 2, Page 25, LESS AND EXCEPT the north 300 feet of the West 500 feet thereof; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Parcel 2 The west one-half (1/2) of Tract 5, Section 25, Township 33 South, Range 38 East, according to the last general plat of lands of the Indian River Farms Company, filed in the office of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of St. Lucie County, Florida, in Plat Book 2, Page 25, LESS AND EXCEPT a triangular parcel of the Southwest corner thereof containing approximately 0.65 acres as shown on sketch attached hereto and made a part hereof; said land now lying and being in Indian River County, Florida, Is changed from C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node to PUB, Public Facilities: c The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly; and c Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to remove ±36.5 acres from the 9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) & 74th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. 86 October 24, 1995 ORDINANCE 95-28 SECTION 5. __ Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dbpendent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 16th day of October, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the 24th day of October, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Commissioner Richard N. Bird - Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Commissioner John W. Tippin BOARD OF AUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER BY: h R. ATTEST BY: Ave Aye Absent ye Aye RS tC,. Bn , C�k ,C.... Acknowledgment by the Department o State of the S to of Florida this 1st day of November , 1995. , Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of 11/06 , 1995, at 11:30 A.M. /ftM. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY G. Collins II, .�vrva v aa• 11 �r4 Vi Community Devel u\v\j\lamcpa.ord i October 24, 1995 t ty County Attorney M te4S 87 Boa 96 47"j- Ave j BOOK 96 PAGE 472 PUBLIC HEARING - WABASSO INDUSTRIAL GROVES. INC. - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - 15+ ACRES REDESIGNATED C/I TO M-1 AND REZONED FROM IL TO RM -8 • 8.8+ ACRES REDESIGNATED M-1 TO C/I AND REZONED FROM A-1 TO CL; 0.7+ ACRES REDESIGNATED FROM M-1 TO C/I AND REZONED FROM RM -6 TO CL; 5.5 + ACRES REDESIGNATED FROM M-1 TO C/I AND REZONED FROM RM -6 TO CG RM -6 --- ', Subject Property X 8711fVERB BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL ' Published DallyN IL Vero Beach, Indian River County, Floridat- COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA c` �.NTSilu�.. IL Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath RM -6 Cil i 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 C.R 510 a NOTIM — PUBLIC HEARM - / I n the matter of /G' ! X' 00/ 6Ldo�C/ �+ NafioB o'r wkr %r><vwtder mB adoption of a dusfrlN D t0 RM•8, MuRipleF detdia! FW 0btriot 8 WlelW81 The � Is (up to PfWMtY mrM by YPdow Yldlrstrlel Braves, bo. The sub - 1�t property is bested at fire soutl MM rmrner of 87th 8deet'arld 85th Avsrua, and contalm epp tilatBhi =18 atxes The s Aoa pq:" Ies bo�xi In the Court, was pub- / southwest W =—d—S-901 28, TowRan 3Wn p 31S, Florida. Mab �d9 h men Cgnty, r/r` /� ,�/ lished in said newspaper in the issues of G / % A pAk has at which parties in btereg ad 1ltiter6 shat haves an opportunity. tic ba ireard, rvB be held by the Board of Coerrl�iorlera Of Flarida, In the sbn Ohamb M of the A tCW*, Camft- ioh BuAd- Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, kkonTuy� 1840 25th 1 et9�05a� Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been lits Board of l;,aaay Cates m8y enOtll� district DUwr Oren the tAstrict= entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun-� W h I9 witlt(rl the same general use 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 com. ftcre who vvl�t deCbiorl which may be made at this � nBed or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publicatiop in the said newspaper, i • t •.. r � / en �f a of ywproceedngs is i sbmny W4 eVMmoa � which the appeal b based. ' - S ie Jrttl• bscribed baforeTile thi -� �'+ U— So da A.D. ig $ y �Carrsltode8on for J i .. ' +., �•<�'. '�` this mint contact the cunWs Americans with Act )i ^r^.+ •� .:�•^ ♦ `rAir extetlslat 223 at flCoo�oursrdirsre aty58�7-8QM 48. , In advance of 4e - <(Business Manager) BAR6ARA C SPRA ,11C. rNJTARV PI IRI tC, 7P Indlan Rhm ggByoyar•dof IE Maft-s4w '1011vCommssrm NI -11-t C(: M572 ' . ^^ ' '. `GiBkrrlBri 1241856 OCL 12.1995 — Ff n?`;,o• --^� ' z,:'�;r �+,,.r. Vic- .. Signed:—' - Nelary. RARRARA C SPRAGUE 88 October 24, 1995 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beads. 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-Joumal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being Ai a in the matter of In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of rrc. Z � •.! `% J Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press-Joumal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. % •t Sworn to and subscribed geforeme this 1.2 day o A.D. 19 rfy ' Ou ness Manager) MRRARA C SPRAGUC, NOTARY PI3Bt IC, rssrun t .p June 29, 1997 (SEAL) t:ommm,*n NuMber. COOM 72 313n4d: NotmyBARBARA r: SPRAGt1E VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a� In the matter of &IwAOIX in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of�4G1' Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press.Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach, In said Indian River Coun- ty, Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. -Swam to.gnd subscribed before me this • '?day ofA.D. 19 _ 4Bu r►ess Manager) RARRARA C . vnAGIIC NOTARY ty Gummrssrm I xP J unp Cunvnrsswn Number. Cr;3O(K72 29. 1997 t'olarv'I3ARRAR r, A SPQarn[ 89 October 24, 1995 NOTICE —• PiOX NEARWO Notoe of tearing to ao MW the adoptbn of a canny ordirhanc�pe rexoriing land from: A-1, turel DisMct (hro to 1 UWS area) to 0. Limited by Hobert � T JON Vt wftm proparry b owned Pe►tY Is bated m the north side of aft Street Proft , e011801 WGUISIellr 178 fast �t of U.S. #1, and con- tains appradrrateiy 8.8 acres. The subject property les in the norttneaet w secfiorh of Sedan 33, Town. ship 31ShtyRwW 39E "V and beig to itdiwn River WA, Rrft citA Public ml have at which f „ Merest and oPpmIxity to be hwcl, will be held by the Board, FbftO CIndim River ambs sen C hwrhbwsof the Adn ir�tion Build - Ing. bcated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Fbr- kla an TheTBoardof C,acan. Oefto y4 1may adopt soothe► W ft district, other than the district re- provided it Is within the swne getheral use Anyone whD wish which may m� at this � g wll itaed an that a verbafkn reCad of the proceehb Is made, which IrCILKIN testinony and evidence Mm Mich the appeal Is based. MYOM who mods nvjgOOr1a speft emom>moda"m for withthis 's Amwicans Act (ADA) Cooniia�tor at 587.8000 extwrson 223 at least 46 hares in advance of Indian RKv Board Of COU* COMMilssionn ft-s4(arnsth Oct 12, f995 1241653 s c A-1 h Subject CL. Property G s A0.82nd a r 4 s N a- RM - CL •-erer ar.—.r.. UK to In A"A ft— RAW MAR9daf#dop8orh erof a enolhig lard from RMB, Multi. R11111 0111 'r (u9 t9 6 udsfaae) to Earft Iticated fn. The anthe scuth side of re appmxirr7 The lea h the natfheae w ''A. of "Ifs- 39E, Will Rwhge ill aro i. FkwIdL Ig atwtwhidh pwm in Merest end P an appaU ty to be hand, will Ifhg, bated at 1840 251h Street, Vero Beach, Floc Ida at Tuesday. October 24,1995, at 9:05 am. questK -Pw4ded it is within the Bane gerherel use Anp a who may wish to which may be mala at this upm mehwi"iheed SM that a vwbatm record of prooeeaYgo Is made, which Include teatrrnacheyidwho9 which ft appeal b bead.. end , , , , , isktim� thiss nwat OOritI " county's �ra Amer with Act (ADA) Ocadihator at 56741000 extension 223 at . law 4e hams in - advwhos of �r QpG0UG OoL 1$ iP� Kerrh Yhetl R. Medq.:eirtheri 12416 BOOK 96 P� E 473 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily -- Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a I A Z!i' In the matter — 41 in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of �^ ` s Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daily and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office In Vero Beach• in said Indian River Coun- ty. Florida, for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of advertisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to 8nd subscribed befoRe mQthis�, day of ��r��v A.D. 19 •��I'l;,T _-. _ ( peas Manager) /tt/',: �'•;��, r-• IIAFOARA c-VRAGUF . NOTARY PURI IC, a• ,'�,,t EXil )� Crmu�jmssoin Nundx!r GG300572 . N•,lary 13AR13ARA C SPRAGUE BOOK 96 PArA 474 T. RM -6 ' N •{.b• •r . NA JA ACT SNEL cum rA[p JI }T 5-t CG Trope tty REKA rTES rQ " OT 6 RM -6 8St 3T~ �• 2 NOTICE — PUBLIC WARM Notice of having to consider the adoption of a county W&MM M=" land RM4 W& ft.F R I DisM (up to 6 Wtal�ta CQ�O arty Is owned by NA � Thel is abject nedy arouse, no. The subJect property. Is located nen the southeast caner of C.R. 510 end 46th Avwm, aid ooraains 5.5 aces. The s1nD)oct property Iles h� to aectorh of b in I d iTRI County Plwrgs . hln9 and A pubicung at wthloh pries In Mrest and n oitizard shat have an opporbnihr to be thsrd w, 'ng, Ioca1 at 1840 26th Street, Vero Beach, Flow. 11111an Tuesday, October 24,1985, at 8:f em, erh tl m�n4hg� other thee m11 OOM12 � provided t 1s within are barlle tlgrod use Anyone who may wish to any dedsbrhwhich — be nude at this mm M sue that vereaam leood of the pro a din Is whiahthe appealInclixies Is d� y arid evidarhoe upon Anyone who needs a special a000mnhodation for this "efinp must contact the county's Americana with Dlaebitlin Ad (ADA) Coordinator at 567.8000 extensbn 223 at uhleast 48 haus in advance of Indian Rlvar Boar Yd-s i<e1rNa1 R hAr91t Ctieirtm Oct 12,1998 1241654 Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of October 13, 1995, with the aid of an aerial photograph and maps: TO: James E. Chandler DATE: October 13, 1995 County Administrator DPMTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Obert M.146241"Ing, ICP Community Devdiopiagnt Director THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP -, �t Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning 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 RN -6 TO CG. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 95-01-0199 90 October 24, 1995 � � r It is requested- that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 24, 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. 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 -8, 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 A. 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. 91 October 24, 1995 8®®K 96 PAGE 475 Boa 96 pAfJE 476 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. On April 271 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. On June 13, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for their review. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. The ORC Report, which planning staff received on September 5, 1995, did not contain any objections to the proposed amendment. The ORC Report did, however, contain one comment pertaining to the proposed amendment. That comment will be addressed in the analysis section of this staff report. In contrast to objections, comments cannot be used as a basis for finding an adopted amendment not in compliance. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use amendment. At this time, the Board must also act on the proposed rezoning Existing Lard 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 building 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 92nd .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. October 24, 1995 M - Subject Property 3 Zoned RM -61 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 to the north, south and east consist of citrus groves. Land to the west contains a single family house. Subject Property 4 and properties to the south and east are zoned RM -6, while land to the northwest is zoned CG. 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 l 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. 93 October 24, 1995 wx '96 PAu- 477 mox 9B AGE 478 - 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. 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. 94 October 24, 1995 M M r M ® M 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: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; • potential impact on environmental quality; and • the ORC Report comment and staff's response. 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 reconf iguration, *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 signif icantly * 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. 95 October 24, 1995 door 96 PACE 479 BOOK 96 eAfE 480 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: ±15 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial/ Industrial Node 3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 150,000 square feet of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). 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-1, 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 Node 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. M October 24, 1995 M M 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. 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. 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 site 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 408 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. 97 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 Pa . 481 mof 96 pAtE 482 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 commerci-allindustri-al -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. 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 are currently vacant or used for groves, they are zoned RM -6 and could be converted to residential uses. Given the current zoning of this land and the CG 98 October 24, 1995 M M zoning requested for Subject Property 4, development on Subject Property 4 would be required to install a Type C vegetative buffer with a six foot opaque feature along its southern and eastern borders. 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. 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 land use amendment meets the policy's third criterion. For typical amendment requests, substantial evidence justifying a change in 99 October 24, 1995 wed 9E3 PA�t sm 96 wH 484 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. Io 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. 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 popul-Mian, existing land nee pattern and other demand characteristics. 100 October 24, 1995 M ® M 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/L 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. - 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 2, 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 thim 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. 101 October 24, 1995 ma 96 P�a H 485 boot 96 PAJE 486 Potential Impact on Environmental Quality County environmental permitting requirements, including wetland regulations and the 108-158 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 108-158 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. Additionally, Subject Property 1 may contain protected gopher tortoises. For this reason, an environmental survey would be X84u1.`red 'Pripr'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. The ORC Report Comment and Staff Response The Department of Community Affairs' Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report comment states that the county should do a complete and cumulative traffic analysis for each of the proposed land use amendments. County LDRs, however, require that the county do such a traffic analysis only for land use amendment and rezoning requests that increase the density or the intensity of the use of land. That traffic analysis is done as part of the concurrency review. When there is no increase in density or intensity, a project or plan amendment/rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review. Since it has been demonstrated that there is no density or intensity increase associated with this request, there is no need for a traffic analysis. It is important to note that a detailed and specific concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with any development on any of the subject properties. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand, and will contain a traffic analysis. October 24, 1995 M 102 M M 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. RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the requested land use amendment and rezoning. 103 October 24, 1995 �i�OK 6 �P',H :3 a on i L-2 C// „v GOV. LG1 3- C// I / L-2 Subject - Property 1 ger,r'�I.t u _ � \ '\ ;Nets � G •i ;oal,+'1 Pu i PALM E 1.1 t. HLVD REKA ES T' \ \\ *7 a V�(� C-2 \ C.R. 510 ` <. W As - Ti'f;— -- - — - 7 Prop rt 4 _ EUREvA ESTATES i I '\NAC 71:�N \\ < IIEKA ESTATES + assn• Subject M_� .�. •*; . 3� � Property 2 - -- - •:_ wA Lr44 A: r�\M-1 aoo-45 t wAe s�ubject q \ MA oai�al. i- ; �-S Property 3 CA Co QD O IG t-1 J Subject Property 1 i l I I a 0 z z 0 N :J m 0C LO 0 Ml REPLAT \ WALLS \� 7a TERRACE 3 S/D (SAV 1 AT 7 \CE 4- ALR C/I i1 J CSA© MH � • , ��$►,/Q� Ij� PART OF L .1_—_J� _. GOV LOT aam � 0 1 , ,r AR A ITRACTr `. S ELL #a-1BEACH � IE Subject lbProperty /I REKA ESTAI- 14] A-� I I I . 33� 1 a� M -y � 9 loll 146 A 9 10 5TH ST. EUREKA ESTATES 1 5 4 3z`Gn 5 4 %si 1 \\ 6 y. I 9 9 101'11 12 Secy 10 G T" ST, S. 4 3 2 1 Q 5 9i' 2 1 5 u Za G 0 1 7 T" ST. S. AnACMMT S LAND USE . 106 October 24, 1995 In presenting staff's recommendation, Director Keating pointed out that a traffic analysis was done by the applicant, but was not included in the backup. He discussed the results of the traffic capacity. analysis and pointed out that CR -510 will be the most impacted roadway. Director Keating emphasized that the trips were assigned very conservatively and noted that there is sufficient capacity to accommodate the volume of traffic. The MPO recognizes that at some point there would be alneed for improvements, but not in the near future. Director Keating advised that of the 4 properties being redesignated, the 5.5 acres has generated the most concern. He pointed out the separation distance is an important consideration. Buffering and other requirements will have to be installed as an interface between commercial and industrial development. Director Keating commented that the most important policy staff has to look at with any Comprehensive Plan amendment is Policy 13.3. Staff feels that there have been a lot of changes, one of the major changes being the Disney development which is using up all the commercial intended to serve the convenience needs of the residents of the barrier island. That will create more demand for commercial and retail on the mainland of Wabasso. Commissioner Eggert appreciated having her concerns about SR - 510 resolved. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Steve Lewis, 8680 Shore Lane, pointed out his lot on the map and advised that when he and his wife, Dr. Heidi Gorsuch, bought their acre, they expected the zoning would remain the same since they did not want to be near commercial property. The commercial node was established just as they were closing on their property purchase. He did not understand why more commercial was being added when there is already undeveloped commercially -zoned property. He advised the endangered species living in the wetlands areas which he thought might be adversely affected with additional commercial development. Dr. Lewis advised that he was a member of the Causeway Association and they have been trying to diminish the impact of development in the area by imposing new buffers and setbacks. He wanted to set the record straight -On negotiations that _took place between Ken Kennedy and Mr. Ryall and himself. They had come to ;his property to see what impact the development would have on his 107 aooK 96 Fay X91 October 24, 1995 am 96 pAu 492 property and they had a handshake agreement to put in a berm and type "a" buffering to separate the development from his property. He received a call the next day from Ken Kennedy whose lawyer had told him it was ill advised. Dr. Lewis thought it was a bad precedent and there was no demonstrated need and that it adversely affected his property value. He asked that the Board deny any change in zoning for property #4. He suggested the Board consider making it light commercial and go back to the original agreement he had with Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Ryall with berm and type "a" buffering to diminish the impact on his property. Bruce Barkett, attorney representing Wabasso Industrial Grove and Hobart Landing II, Earring Point Groves, and Kennedy Groves, and N.B. and Rachel Ryall, advised that his clients are seeking approval of the Comprehensive Plan amendment. After hearing _ traffic concerns expressed at the last hearing, they hired Kimley Horn to address those concerns. He cited points why the proposed changes are in the best interest of the community and the Comprehensive Plan. Using his own aerial, Attorney Barkett handed out a proximity study (see next page) in order to address the concerns of Dr. Lewis. 108 October 24, 1995 109 October 24, 1995 Bou 96 pru 493 Boa 96 PAjE 4,94 While Attorney Barkett understood Dr. Lewis' concerns, he felt that Dr. Lewis should have no problem because of the distances involved. In addition, he described the other requirements which would act as buffers. He requested final approval. John Atz, of Kimley Horn, had been asked to initiate a traffic analysis on the potential impacts of the Comprehensive Plan designation changes on the roadway network adjacent to the project, AlA, CR -510, and US#1. He explained the perspectives they used in their evaluation. They looked at each piece of land separately and tried to be conservative in their analysis and each of the links meets the required level of service criteria. Looking at the intersection where there was a general concern about the Disney project, they took the 1997 build out analysis and added all the traffic anticipated to be generated by these new commercial pieces, and found it meets all of the levels of service criteria. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird being absent), adopted Ordinance 95-29 amending the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for ±15 acres located at the southwest corner of 87th Street and 55th Avenue, from C/I to M-1; and by changing the Land Use Designation for ±8.8.acres located on the north side of 82nd Street, east of US#1, from M-1 to C/I; and by changing the Land Use Designation for ±0.7 acres located on the south side of 82nd Street, east of US#1 from M-1 to C/I; and by changing the Land Use Designation for ±5.5 acres located near the northeast corner of 85th Street and 46th Avenue, from M-1 to C/I; and reducing the US#1/CR-510 (north) Commercial/ Industrial Node from ±293 acres to ±283.5 acres; and enlarging the US#1 Commercial/ Industrial Node, CR - 510 to Hobart Road (77th Street) from ±165 acres to ±174.5 acres, as recommended. 110 October 24, 1995 ON MOTION by Commissioner Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird being absent), adopted Ordinance 95-30 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the Accompanying Zoning Map from IL to RM -8, for the property located at the southwest corner of 87th Street and 55th Avenue; and from A-1 to CL for the property located on the north side of 82nd Street, east of US#1; and from RM -6 to CL for the property located on the south side of 82nd Street, east of US#1; and from RM -6 to CG for the property located near the northeast corner of 85th Street and 46th Avenue, as recommended. ORDINANCE NO. 95- 29 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE, FROM C/I TO M-1; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±8.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, EAST OF U.S. #1, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR.±0.7.ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, EAST OF U.S. #1, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±5.5 ACRES LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 85TH STREET AND 46TH AVENUE, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND REDUCING THE U.S. #1/C.R. 510 (NORTH) COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE FROM ±293 ACRES TO ±283.5 ACRES; AND ENLARGING THE U.S. #1 COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL NODE, C.R. 510 TO HOBART ROAD (77TH STREET) FROM ±165 ACRES TO ±174.5 ACRES; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its 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 approval of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and 111 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 Pare 9 96 pru-,E 496 ORDINANCE 95-29 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 (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this comprehensive plan amendment to the Florida Department of -Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment, and WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on June 28, 1995, for the State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations,, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on September 5, 1995, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained no objections to this comprehensive plan °amendment, -and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on October 24, 1995, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan 'The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian JUver fsoanty, FloriAa -.tD _mi t : - A parcel of land situate in Section 33, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, being the .112 October 24, 1995 M M M OR nTgANcE 9�5-29 northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter. Less the South 35.00 feet thereof for road right-of- way; and -also less the South 208.71 feet of the East 208.71 feet. Is changed from M-11 Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node: 0 The Future Land Use Mag: is hereby revised accordingly; and The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: From the East 1/4 corner of Section 33, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. Run N. 00018'0011W. a distance of 637.22 feet, thence run N. 8903410011W a distance of 537.10 feet to the point of beginning. This continues along this same line a distance of 150.00 feet; thence run S. 00018'00" East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence run S. 89014100" E. a distance of 150 feet; thence run 300 feet to the point of beginning. Is changed from M-11 Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node: 0 The Future Land Use Mag is hereby revised accordingly; and The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 6, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run North 00054'58" West along the East right-of-way of Sunrise Street a distance of 46.76 feet to the Point of Beginning. From said Point of Beginning run North 00054158" West a distance of 45.73 feet; thence North 44035132" East a distance of 871.92 feet; thence run South 05056154" East a distance of 664.78 feet; thence South 89032135" West and parallel to the South line of Government Lot 6 a distance of 680.32 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Said parcel contains 5.489 acres. Is changed from M-11 Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node: 0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly; and The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit: The Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter (less the South 165 feet of the East 132.5 feet thereof), and the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the -Southwest quarter, in Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Is changed from C/I, Commercial%Industrial Node to M-1, Medium - Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre): 0 The Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly; and 113 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 497 L_ BDo 96 pAu 498 ORDINANCE 95-29 c _Table 2.30 of the Future Land Use Element is revised to remove ±9.5 acres from the U.S. #1/C.R. 510 (North) Commercial/ Industrial Node; and add 9.5 acres to the U.S. #1 Commercial/ Industrial Node, C.R. 510 to Hobart Road (77th Street). SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with -the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severabilit It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. - SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolutions shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 16th day of October, 1995 for a public hearing to be held on the 24th day of October, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Tippin , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave Vice Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave BOARD OF OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDXXN RIVER COUNVN 114 October 24, 1995 l ORDINANCE 95-29 Acknowledgment by the Department of "State of the SMte of Florida this 1st day of November , 1995. Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this day of 11/06 , 1995, at 11:30 A.M. /. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. 4 APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Wil.Liam G._Collins II,_Deputy County Attorney I lRobert M." Redting, AICP Community Develop nt D u\v\j\wigcpa.ord Indian Riven COApproved Admin, e Legal Budget Dep i. �'' Risk Mgr. ORDINANCE NO. 95- 30 to AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM IL TO RM -8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 87TH STREET AND 55TH AVENUE; AND FROM A-1 TO CL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, EAST OF U.S. #1; AND FROM RM -6 TO CL FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 82ND STREET, EAST OF U.S. #1; AND FROM RM -6 TO CG FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED NEAR THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 85TH STREET AND 46TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send, its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and 115 October 24, 1995 Boa 96 F.,;,E 499 6ODT� 500 ORDINANCE 95-30 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following -described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: A parcel of land situate in Section 33, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida, being the northeast quarter of the southeast quarter of the northeast quarter. Less the South 35.00 feet thereof for road right-of- way; and also less the South 208.71 feet of the East 208.71 feet. Be changed from A-1 to CL; and that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to - wit: From the East 1/4 corner of Section 33, Township 31 South, Range 39 East. Run N. 0001810011W. a distance of 637.22 feet, thence run N. 8903410011W a distance of 537.10 feet to the point of beginning. This continues along this same line a distance of 150.00 feet; thence run S. 00018'00" East a distance of 300.00 feet; thence run S. 89014100" E. a distance of 150 feet; thence run 300 feet to the point of beginning. Be changed from RM -6 to CL; and that the zoning of the following described =property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to - wit: Commencing at the Southwest corner of Government Lot 6, Section 26, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, run North 00054'58" West along the East right-of-way of Sunrise Street a distance of 46.76 feet to the Point of Beginning. From said Point .of Beginning run North 00054158" West a distance of 45.73 feet; thence North 44035132" East a distance of 871.92 feet; thence run South 05056154" East a distance of 664.78 feet; thence South 89032135" West and parallel to the South line of Government Lot 6 a distance of 680.32 feet to the Point of Beginning. Said land lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. Be changed from RM -6 to CG; and that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to - wit: The Northwest quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter (less the South 165 feet of the East 132.5 feet thereof), and the North half of the Northeast quarter of the Southwest quarter of the Southwest quarter, in Section 28, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida. Be changed -from IL to RM -8. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in Indian River County Land Development Regulations. October 24, 1995 M 116 M i�_ ORDINANCE 95-30 Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department of Community Affair of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 95- 29 in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10). Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 24th day of October, 1995. This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal on the 13th day of October, 1995 -for a public hearing to be held on the 24th day of October, 1995 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Tippin , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Ave Vice -Chairman Fran B. Adams Ave Commissioner Richard N. Bird Absent Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner John W. Tippin Ave BOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDI RIVER CO BY: Kenneth A. Macht, Chatim-afn ATTEST BY: re K. Ba on, Clerk Acknowledgement by the Department o� State of the this p to of Florida 1st day of November, 1995. Acknowledgement from the Department of State received on this day of 11/06 , 1995, at 11:30 A.M. /PQ= and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY Qlu ct��M William G. Collins II, Deputy County Attorney J." �L'�w ert M. Keati g, qICP Community Developme t Di ctor u\v\j\wi9=0n.0rd 117 October 24, 1995 Indiin Riven l:n Approved Date Admin S"1— Legal Budget Dept. Risk Mgr. Bou 96 PArx-501 BOOK 96 FACE 502 PUBLIC DISCUSSION - FALCON CABLE TV POLICY COMPLAINTS, REPAMS-, AND CAPITAL RAFROVEMENTS Administrator Chandler reviewed a Memorandum of October 9, 1995: DATE: October 91 1995 TO: HOARD OF -COUNTY COMMISSIONERS JAMES E. CHANDLER, COI MINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. P11 mp DIRECTOR OF UTILITY -BER -VICES SUBJECT: FALCON CABLE This memo is to advise you of the excessive complaints our Department is receiving regarding Falcon Cables service and quality of reception. When we receive a complaint regarding service or reception, we contact Falcon Cable immediately. The explanations Falcon has given us as to why customers are experiencing so many problems are unreasonable and unacceptable (i.e., not enough staff, faulty or old equipment). It is my recommendation that- we schedule a public hearing to require Falcon Cable to take immediate steps to rectify the problems with their system and to consistently provide the service.. as is required per Section 18 of Ordinance 82-7. If the cable company refuses requirements, we may recommend revoking their franchise. to comply with the service enforcement that may result in Ren Vickers, regional manager of Falcon Cable T.V. in Sebastian, apologized that a corporate representative was unable to attend as invited by Chairman Macht in his letter of October 10, 1995: 118 October 24, 1995 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 1840 25th Street, Vern Brach, Florida .72960 Telephone: (407)567.8000 October 10, 1995 Mr. Joe Johnson Senior Vice President Falcon Cable TV 10900 Wilshire Boulevard Los Angeles, CA 90024 Dear Mr. Johnson: Suncom Telephone: 244-1011 The County Commission has chosen to provide cable TV services to the residents of the County by giving non-exclusive franchises to Falcon Cable TV and TCI Cablevision. The franchises given by the County have service standards incorporated into them, and it is the responsibility of the County Commission to enforce these standards so that the residents of the County have good TV service. This letter is to advise you that, based on the number and types of complaints the County has received, the County believes that your company may be in violation of the service standards incorporated into your franchise. - Examples of the complaints which the County Commission is receiving are attached. According to Section XXV of the franchise regulations (Ordinance 82-7) your license may be suspended or revoked after due notice at a public hearing if it is found that you have failed to comply with demands for upgrading the quality of service, eliminating or remedying equipment malfunctions, or other similar matters. Although I feel that the. County has enough complaints to proceed directly to a franchise revocation hearing, I think as a matter of courtesy that I would like to offer you a chance to appear before the Board of County Commissioners and explain your company's policy on customer complaints, repairs, and capital improvements for your system. r I invite you 16o appear before the Board on October 24, 1995, at 9:00 a.m., at which time the Board will be discussing this matter. Sincerely, BOARD F COUNTY COMMISSIONERS t� Kenneth R. Macht -Chairman Mr. Vickers advised that he was more familiar with the local problems and plans and would explain the system of electronics they use, the changes they are making and their plans for the future. 119 October 24, 1995 bnof 96 wE 503 BOOK - 96 PAGE 504 Mr. Vickers described the technical differences between coaxial cable operations and fiber optics equipment. He advised that Falcon Cable is in the process of converting to.fiber optics and expects to be receiving their C.O. for their new building in a couple of weeks. In addition, they will be expanding their service area to include Vero Lakd Estates. Mr. Vickers explained that their current equipment has been in use since 1986. The current usage of that equipment is now beyond anything contemplated at that time. He gave detailed information about the new system and advised that the conversion to fiber optics should be completed in early 1996. Mr. Vickers advised that there have been some problems, but they have been attempting to deal with problems as quickly as possible. He advised that Falcon takes problems seriously. He explained in detail how each complaint (in the backup) had been handled. He felt they had addressed those complaints adequately and he was not aware of other complaints except those brought to his attention by the Utilities Department. Chairman Macht asked whether Mr. Vickers felt that he was adequately staffed to handle the minimum response time. Mr. Vickers felt assured that there is sufficient staff and that installations or reconnections are done within 3 business days. Service calls for existing customers are normally done the same day or at least within 24 hours or the customer is advised why the repair cannot be done. Franchise Coordinator Ana Anderson advised that the majority of the complaints deal with frustration due to the need for multiple calls to Falcon. She has received many complaints about incorrect installations, and she has been told by Falcon's staff people that some installation crews were not qualified or had not done the job correctly. She questioned why it was not done correctly initially. She felt she should not be getting this excessive amount of complaints. The majority of the complaints are from the Grand Harbor area. Mr. Vickers requested that complaints be forwarded to his attention. Upon asking, he had learned of three other documented complaints and they have been taken care of. Chairman Macht noted that the Board was concerned whether Falcon was operating within the contractual agreement, providing 120 October 24, 1995 adequate signal and quick- response to service calls. He thought the County should maintain a log of calls re County franchises. Ms. Anderson advised that about a month ago she began requesting that all complaints be put in writing in order to forward them on to Mr. Vickers. Administrator Chandler pointed out that the complaints in the backup were not intended to be a complete compilation of complaints that had been received. The point was to learn from Mr. Vickers what he intended to do to address the basis of the complaints. Chairman Macht reiterated his question about adequate staff and once again Mr. Vickers assured him he has sufficient staff, has added additional installation personnel, and is able to call in contractor help for installation which sometimes creates its own problems when installations are not done correctly by the contractor. He has found, however, that his contractor responds appropriately and immediately. Commissioner Adams commented that she hears a lot of what goes on in north county and gets all sorts of complaints, but she has not been getting complaints about Falcon. She pointed -out, however, that she does get complaints about the Utility Department and she would like Utility staff to be respectful. Chairman Macht indicated the Board would proceed on the assurance that the complaint situation would improve and asked County staff to keep a log of complaints. Chairman Macht understood, and Mr. Vickers confirmed, that the microwave link from TCI to Falcon had been completed. Mr. Vickers explained that due to a recent agreement with TCI, it was in place, being tested, and would be in use very soon. No action required or taken. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - IRC TAIL SUBSTANCE ABUSE TREATMENT AND AFTERCARE PROGRAM - REQUESTED BY NOLLIE ROBINSON- NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE COAST INC. The Board reviewed a letter of October 9, 1995: BOOK 96 F, fu 505 October 24, 1995 121 New Horizons orn�zonu. nre. RKWARD L MILLS PRESIDENT wW CEO ADMINISTRATIVE oPPiCEs 714 AVWWA N Fart PWM, FbrWa 349Q0 (4M 4B8- M Sunoom 240.56W October 9, 1995 OCT 19% RE _r trn BOARD COU" COMMISSIONERS n Qln6`'BZ1Z9Z52� Mr. Ken Macht, Chairman Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Chairman Macht, BOOK 96 PA.tiE 506 CRIMINAL JUSTICE SERVICES 709 South 5th Street Fort Pierce, FL 34950 (407) 468-5610 FAX (407) 468-5633 "! 01-1. 4.04, I995 = I would like to be on the Commissions Agenda to discuss the Indian River County Jail Substance Abuse Treatment -and Aftercare Program. Thank you in advance for your consideration Sincerely, %�P-Pd4412de►,./ Nollie Robinson, MEd. Director, Criminal Justice Services The Board reviewed a letter of October 23, 1995, presented to them earlier in the meeting by Judge Vocelle: CHARLES E. SMITH CIRCUIT JUDGE PAMELA G. KRUEGER JUDICIAL ASSISTANT October 23, 1995 ,Moto of -Mm iha Nuwtem* 3jubicial a Mr. Ken Macht, Chairman Indian River Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 122 October 24, 1995 2000 16TH AVENUE SUITE 371 VERO BEACH. FL 32960 PHONE: (407) 770-3034 RE: Indian River County Jail Substance Abuse Treatment and Aftercare Program Dear Ken; Drug addictions, crime relating directly to illegal drugs and serious crimes continue to be a serious problem for Indian River County. The New Horizons Jail Substance Abuse 8 week program and the 6 months after care that they have been administering has been one of the most effective means to prevent recidivism and warrants your continued support for another year. Unfortunately, putting a person in jail or prison without the benefit of specific drug programs and after care when they are released from jail or prison does not stop a person's addiction, particularly as to crack cocaine. In order to stop the recidivism among defendants who have serious drug addictions we must have other programs besides the jail and the prisons in order be .successful in preventing these people from committing additional crimes. It is very cost effective in the long range for any program that is successful that prevents recidivism and repeat crimes by the same individuals.' For this reason, I urge you to continue to support the New Horizons Drug Program and their Aftercare. Yours truly, gZes SM41t Administrator Chandler advised that funding for this program had previously been under an antis -drug grant. -Funds were not able to be identified funds during the budget process. When this was last discussed, the Board said that if funds were available in our drug -abuse fund, they would consider using those funds to assist in this program. At this time, however, there is no funding in that fund. A $6,000-$7,000 reimbursement is expected. He clarified that it was the adult program. 123 Boa �AtE 507 October 24, 1995 Bou 96 PnE508 Chairman Macht thought there was no question on the desirability of funding the program, but just a question of money. Nollie Robinson, 1726 Lakefront Boulevard, Ft. Pierce, advised that the program has been in operation 5 years and this was the final year for funding from the drug grant. There had been some preliminary discussion of using drug forfeiture funds, but they had already been used to match other grants. Now, it is the end for grant funds. -In order to continue, they must have $35,011, which is the amount requested. Mr. Robinson recounted that this year they had 82 people successfully complete the program; 17 were women. Judge Vocelle and Judge Smith favor the program and they are sentencing people to the aftercare portion of the program. That has reduced the recidivism about 20% this year. He felt it is a very cost- effective program with a very- good success rate. _ Commissioner Eggert asked for a definition of "success", and Mr. Robinson replied it was a period of 6 months on no drugs. The individual can request service later at no charge and they maintain contact every six months beyond the program to see how they are doing. Commissioner Eggert inquired about the success rate on the first 2 years, and Mr. Robinson responded it was a little over 500. Chairman Macht asked if he was confident of those figures, and Mr. Robinson advised he was. Chairman Macht recapped that the Board has heard assurances from the judges and the Sheriff's Department that it has been an effective program. There is no question of its effectiveness, just a question of money. Administrator Chandler believed a $6,000 to $7,000 reimbursement was due in the next several weeks. He thought there was a possibility of getting additional funds, but he could not guarantee it. Chairman Macht thought if there was some degree of optimism on trust fund accretion, they might consider inter -fund borrowing to advance the funds. But, based on last year's performance, the Finance Officer is very pessimistic. They had budgeted $30,000 and received $11,000, which tells him there is the possibility that judges have discontinued making the trust fund assessments. Commissioner Eggert suggested contacting the judges in order to find out what the situation is. 124 October 24, 1995 Chairman Macht agreed and recalled there is an upcoming conference with them and it can be put on the agenda of the next County Public Safety Coordinating Council meeting. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, to table the matter to the November 14th BCC meeting. Under discussion, Commissioner Tippin would like to see every effort made to find the funding for this program. Chairman Macht suggested a fund-raising effort be undertaken by other organizations to help fund the program. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird absent). WALGREEN'S SITE - RIGHT-OF-WAY ACQUISITION AT 17TH STREET AND U.S. #1 DEFERRED. SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER REPUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN - FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND, PAY REQUEST The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 16, 1995: DATE: OCTOBER 16, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: TERRANCE G. PINT DIRECTOR OF UTILI SERVICES PREPARED WILLIAM F. McCAIN AND STAFFED CAPITAL PROJECTS ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: SOUTH COUNTY WASTEWATER REPUMP STATION AND FORCE MAIN FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -93 -28 -CS 125 October 24, 1995 BOOK 96 pmT 509 B00g 96 PnE 510 BACKGROUND !j T On November 15, 1995., the Indian RivetCounty Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with Hall Cont�ng for the above referenced project: The project has been completed and we are now ready to make final payment to - the contractor. ANALYSIS The original contract amount was $2,04,967.56, the final change order is for a contract reduction of $24,188.95 and is a result of quantity adjustments. The final contract amount is therefore $2,044,778.57. RECOMMENDATION , �J The staff of the Department of Utility Services. recommends the Board of County Commissioners approve the final change order and pay request with Hall Contracting as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4-0, Commissioner Bird being absent), approved the final change order and pay request with Hall Contracting Corp., as recommended by staff. FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD LOAD SHARING AGREEMENTS WITH FP&L The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 13, 1995: DATE: TO: FROM: PREPARED AND STAFFED BY: SUBJECT: BACKGROUND OCTOBER 13, 1995 JAMES E'. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR TERRANCE G. DIRECTOR OF WILLIAM F. CAPITAL PR DEPARTMENT INEER Y SERVICES LOAD SHARINGS AGREEMENTS BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AND FLORIDA POWER AND LIGHT (FP&L) The County currently has an approved load share agreement with Florida Power and Light (FP&L) at our South County R.O. Plant. The agreement allows for a reduced power rate, with the condition that at the time of high system demand the County changes to generator power (i.e., "load g"_), -Thiz.a-greement has served the County well at the South County Water -Plant and we wish to implement the same at several other locations. 126 October 24, 1995 ANALYSIS Attached are three Load Control Agreements for the following facilities: 1. West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant (to commence in March 1996) 2. South County Wastewater Treatment Plant (to commence in mid-1997) 3. North County R.O. Plant, Phase II (to commence in early 1998) We are requesting the Board of County Commissioners approval for these agreements prior to their need, as there is a limited number of openings available for this service with FP&L. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that,the Board of County Commissioners approve the agreements as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent), approved the Local Control Agreements with FP&L as presented for West Regional WWTP (commencing March 1996), South County WWTP (commencing mid-1997) and North County R.O. Plant (commencing early 1998), as recommended by staff. ORIGINAL AGREEMENTS WILL BE PLACED ON FILE WHEN RECEIVED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD JUNGLE TRAIL WATER MAIN EXTENSION - DERRICO FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST DATE: The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 13, 1995: OCTOBER 13, 1995 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATO FROM: TERRANCE G. PI O DIRECTOR OF UTI ITY SERV3 PREPARED WILLIAM F. Mc IN AND STAFFED CAPITAL P33 GINEER --BY: DEPARTMENT LITY-SERVICES SUBJECT: JUNGLE TRAIL WATER MAIN EXTENSION FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -93 -27 -DS 127 October 24, 1995 Boor 96 P,�GE 51_1 boos 96 PACE 512 BACKGROUND On April 11, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners awarded the above project to Derrico Construction Corporation. (See attached agenda item and minutes). The work- is now complete and we wish to receive approval.for a final change order and pay request. ANALYSIS The current contract price is $,207,412-.50 - . The final change order is for a deduct of $13,903.12, which reduces the final contract amount to $193,509.38. The deduct is a result of the removal of a jack and bore at C.R. 510 and other quantity adjustments. Details are in the attached change order and pay request. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the change order and pay request as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously (4- 0, Commissioner Bird being absent), approved the change order and pay request of Derrico Construction Corporation, as recommended by staff. FINAL CHANGE ORDER AND PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD COURTHOUSE AREA PARKING Commissioner Eggert advised she had received calls from Debb Robinson of the Chamber of Commerce, and other business owners in the area of the Courthouse, to complain that beginning at 7:30 a.m., cars were parking in the lots east of the Courthouse and people were heading into the Courthouse. The cars were not moved all day, thus spaces for their business patrons were not available. Commissioner Adams wondered why they would park there and have to go all the way around the Courthouse to get in. Commissioner Eggert responded that they were courthouse employees who go in the back door. Chairman Macht added that it was because, in violation of a lot of expense paid for security, they had penetrated- it by opening the back door to many instead of just a few employees. Administrator Chandler had also received a call from Debb Robinson and he advised her that he would bring it up at the 128 October 24, 1995 November- 3rd meeting of the County Public Safety Coordinating Council. There is no question the employees should not be parking on the street. Commissioner Eggert advised that a new business owner could not find parking and tried to park in the Courthouse garage and his van will not fit. Chairman Macht felt the use of the back door should be scuttled and the back door not left open. CONSENSUS WAS REACHED to refer the matter to the November 3rd meeting of the County Public Safety Coordinating Council. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:04 p.m. ATTEST: J. Barton, Clerk enneth R. Macht, Chairman Minutes approved on October 24, 1995 129 ma 96 PAH 513