HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/18/1997sr
V
WEMUJTES ATTACHED
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
A G E N- D A
TUESDAY, MARCH 18,1997
9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER
County Administration Building
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman (District 2)
John W. Tippin, Vice Chairman (District 4)
Fran B. Adams (District 1)
Caroline D. Ginn (District 5
Kenneth R. Macht (District 3)
9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER
James E. Chandler, County Administrator
Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board
2. INVOCATION Rev. Joe Brooks
20th Ave. Church of God
3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Charles P. Vitunac
4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
1. Item 13-A-2, Discussion
regarding Indian River Lagoon
American Assembly - April 18
and 19, 1997.
2. Item 13-A-3, Discussion regarding Library
Cooperatives Funding.
3. Item 13-E, Discussion regarding possible
ordinance limiting the use of county
rights-of-way.
5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS
None
b. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Special Meeting of Feb. 20, 1997
B. Regular Meeting of Feb. 25, 1997
C. Special Meeting of Feb. 27, 1997
7. CONSENT AGENDA
A. Received & Placed on File in Office of
Clerk to the Board: Fla. Inland Navigation
District Annual Meeting Schedule; Map of
the District; FY 1995-96 Financial Audit
B. Approval of Warrants
(memorandum dated March 6, 1997)
C. Award Bid #7033 /-Gifford Park Irrigation
System - Public Works Dept.
(memorandum dated March 7, 1997)
D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018
(memorandum dated March 12, 1997)
BACKUP
PAGES
1-8
9-13
Boor, !'U -'D' CAGE 36W
14-15
r
7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.): Poor, c>
PAGES
E. Indian River Club Ltd.'s Request for Final
Plat Approval to Replat a Portion of Indian
River Club Plat #2
(memorandum dated March 12, 1997) 16-20
F. Release of Easement Request by Joan M. Kearney
for a Portion of a Rear Lot Easement on Lot 10,
Vero Glen Subdivision
(memorandum dated March 5, 1997)
G. Recently Acquired Properties - Tax Cancellations
(memorandum dated March 10, 1997)
H. A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLA. URGING THE CONTINUED APPROPRIA-
TION OF FUNDING FOR PRESERVATION 2000
I. Stonebridge S/D Force Main Developer's
Agreement, Easement with Bayer Corp.
(memorandum dated March 7, 1997)
8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and
GOVERNMENTAL, AGENCIES
None
9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS
21-28
29
30
31-37
1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
SECTION 104.06 - CODE OF ETHICS
AND CONDUCT OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY
(memorandum dated March 5,1997) 38-45
2. Sidney M. Banack, Jr.'s Request to Amend
the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate
Approx. 15.02 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and
to Rezone that 15.02 Acres from A-1 to CG
(memorandum dated March 11, 1997) 46-86
3. County Initiated Request to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 111
Acres from L-2 to C-1, and to Rezone the
Property from RM -6 to CON -1
(memorandum dated March 4, 1997) 87-116
4. Jessie L. Baldwin and Others' Request to
Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesig-
nate Approx. 4.6 Acres from M-1 to C/I, and
to Rezone Approx. 7 Acres from RS -6, RM -6,
and CL to CG
(memorandum dated March 10, 1997) 117-154
5. Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx.
15.2 Acres from L-1 to M-1, and to Rezone
Approx. 30.3 Acres from A-1 to RMH-8
(memorandum dated March 7, 1997) 155-196
9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.):
A. PUBLIC HEARINGS (cont'd Z
6. County Initiated Request to Amend the Com-
prehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 101.8
Acres from M-1 and AG -2 to C/I; to Amend
the Comp. Plan to Redesignate Approx. 118.4
Acres from C/I to PUB; to Expand the Urban
Service Area by 29.5 Acres; and to Add New
Policy 1.38 to the Future Land Use Element
(memorandum dated March 11, 1997)
B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS
None
10. COUNTY ADMIMSTRATOR'S MATTERS
None
11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS
A. Community Development
None
B. Emergency Services
Interlocal Agreements for Mutual Aid Between
Indian River County, the I.R.C. Emergency Services
District, and the Local Governments of Okeechobee
and Osceola Counties
(memorandum dated March 7, 1997)
C. General Services
None
D. Leisure Services
Dunes Course Greens Renovations Project -
Contract Award
(memorandum dated March 4, 1997)
E. Office of Management and Budget
None
F. Personnel
Vacation Leave Policy, AM -502.1
(memorandum dated March 11, 1997)
G. Public Works
None
H. Utilities
BACKUP
PAGES
197-242
243-248
249-301
302-303
1. Rate Resolution to (a) Adopt Impact Fee
Analysis by CH2M Hill; (b) Adjust Line
Extension Fees
(memorandum dated February 28, 1997) 304-333
(tabled from BCC Meeting of 3/11/97)
(additional backup provided separately)
AoG � f �
11.
12.
POOK. 100 PAGE870
BACRryP
DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd.): PAGES
H. Utilities (cont'd.):
2. West Reg. Wastewater Treatment Plant,
Final Pay Request & Change Order
(memorandum dated March 11, 1997)
COUNTY ATTORNEY
None
13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS = -
A. Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Request to Consider Resolution to Amend Fla.
Statutes to Eliminate Five -Year Accumulation
Provision
(memorandum dated March 3, 1997)
B. Vice Chairman John W Tippin
C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams
D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
E. Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS
A. Emergency Services District
Interlocal Agreements for Mutual Aid Between
Indian River County, the I.R.C. Emergency Services
District, and the Local Governments of Okeechobee
and Osceola Counties
(memorandum dated March 7, 1997)
B. Solid Waste Disposal District
1. Approval of Minutes - Reg. Meeting of 2/11/97
2. Approval of Minutes - Reg. Meeting of 2/25/97
3. Florida Tire Recycling Agreement
(memorandum dated March 4, 1997)
4• Request for Proposals - IRC Bid #7011
Laboratory Sampling & Analytical Services
(memorandum dated March 4, 1997)
334-355
356-358
359-364
365-367
368-374
BACKUP
14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS (cont'd.): PAGES
C. Environmental Control Board
None
15. ADJOURNMENT
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need
to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which includes the testimony and
evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting may contact the county's
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) coordinator at 567-8000 x408 at least 48 hours in advance
of meeting.
Meeting broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast 5: 00 p.m. Thursday through
5: 00 p. m. Friday
Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening nor 100 pAu
hI I *- C113 I l6hUb"
MARCH 18, 1997
REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMI MSIONERS
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
APPROVAL OF MINUTES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
CONSENT
AGENDA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
A.
Reports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
B.
List of Warrants . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2
C.
Bid #7033 - Gifford Park Irrigation System -
Homeland Irrigation . . . . . . . . . . .
8
D.
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018 . . . . . .
9
E.
Indian River Club, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval to
Replat a Portion of Indian River Club Plat #2 . . .
10
F.
Joan M. Kearney - Release of Easement - Portion of
Rear Lot Easement - Lot 10, Vero Glen S/D . . . . .
11
G.
Tax Cancellations - Anngel M. Bates - Parcels 108-A
and 108-W - 58th Avenue Right -of -Way . . .
16
H.
Resolution Urging Continued Appropriation of
Funding for Preservation 2000 . . . . . . . . .
20
I.
Stonebridge S/D Force Main - Developer's Agreement
and Easement - Bayer Corp. . . . . . . . . . . . .
21
ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 104.06 - CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
SIDNEY M. BANACK, JR. - REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15.02 ACRES
FROM M-1 TO C/L, AND REZONE THAT 15.02 ACRES FROM A-1 TO
CG. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 111 ACRES FROM L-2 TO C-1 - REZONE
THE PROPERTY FROM RM -6 TO CON -1 - WABASSO SCRUB
CONSERVATION AREA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
JESSIE L. BALDWIN AND OTHERS - REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 4.6
ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I - REZONE APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES FROM
RS -6, RM -6 AND CL TO CG . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
THOMAS S. HAMMOND - REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 15.2 ACRES FROM
L-1 TO M-1 - REZONE APPROXIMATELY 30.3 ACRES FROM A-1 TO
RMH-8 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 101.8
ACRES FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I - REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 118.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB - EXPAND URBAN
SERVICE AREA BY 29.5 ACRES - ADD NEW POLICY 1.38 TO
FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
1
Kof.- 100 FAR 872
BOOP( 100 PAGE 873
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENTS FOR MUTUAL AID - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT, AND
LOCAL GOVERNMENTS OF OKEECHOBEE AND OSCEOLA COUNTIES 106
DUNES COURSE GREENS RENOVATIONS PROJECT - CONTRACT AWARD -
TIFTON GOLF SERVICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
VACATION LEAVE POLICY, AM -502.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
RESOLUTION TO (A) ADOPT IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS BY CH2M HILL; (B)
ADJUST LINE EXTENSION FEES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, FINAL PAY REQUEST
AND CHANGE ORDER - JOHN J. RIRLIN, INC. . . . . . . . . 112
CONSIDER RESOLUTION TO AMEND FLORIDA STATUTES TO ELIMINATE
FIVE-YEAR ACCUMULATION PROVISION . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - AMERICAN ASSEMBLY - APRIL 18 AND 19,
1997 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
LIBRARY COOPERATIVES FUNDING . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 116
USE OF COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
P�
March 18, 1997
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County,
Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers,
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, March 18, 1997,
at 9:00 a.m. Present were Carolyn R. Eggert, Chairman; John W.
Tippin, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Kenneth R. Macht; and
Caroline D. Ginn. Also present were James E. Chandler, County
Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia
"PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk.
Chairman Eggert called the meeting to order. Reverend Joe
Brooks of the 20th Avenue Church of God gave the Invocation, and
County Attorney Vitunac led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA
Chairman Eggert requested two additions to today's Agenda:
1. Item 13-A-2, Discussion regarding Indian River
Lagoon American Assembly on April 18 and 19,
1997.
2. Item 13-A-3, Discussion regarding Library
Cooperatives Funding.
Commissioner Macht requested the addition to today's Agenda of
Item 13-E, discussion regarding possible ordinance limiting the use
of County rights-of-way.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously added the
above items to the Agenda.
APPROVAL OF AMUTES
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 20, 1997. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 20,
1997, as written.
MARCH 189 1997 1 BOOK M I'M874
r-
wK 100 PAu875
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 25, 1997. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 25,
1997, as written.
The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions
to the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 27, 1997. There
were none.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved
the Minutes of the Special Meeting of February 27,
1997, as written.
CONSENT AGENDA
A. Rens
Received and placed on file in the office of the Clerk to the
Board:
1. Florida Inland Navigation District Annual
Meeting Schedule; Map of the District; FY
1995-96 Financial Audit.
B. List of Warrants
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 6, 1997:
TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
DATE: MARCH 6, 1997
SUBJECT: APPROVAL OF WARRANTS
FROM: EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR
In compliance with Chapter 136.06, Florida Statutes. all warrants issued
by the Board of County Commissioners are to be recorded in the Board minutes.
Approval is requested for the attached list of warrants, issued by the Clerk
to the Board. for the time period of February 27 to March 6. 1997.
MARCH 18, 1997
2
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the
Board for the period from February 27, 1997 through
March 6, 1997, as recommended by staff.
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0018210
JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES
2/27/97
523.00
0018211
ADAMS,VIRGIL
2/27/97
36.60
0018212
MARESCA, BARBARA
2/28/97
400.00
0018213
GIBSON, PATRICIA FOR CIARA
3/03/97
300.00
0018214
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/03/97
276.00
0018215
COMMONWEALTH LAND TITLE
3/03/97
10,000.00
0018216
STEWART TITLE OF I.R.C.
3/03/97
5,000.00
0018217
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/03/97
24.00
0018218
AETNA LIFE INSURANCE AND
3/05/97
906.90
0018219
FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM
3/05/97
316,742.31
0018220
TEAMSTERS LOCAL UNION NO 769
3/05/97
3,525.43
0018221
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF
3/05/97
63,947.76
0018222'
KRUCZKIEWICZ, LORIANE
3/05/97
138.50
0018223
BREVARD COUNTY CLERK OF THE
3/05/97
166.79
0018224
ST LUCIE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
3/05/97
541.75
0018225
VELASQUEZ, MERIDA
3/05/97
200.00
0018226
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY CLERK OF
3/05/97
3,200.93
0018227
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
3/05/97
55.46
0018228
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
3/05/97
187.49
0018229
VERO BEACH FIREFIGHTERS ASSOC. .
3/05/97
1,980.00
0018230
INDIAN RIVER FEDERAL CREDIT
3/05/97
86,321.07
0018231
COLONIAL LIFE & ACCIDENT
3/05/97
268.31
0018232
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
3/05/97
278.12
0018233
NACO/SOUTHEAST
3/05/97
3,250.51
0018234
KEY TRUST COMPANY OF FLORIDA
3/05/97
989.18
0018235
FIRST UNION NATIONAL BANK OF
3/05/97
171,514.15
0018236
JACKSON COUNTY CLERK OF THE
3/05/97
124.80
0018237
DOUGLAS COUNTY CLERK OF COURT
3/05/97
23.08
0018238
TRANSOUTH FINANCIAL CORP
3/05/97
155.72
0018239
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF
3/05/97
1,142.00
0018240
ORANGE COUNTY CLERK OF THE
3/05/97
135.20
0018241
AMERICAN DENTAL PLAN (FLORIDA)
3/05/97
2,113.76
0218547
A A FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
3/06/97
27.00
0218548
AERO PRODUCTS CORP
3/06/97
103.12
0218549
AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION
3/06/97
385.00
0218550
AMERICAN WATER WORKS
3/06/97
100.00
0218551
APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY
3/06/97
287.30
0218552
AT YOUR SERVICE
3/06/97
1,815.20
0218553
ATCO TOOL SUPPLY
3/06/97
101.94
0218554
AT EASE ARMY NAVY
3/06/97
81.00
0218555
A B S PUMPS, INC
3/06/97
1,237.00
0218556
A T & T
3/06/97
22.05
0218557
ALL FLORIDA BEVERAGE & OFFICE
3/06/97
53.90
0218558
AMERITREND CORPORATION
3/06/97
49.95
0218559
ADDISON OIL CO
3/06/97
105.37
0218560
ALLIED COLLOIDS, INC
3/06/97
3,889.62
0218561
ADAMS, TOM
3/06/97
211.12
0218562
AMERICAN FAMILY LIFE ASSURANCE
3/06/97
21.50
0218563
ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY
3/06/97
49.12
0218564
ALLEN, CHERI
3/06/97
42.75
0218565
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
3/06/97
5,104.75
0218566
AMATO, PAUL
3/06/97
10.00
0218567
ALL SPECIALTY SALES, INC
3/06/97
973.00
0218568
BAIRD, JOSEPH A
3/06/97
53.25
0218569
BAKER & TAYLOR, INC
3/06/97
1,336.02
0218570
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
3/06/97
4,214.76
MARCH 189 1997 3 BOOK 100 PAGE 876
F_
BOOK 100 FACE 877
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0218571
BENSONS LOCK SERVICE
3/06/97
37.90
0218572
BERNAN ASSOCIATES
3/06/97
34.00
0218573
BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY
3/06/97
496.10
0218574
BRUGNOLI, ROBERT J PHD
3/06/97
500.00
0218575
BELLSOUTH MOBILITY
3/06/97
77.60
0218576
BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK
3/06/97
6,491.00
0218577
BAKER & TAYLOR
3/06/97
.40
0218578
BECO RENTAL
3/06/97
583.00
0218579
BLAKESLEE MAINTENANCE
3/06/97
200.00
0218580
BOOKS ON TAPE
3/06/97
4,901.48
0218581
BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT
3/06/97
301.05
0218582
BELLSOUTH
3/06/97
659.36
0218583
BEACHAM PUBLICATIONS
3/06/97
960.00
0218584
BEERS CONSTRUCTION
3/06/97
500.00
0218585
BAKER, JOAN MILDRED
3/06/97
8.99
0218586
CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC
3/06/97
5.90
0218587
CHLORINATORS, INC
3/06/97
489.37
0218588
CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL
3/06/97
19.00
0218589
COLD AIR DISTRIBUTORS
3/06/97
81.60
0218590
COLKITT SHEET METAL & AIR, INC
3/06/97
19.14
0218591
COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC
3/06/97
444.00
0218592
CONSOLIDATED ELECTRIC SUPPLY
3/06/97
276.66
0218593
CONSTRUCTION HYDRAULICS
3/06/97
1,278.19
0218594
CORBIN, SHIRLEY E
3/06/97
297.50
0218595
COMPUTER & PERIPHERIAL
3/06/97
428.50
0218596
CHEMSEARCH
3/06/97
457.71
0218597
CLARK WATER CONDITIONING
3/06/97
57.00
0218598
COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC
3/06/97
23,310.91
0218599
CHIVERS NORTH AMERICA
3/06/97
44.64
0218600
CROSSROADS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
3/06/97
15.00
0218601
CENTRAL PUMP & SUPPLY INC
3/06/97
33.28
0218602
CONROY, DREW
3/06/97
1,359.34
0218603
CHELSEA HOUSE PUBLISHERS
3/06/97
741.50
0218604
CANTU, MOSES
3/06/97
80.00
0218605
CINEMA VISUALS
3/06/97
23.95
0218606
CIC SYSTEMS INC
3/06/97
289.42
0218607
CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND
3/06/97
28.50
0218608
CHACE, DONALD H
3/06/97
500.00
0218609
CARROLL JASON
3/06/97
42.75
0218610
CLARK, ROUMELIS & ASSOCIATES
3/06/97
4,341.67
0218611
CENTRAL, A/C & REFRIG SUPPLY,
3/06/97
122.44
0218612
DAVES SPORTING GOODS
3/06/97
3,644.66
0218613
DELTA SUPPLY CO
3/06/97
1,350.56
0218614
DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC
3/06/97
16,174.72
0218615
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS
3/06/97
122.64
0218616
DON SMITH'S PAINT STORE, INC
3/06/97
1,603.31
0218617
DIXON, PEGGY C
3/06/97
49.00
0218618
DAVIDSON TITLES, INC
3/06/97
70.43
0218619
FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF
3/06/97
50.00
0218620
DRIVEWAY'S, INC
3/06/97
7,381.36
0218621
DRUM, TERRY
3/06/97
32.59
0218622
DEMCO MEDIA
3/06/97
27.22
0218623
DELTA ORLANDO RESORT
3/06/97
65.00
0218624
DESCHRYVER, DARREN
3/06/97
104.00
0218625
DEWITT INC
3/06/97
141.50
0218626
DE PAIVA, ANTONIO
3/06/97
20.00
0218627
DEVANEY, THOMAS EARL
3/06/97
15.00
0218628
DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS &
3/06/97
221.00
0218629
EDUCATIONAL RECORD CENTER, INC
3/06/97
444.01
0218630
EMPIRE ENGINEERING, INC
3/06/97
187.50
0218631
E G P, INC
3/06/97
2,475.00
0218632
EAST COAST SOD
3/06/97
2,225.25
0218633
EDUCORP
3/06/97
147.49
0218634
EXCEL COMPUTER COMPANY
3/06/97
80.00
0218635
IEEE
3/06/97
68.00
0218636
F G F 0 A SEMINARS
3/06/97
75.00
0218637
FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP.
3/06/97
40.00
0218638
FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY
3/06/97
904.85
0218639'
FLORIDA COCA-COLA BOTTLING CO
3/06/97
917.40
0218640
F P & L
3/06/97
9,486.09
0218641
FLORIDA RIBBON & CARBON
3/06/97
194.88
0218642
FLORIDA SLUDGE, INC
3/06/97
5,229.00
MARCH 189 1997
4
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0218643
FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF
3/06/97
196.15
0218644
FLINN, SHEILA I
3/06/97
126.00
0218645
FT PIERCE, CITY OF
3/06/97
1,140.16
0218646
FELLSMERE, CITY OF
3/06/97
59.01
0218647
FALZONE, KATHY
3/06/97
103.24
0218648
FALZONE, MATTHEW
3/06/97
19.00
0218649
FALZONE, CHRISTOPHER
3/06/97
42.75
0218650
FATHER & SON CARPET CLEANING
3/06/97
30.00
0218651
FOUR POINT DESIGN, INC
3/06/97
85.45
0218652
FRESHOUR, MICHELLE
3/06/97
60.86
0218653
FLORIDA EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS
3/06/97
30.00
0218654
GATEWAY 2000
3/06/97
1,834.00
0218655
GALE RESEARCH
3/06/97
362.09
0218656
GATOR LUMBER COMPANY
3/06/97
14.26
0218657
GAYLORD BROTHERS, INC
3/06/97
327.00
0218658
GEORGE W FOWLER CO
3/06/97
74.46
0218659
GOODKNIGHT LAWN EQUIPMENT, INC
3/06/97
373.45
0218660
GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO, INC
3/06/97
275.07
0218661
GEORGE W FOWLER COMPANY
3/06/97
75.72
0218662
GOODYEAR TIRE COMPANY
3/06/97
2,174.18
0218663
GREENE, ROBERT E
3/06/97
534.60
0218664
GOODYEAR TIRE & RUBBER
3/06/97
5,252.88
0218665
GNB TECHNOLOGIES
3/06/97
233.43
0218666
GEIGER BROTHERS SOUTH FLORIDA
3/06/97
326.20
0218667
HAMILTON, ROY J
3/06/97
4,642.00
0218668
HBS, INC
3/06/97
55.10
0218669
HUNTER AUTO SUPPLY
3/06/97
2,210.24
0218670
HOLIDAY INN COUNTRYSIDE
3/06/97
61.00
0218671
HOGAN, JAMES D
3/06/97
500.00
0218672
HELD, PATRICIA BARGO
3/06/97
30.00
0218673
H C WARNER, INC
3/06/97
38.74
0218674
HARRIS SANITATION, INC
3/06/97
46,151.03
0218675
HILL MANUFACTURING CO. INC.
3/06/97
199.00
0218676
HORIZON NURSERY
3/06/97
9.00
0218677
HARTSFIELD, CELESTE L
3/06/97
143.50
0218678
HAVENS, BARBARA
3/06/97
52.25
0218679
HAMILTON, MARCELINE
3/06/97
228.66
0218680
INDIAN RIVER BATTERY
3/06/97
185.00
0218681
INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC
3/06/97
153.96
0218682
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
3/06/97
52.75
0218683
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITIES
3/06/97
1,878.83
0218684
INGRAM
3/06/97
2,148.33
0218685
IBM CORP-DVU
3/06/97
794.80
0218686
INDIAN RIVER ALLFAB
3/06/97
653.56
0218687
INTERIM PERSONNEL:VERO BEACH
3/06/97
184.73
0218688
IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS
3/06/97
20.00
0218689
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
3/06/97
111.00
0218690
HOMELAND IRRIGATION CENTER
3/06/97
153.21
0218691
JACKSON ELECTRONICS
3/06/97
28.80
0218692
JANET'S AUTO TRIM & GLASS
3/06/97
80.00
0218693
JIM HARDEE EQUIPMENT CO INC
3/06/97
194.53
0218694
J & W ENTERPRISES
3/06/97
330.00
0218695
J A SEXAUER INC
3/06/97
138.88
0218696
JORDAN, JOHN
3/06/97
40.00
0218697
JANITORIAL DEPOT OF AMERICA
3/06/97
1,041.75
0218698
JONES CHEMICALS, INC
3/06/97
17,414.28
0218699
KEATING, ROBERT M
3/06/97
75.53
0218700
KEEN'S FOODTOWN
3/06/97
70.00
0218701
KING, JOHN W
3/06/97
78.00
0218702
KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC
_ 3/06/97
261.80
0218703
KELLY TRACTOR
3/06/97
1,546.91
0218704
KRUMMEN, MARK
3/06/97
228.00
0218705
KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY
3/06/97
1,047.30
0218706
KREBS, JILL A
3/06/97
48.00
0218707
L I TREE SERVICE, INC
3/06/97
350.00
0218708
LEISURE ARTS, INC
3/06/97
23.90
0218709
LFI VERO BEACH, INC
3/06/97
964.32
0218710
LEARNING WONDERS
3/06/97
49.45
0218711
LIVESAY, JULIE
3/06/97
44.89
0218712
MCCANN, C VINCENT
3/06/97
73.66
MARCH 18, 1997 5
BOOK -100 PAGE 878
BOOK 100 FACE 879
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0218713
MID COAST TIRE SERVICE, INC
3/06/97
34.95
0218714
MIKES GARAGE
3/06/97
170.00
0218715
MILLER, GWENDOLYN M
3/06/97
118.00
0218716
MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS
3/06/97
104.21
0218717
MARTIN PAVING COMPANY
3/06/97
536,460.27
0218718
MASTELLER & MOLER, INC
3/06/97
12,600.00
0218719
MCMASTER-CARR SUPPLY COMPANY
3/06/97
2,095.45
0218720
MALCOLM PIRNIE, INC
3/06/97
173,380.00
0218721
MACHO PRODUCTS, INC
3/06/97
124.70
0218722
MOTYKA, EDWIN J
3/06/97
30.00
0218723
MORELLO, KEN
3/06/97
500.00
0218724
MASTERING COMPUTERS, INC
3/06/97
249.00
0218725
MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET
3/06/97
76.12
0218726
MARYKNOLL WORLD PRODUCTIONS -21
3/06/97
22.95
0218727
MACERE, DAVID & KIMBERLY
3/06/97
111.21
0218728
MID -FLORIDA FORKLIFT, INC --
3/06/97
90.04
0218729
NOLTE, DAVID C
3/06/97
4,717.00
0218730
NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY
3/06/97
76.67
0218731
NATIONAL SEMINARS GROUP
3/06/97
198.00
0218732
NATIONAL PROPANE CORP
3/06/97
15.46
0218733
NACPRO
3/06/97
55.00
0218734
OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE
3/06/97
448.80
0218735
OCCUPATIONAL CENTER/
3/06/97
30.00
0218736
OFFICE DEPOT, INC
3/06/97
1,404.48
0218737
PERKINS DRUG, INC
3/06/97
48.88
0218738
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION
3/06/97
1,000.00
0218739
PANASONIC COMMUNICATIONS CO
3/06/97
144.78
0218740
PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC
3/06/97
12,733.00
0218741
PROGRESSIVE DATA MGMT, INC
3/06/97
135.00
0218742
PRESS JOURNAL
3/06/97
138.25
0218743
PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL
3/06/97
15.00
0218744
PARKS, ANTHONY
3/06/97
20.00
0218745
PONCE DELEON GOLF & CONFERENCE
3/06/97
234.00
0218746
PUNCHES PRODUCTIONS
3/06/97
93.90
0218747
QUALITY BOOKS, INC
3/06/97
9.88
0218748
RIFKIN, SHELDON H PHD
3/06/97
500.00
0218749
RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC
3/06/97
1,700.00
0218750
RAY PACE'S WASTE EQUIPMENT,INC
3/06/97
2,547.34
0218751
ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA
3/06/97
2,328.53
0218752
ROSE MD, MARC C
3/06/97
250.00
0218753
SCOTTY'S, INC
3/06/97
476.64
0218754
SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC
3/06/97
158.02
0218755
SOUTHERN CULVERT
3/06/97
1,652.34
0218756
SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY
3/06/97
349.54
0218757
SOUTHERN TRUCK EQUIPMENT
3/06/97
44.60
0218758
ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC
_ 3/06/97
67.85
0218759
STATE ATTORNEY
3/06/97
6,656.48
0218760
STURGIS LUMBER & PLYWOOD CO
3/06/97
404.14
0218761
SUNCOAST WELDING SUPPLIES, INC
3/06/97
162.20
0218762
SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC
3/06/97
463.10
0218763
SIMON & SCHUSTER CONSUMER
3/06/97
416.71
0218764
SHADY OAK ANIMAL CLINIC
3/06/97
36.50
0218765
SOFTWARE CITY
3/06/97
69.00
0218766
SELIG CHEMICAL IND
3/06/97
48.36
0218767
SUPERIOR PRINTING
3/06/97
69.00
0218768
SIMS,.MATTHEW
3/06/97
180.67
0218769
SELPH, CRYSTAL
3/06/97
67.50
0218770
SWANA FLORIDA SUNSHINE
3/06/97
60.00
0218771
SIMER, THERESA
3/06/97
103.78
0218772
STEFAN GROSSMANS GUITAR
3/06/97
39.92
0218773
SULLIVAN, SULLIVAN & THACKER
3/06/97
3,500.00
0218774
STALLINGS, JASON
3/06/97
486.00
0218775
SUNSHINE PEST MANAGEMENT
3/06/97
195.00
0218776
STAPLES, INC
3/06/97
75.16
0218777
SYNDISTAR
3/06/97
453.97
0218778
TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC
3/06/97
1,722.47
0218779
TRI -SURE CORPORATION
3/06/97
51,935.00
0218780
TW COMMUNICATIONS
3/06/97
296.00
0218781
TRANSTAT EQUIPMENT INC
3/06/97
-549.38
0218782
TURI, JOHN
3/06/97
16.06
MARCH 18, 1997
6
CHECK NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
DATE
AMOUNT
0218783
THOMAS, DEBBY
3/06/97
� 3/06/97
276.50
89.86
0218784
TABAR, JEFFREY
3/06/97
322.92
0218785
0218786
TREE TOPS AUDIO
UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA
3/06/97
3/06/97
155.00
3,679.50
0218787
0218788
VERO BEACH, CITY OF
VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTOR.S,INC
3/06/97
58.30
313.79
0218789
VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC
3/06/97
3/06/97
549.50
0218790
VETROL DATA SYSTEMS, INC
3/06/97
104.50
0218791
0218792
VES', CARRIE
VERO BEARING & BOLT
3/06/97
3/06/97
18.92
69.62
0218793
VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN
3/06/97
392.51
0218794
WAL-MART STORES, INC
0218795
WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR
3/06/97
3/06/97
75.00
68.09
0218796
WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CTR
3/06/97
285.72
0218797
W W GRAINGER, INC
3/06/97
130.00
0218798
WILLHOFF, PATSY
3/06/97
85.00
0218799
0218800
WOLFE, MEGAN
WHITTINGTON, MEGAN
3/06/97
175.75
0218801
XEROX CORPORATION
SERVICE,INC
3/06/97
3/06/97
1,290.00
1,635.67
0218802
YAVOR.SKY'S TRUCK
3/06/97
806.31
0218803
0218804
BROWER, MATT
PHILLIPS, TALITHA TAYLOR
3/06/97
4.51
0218805
0218806
HOGAN, JAMES
PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO
3/06/97
3/06/97
60.40
36.51
0218807
RANCHLAND MOBILE HOME PARK
3/06/97
3/06/97
54.12
72.40
0218808
GRAND HARBOR
3/06/97
29.13
0218809
GRIER, ERNIE J
3/06/97
64.48
0218810
MAYER, DELORIS M
3/06/97
36.20
0218811
ZORC, TIM
3/06/97
5.65
0218812
0218813
FRAZIER, WENDY
PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO INC
3/06/97
59.49
0218814
SIAMON, JEFF & SHARON
__ 3/06/97
3/06/97
49.37
31.18
0218815
STILLMAN, W MERCER
3/06/97
79.76
0218816
CLEWORTH, WILLIAM C
3/06/97
50.79
0218817
JACKSON, JAMES E
3/06/97
26.27
0218818
HOOVER, RICHARD
3/06/97
22.62
0218819
GRANT, JOSEPH
3/06/97
28.05
0218820
MILLER, WILLIAM C
3/06/97
38.81
0218821
EGER, BECKY JO
3/06/97
69.61
0218822
GACEK, TODD
3/06/97
86.32
0218823
0218824
ALLEN, REID W
WILSON, DOROTHY
3/06/97
34.59
0218825
PITA, NELLY
3/06/97
3/06/97
51.74
19.25
0218826
0218827
BAUSE, JOSEPH E
MGB CONSTRUCTION INC
3/06/97
78.40
0218828
GOVERNARA, LUIGIA
3/06/97
3/06/97
72.99
14.29
0218829
TECKENBROCK, DUANE
3/06/97
20.41
0218830
GRIFFIS, MARIANNE D
3/06/97
73.42
0218831
VILLAGE WALK INC
3/06/97
79.95
0218832
GRUNWELL, JAMES G
3/06/97
25.28
0218833
SPENCE, LISA
3/06/97
30.11
0218834
JONES, LITISA
3/06/97
20.73
0218835
ROLLE, TIFFIANY
3/06/97
20.69
0218836
HIGGINS, RUTH ANN
3/06/97
67.98
0218837
DUBREUIL, GERARD
3/06/97
40.82
0218838
EMRICK MANAGEMENT
3/06/97
48.72
0218839
STYERS, CHERYL
3/06/97
50.04
0218840
HIERS, HEATHER A
3/06/97
204.37
0218841
0218842
KYLE'S RUN
LANDERS, VIVIEN B
3/06/97
39.23
0218843
SANDY PINES LTD
3/06/97
3/06/97
43.42
44.57
0218844
0218845
HOGGARD, DAVID
MCCLARY, ROBERT
3/06/97
47.04
0218846
YATES, JULIA & CHRIS
3/06/97
11.87
0218847
PIAZZA, JOSEPH & JOAN
3/06/97
3/06/97
19.72
36.61
0218848
BILLMAN, KATHERINE
3/06/97
19.72
0218849
FERGUSON, BETH
3/06/97
18.73
0218850
NOVAK, MARK
MARCH 18, 1997 7 BOOK 100 PACE880
r
BOOK 100 PAGE I
CHECK
NAME
CHECK
CHECK
NUMBER
February 7, 12, 1997
DATE
AMOUNT
0218851
SO FUN RETAIL, INC
3/06/97
33.18
0218852
JOHNSON, MONA
3/06/97
19.54
0218853
HAYHURST, HAROLD
3/06/97
33.18
0218854
KASSLER, DAVID
3/06/97
25.27
0218855
BAYARD, ROBB
3/06/97
15.27
1, 735, 982.02
C. Bid #7033 - Gifford Park Irrigation System - Homeland Irrigation
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1997:
DATE: March 7, 1997
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator
H. T. "Sonny' Dean, Direct
General Services
FROM: Fran Boynton Powell, Purchasing Manage
SUBJ: Award Bid #7033/Gifford Park Irrigation System
Public Works Department
BACKGROUND INFORMATION:
Bid Opening Date:
February 14, 1997
Advertising Dates:
February 7, 12, 1997
Advertisement Mailed to:
Twelve (12) Vendors
Replies:
Three (3) Vendors
Statement of "No Bids"
One (1)
VENDOR
BID TOTAL
Homeland Irrigation
$6,654.00
Vero Beach, FL
Guaranteed Water Systems
$6,956.00
Ft Pierce, FL
Latter Rain
$9,288.71
Vero Beach, FL
TOTAL AMOUNT OF BID $-6,654.00
SOURCE OF FUNDS Optional Sales Tax Public Works Department
Construction in Progress 315-210-572-068.03
ESTIMATED BUDGET $ 7,000.00
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the bid be awarded to Homeland Irrigation
as the lowest, most responsive and responsible bidder meeting
specifications as set forth in the Invitation to Bid.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously awarded
Bid #7033, Gifford Park Irrigation System, to
Homeland Irrigation in the amount of $6,654.00, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT WILL BE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
WHEN EXECUTED AND RECEIVED
MIARCH 189 1997
8
D. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 1997:
TO: Members of the Board
of County Commissioners
DATE: March 12, 1997
SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 018
CONSENT AGENDA
FROM: Joseph A Baird
OMB Director,'j'"
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following:
1. During FY 1995/96 the BCC approved a Florida Department of Community Affairs Community
Development Block Grant. The grant is for two years and is on a reimbursable basis. Grant
monies are to total $750,000 with a County match of $267,500. The attached entry appropriates
grant monies for the administration and engineering phases of the project.
2. A cost sharing agreement between St. John's River Water Management District and the County
on behalf of the Environmental Learning Center for a marsh and stormwater enhancement and
educational project was entered into in FY 1995/96. A remaining payment on the project was
made in FY 1996/97. The attached entry allocates funds for this payment.
3. The Budget Director used an incorrect amount to appropriate funds for the audio/ visual
equipment for the Commission Chambers. This equipment is to be compatible with existing
equipment for presentations. The attached entry appropriates additional funds for this
equipment.
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment 018.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 018, as recommended
by staff.
TO: Members of the Board BUDGET AMENDMENT: 018
of County Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A Baird DATE: March 12. 1997
nMR NrPrtn�
Entry
1
Number
Funds/Department/Account Name
Account Number
Increase
Decrease
1.
REVENUES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP. BLOCK GRANT/
CDBG Grant
129-000-331-392.00
$161,000
$0
EXPENSES
COMMUNITY DEVELOP. BLOCK GRANT/
CDBG Projects/ Other Professional Services
129-149-513-033.19
$57,000
$0
COMMUNITY DEVELOP. BLOCK GRANT/
CDBGProjects/Engineering Service
129-149-513-033.13
$104,000
$0
MARCH 18, 1997
9
BOOK 100 PACE 882
BOOK 100 PAGE 8 3
E. Indian River Club, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval to Re�lat a Portion of
Indian River Club Plat #2
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 1997:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
2.
EXPENSES
DI S N. HEAD CONNNCURRENq.E:,
�1
GENERAL FUND/ Agencies/ Environmental
Learning center
001-110-572-088.85
$1,000
$0
•:J A
Stan Boling, AICP
GENERAL FUND/ Cash Forward Expense
001-199-581-099.92
$0
$1,000
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE:
March 12, 1997
3.
EXPENSES
GENERAL FUND/ Buildings & Grounds/
Office Furniture & Equipment
001-220-519-066.41
$3,000
$0
GENERAL FUND/ Reserve for Contingency
001-199-581-099.91
$0
$3,000
E. Indian River Club, Ltd. - Final Plat Approval to Re�lat a Portion of
Indian River Club Plat #2
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 12, 1997:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DI S N. HEAD CONNNCURRENq.E:,
�1
Robert M. Kea' t g, CP/
Community Developme t Di/r for
THROUGH:
•:J A
Stan Boling, AICP
Planning Director
FROM:
John W. McCoy, AICP '/,yL0\�
Senior Planner, Current Development
DATE:
March 12, 1997
SUBJECT: Indian River Club Ltd. Is Request for Final Plat Approval
to Replat a Portion of Indian River Club Plat #2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Indian River Club Plat #2 is an existing residential
subdivision which contains 4 residential lots. The applicant is
proposing to replat that subdivision. There will be no increase or
decrease in the number of lots platted; only the interior boundary
lines of the lots will change.
On July 11, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission granted
preliminary PD plat approval for the proposed replat. Lots within
the proposed replat area will be serviced by existing roads and
utilities. The owner, Indian River Club Ltd., through its agent,
Masteller, Moler, & Reed, Inc., is requesting final plat approval
and has submitted the following:
1. A plat in conformance with the approved preliminary plat.
ANALYSIS:
The replat has been designed so that the reconfigured lots can all
be served by the existing subdivision improvements. Therefore, no
new subdivision improvements are required.
All applicable requirements regarding final plat approval have been
satisfied. There are no publicly dedicated improvements to
construct as part of the replat. Therefore, no guarantee of
publicly dedicated improvements is required at this time.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners grant final plat approval for the partial
replat of the Indian River Club Plat #2.
MARCH 18, 1997 10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the final plat for the partial replat of the Indian
River Club Plat #2, as recommended by staff.
F. Joan M. Kearney - Release of Easement - Portion of Rear Lot
Easement - Lot 10, Vero Glen S/D
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1997:
TO:
James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE mNT HEAD CONCURRENCE:
R ert7 M. Keat g, I P
Community Developme It Di ctor
THROUGH:
Roland M. DeBlois — AICP
Chief, Environmental Planning
FROM:
& Code Enforcement
Charles W. Heatho Al
Code Enforcement Officer
DATE:
March 05, 1997
SUBJECT: Release of Easement Request by Joan M. Kearney for a
Portion of a Rear Lot Easement on Lot 10, Vero Glen
Subdivision
It is requested that data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular
Meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The County has been petitioned by Joan M. Kearney, owner of the
subject residential property at 260 32nd Court S.W. (Lot 10, Vero
Glen Subdivision), for the release of a 22.80 square foot portion
of the rear lot 20 foot drainage and utility easement. The purpose
of the request, in order to comply with County Code requirements,
is to resolve a roof overhang encroachment into the easement.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
The request has been reviewed by Bell South Communications, Florida
Power & Light Corporation, T.C.I. Cable Corporation, the Indian
River County Utilities Department and the Road & Bridge and
Engineering Divisions. Based upon their reviews, it is staff's
position that the easement release would have no adverse impact to
utilities being supplied to the subject property.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Board, through the adoption of the
attached resolution, release the 22.80 square foot portion of the
rear lot 20 foot utility and drainage easement of Lot 10, Vero Glen
Subdivision, as more particularly described in the resolution.
MARCH 18, 1997 11 600K 100 PAGE S8
BOOK 100 PAGE 885
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 97-017 abandoning a portion of a rear
easement on Lot 10, Vero Glen Subdivision, according
to the Plat thereof, as recorded in Plat Book 12,
Page 30 of the Public Records of Indian River
County.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ABANDONING
A PORTION OF A REAR EASEMENT ON LOT 10, VERO GLEN SUBDIVISION,
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 12,
PAGE 30 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
WHEREAS, Indian River County has an easement as described
below, and
WHEREAS, the retention of a portion of the easement serves no
public purpose,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE RESOLVED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that:
This release of easement is executed by Indian River County,
a political subdivision of the State of Florida, whose mailing
address is 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, Grantor,
to Joan M. Kearney, successors in interest, heirs and assigns,
whose mailing address is 2282 Seville Avenue, Vero Beach, Florida
32960, Grantee, as follows:
Indian River County does hereby abandon all right, title, and
interest that it may have in the following described easements:
a 22.80 square foot portion of the rear lot 20 foot utility and
drainage a-asement of Lot 10, Vero Glen Subdivision, more
particularly described as follows: commence at the Northeast corner
of Lot 10, Vero Glen, according to the plat recorded in Plat Book
12, Page 30 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida,
and run West 20 feet to a point lying in the West line of a 20 -foot
wide Public Utility and Drainage Easement. Then run S. 0 deg. 08
min. 56 sec. E., along the West line, a distance of 43.84 feet to
the POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run East a distance of 2 feet to a
point. Then run S. 0 deg. 08 min. 56 sec. E. a distance of 11.40
feet to a point. Then run W a distanceof 2 feet to a point in the
West line of said easement. Then run N. 0 deg. 08 min. 56 sec. W. a
distance of 11.40 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Lying in Indian
River County, Florida.
Tax Parcel Number: 22-33-39-00015-0000-00010.0
THIS RESOLUTION was moved for adoption by Commissioner
Ginn , seconded by Commissioner Tippin , and
adopted on the 18 day of March , 1997, by the following vote:
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ave_
Commissioner John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Axz
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 18 day of March , 1997.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN_ RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attested By:
MARCH 18, 1997 12
STATE OF FLORIDA
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER
L1
RESOLUTION NO. 97-17
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this
day of a� , 1997, by CAROLYN K. EGGERT as
Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, and by&TielerA L. *V'0wles , Deputy Clerk for
JEFFREY K. BARTON, Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, who are personally known to me.
OTAR PUBLIC
Printed Name:
Commission No.:
Commission Expiration:
'"OV1% PATFWAA M. R@OEt.Y
:: r
MYMWMDN#C=MWM
Joe u. 1st
-T-i �F.
w.•: K -IMSA all CVW IU64 0'0_1
w
MARCH 189 1997
! M • .4'. i fih Li3h ,ilia' =A 111
.K
.K
13
2�j�}lii •
fi1� r I
f 1
a
Y
Ll
BOOK 100 PAGE 886
)-A
W
Lij
A#
o
II.•CkE�; ...��� E;.i;eie
.•�.�..• • �...0
��
� e w x a
= s e -- - 32nd �. CCUVY wow—
Yv�' •�P,� q aWf W -Mt 40' AfOMLT �
i s
• � �
�
• �
•
�
i~
� �
s n
mm OP PMOiEn
w •mo
g5
` ��
o=
•J Fo Q�
�
e
�y
oe®��e"EEn•El�s
1
O
Vi
Ise
Qg �P
g `7 N 00'08'56'W 101.0 ' gni
!
N.
3�
t
+1
Uwe -: d "! 1 1 1194113
ii yyp
lV
I p
CCC
1
.... .. . •.11 i... ..
1�N11�-Ks�i�e1� 1 �
i�l19� i
�
li.� U
m w
� e � 19.73
s �, coNc
7.t OPt..0
M o
oil ' 1 fiR
�i
'� �' ..a •
/STOAYCQS.AES ••
Co F•FE- 52.97 �
GFE.• 5240 :.
yyGp
10
•
Q
•Gaa±iP 7 I • ^ y►�`�J 'p
C
4� �_ EQ6 I ,e : r.a� �� + C to
Fai
�;
PP 0 P+rrr r
p o° i
RA
s
W O a C S. o.S1 w In
.. REe/1 Foam 0 ,u
vx
EE
m
V<
Geese ,» ,-• 41 —
�
I�
j)
P
Q
Aa
6
Ra i■
6 C
I 11 j , I
e 1
3
y�
L� I M P.Y. a O.0 ••• U
NNN o
`
M
�
S 00'08'56" E 152. 0'
1
G*
0
0
.mac
1
f -�
LEGAL. DESCRIPTION
Commence at the Northeast corner of Lot 10,
Vero Glen, according to the Plot recorded in Plot
Book 12, Page 30 of the Public Records of Indian
River County, Florida, and run West 20 feet to 0
point lying in the West line of a 20—foot wide
Public Utility and Drainage Eosment. Then run
S 0'08'56" E, along the West line, a distance of
43.84 feet to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Then run
East a distance of 2 feet to o point. Then run
S (T08'56" E a distance of 11.40 feet to a
point. Then run
West a distance of 2 feet to a point in the West
line of said et)sement. Then run
N 0'08'56" W a distance of 11.40 feet to the
POINT OF BEGINNING.
Lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CERTIRMON
I, Charles A. Cromer. hereby certify that 1 am a
registered Professional Surveyor and Mapper licensed
to practice in the State of Florida, that this sketch
was made under my immediate supervision, and that
it is accurate and correct. I further certify that this
sketch meets the Minimum Technical Standards as
described in Chapter 61G17 of the Florida Admin—
istrative Code ursuant to F S Ch t 472
--- West
Scale: 1"=10' I
I
�I
VERO GLEN S/D bl
LOT 10 hl
of
h
I
I
I
Dwelling
p
up er THIS IS NOT A SURVEY
SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
PREPARED FOR INDIAN ' RIVER COUNTY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Charles A. Cromer. P.S.M. Reg #4094
Indian River County Surveyor
1840 25th St, Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dote _Zg�ai! /997
(561) 567-8000
20'
C
m
inE
v
0
W
0
rn
0
.O.B. o
0
25.15'
st 2L --
L4. 0
°--
4.0 g
r b~
0.
}
kWest 2'--
in
0
2I
P.O.C.I
9
s
0,;0
L".
to
H
0
8009 100 FACE 889
G. Tax Cancellations - Anngel M. Bates - Parcels 108-A and 108-W
- 58th Avenue Right -of --Way
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1997:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
Oc.
FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA, Legal Assistant
County Attorney's Office
DATE: March 10,1997
RE: Recently Acquired Properties - Tax Cancellations
The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section 196.28, F.S., the Board of
County Commissioners is allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the
property acquired for public purpose. Such cancellation must be done by resolution with a
cerfffle3d copy being forward to the Tax Collector and copies sent to the Property Appraiser and
Fixed Assets.
Requested Action: Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached resolution cancelling
taxes upon lands the County recently acquired.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 97-018 and Resolution 97-019 cancelling
certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands,
pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. _
Re: Parcel #108-A - 58th Avenue - Right of Way
Parcel ID 17-33-39-00001-0090-00001.1
RESOLUTION NO. 97-18
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes,
delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or
hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or
municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes,
recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such
lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of
the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper
entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary
to carry out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. Any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
OR Book 1141' Page 2052, which was recently acquired by Indian River County in
connection with the future road widening are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the
authority of Section 196.28, F.S.
MARCH 18, 1997
16
L J
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a
certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner G inn and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner T i p p i nand, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
18 day of March ,1997.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
rolyn K. E
J B rton, Cler Chairma
Exhibit "A"
RE: Anngel M. Bates Parcel
That part of the East 25.00 feet of Tract 9, Section 17, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
as shown on the last general plat of the Indian River Farms Company Subdivision as
recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 25 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida, lying
East of and contiguous with the North 168.24 feet of the South 336.48 feet of the West
622.29 feet of the East 647.29 feet of the North 660.00 feet of said Tract 9, Section 17,
Township 33 South, Range 39 East; said land now lying and being in Indian River County,
Florida and being more particularly described as follows:
Commencing at the East one-quarter corner of Section 17, Township 33 South, Range 39
East, run West along the one-quarter section line a distance of 80.00 feet to the Northeast
corner of Tract 9 of said Indian River Farms Company Subdivision; thence run South
along the East line of said Tract 9, said line lying 80.00 feet West of and parallel to the
East line of said Section 17, a distance of 323.52 feet to the Point of Beginning: from said
o
Point of Beginning continue South on said East line of Tract 9 a distance of 168.24 feet;
thence nm West on the South line of the North 491.76 feet of said Tract 9 a distance of
25.00 feet to the East line of the West 622.29 feet of the East 647.29 feet of the North
_
660.00 feet of said Tract 9; thence run North along said East line a distance of 168.24 feet;
thence run East parallel to the North line of said Tract 9 a distance of 25.00 feet to the
Point of Beginning.
tV
C
Said parcel being subject to all rights-of-way, easements, and reservations of record.
U
CA
Said parcel containing 4,206 square feet (0.09656 acres), more or less, and now lying and
being in Indian River County, Florida.
j:Mcscrip grWhate%.dac
• ��
co I I 60.00'
N Z C
z _
z m � 20.00'
, 1O D
� 1ggg
N Z 9 1 31.00 25.00 _ J
�r C
f N m I SOUTH LINE OF THE NORTH 491.76' t\
W 0 0) i
I� OF TRACT 9 �' 80.00' � C
n U
0
4 <n
q Z 7i
MARCH 189 1997 17
�o�K 100 FACE890
BOOK 100 PAGE 891
Re: Parcel #108-W - 58th Avenue - Right of Way
Parcel ID 17-33-39-00001-0090-00001.1
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 1 9
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON
PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION
196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES.
WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County
Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes,
delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or
hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or
municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes,
recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and
WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County
Commissioners, duty adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such
lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and
WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of
the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper
entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary
to cant' out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
I. Any and all Gens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in
OR Book 1141, Page 2055, which was recently acquired by Indian River County in
connection with the future road widening are hereby cancelled, pursuant to the
authority of Section 196.28, F.S.
2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send
certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner G inn . and the
motion was seconded by Commissioner Ti p p i n and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Aye
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
18 day of March 1997.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
Attest:
By
arolyn K. Eg
�J I o , Clerk Chairman
r
MARCH 18, 1997 is
H
1.0
0
00
CM
ND
PARCEL 108W
168.24 I` '
r----- 323.52'
— — — — — — — — — —
168.24—
i Ln
I :a
Tract Line I
m
I co KING'S 0. HIGHWAY
336.48'
-Section Line 660'
E 1/4 Cor. Sec. 17
T33S, R39E
LEGAL DESCRIPTION
The West 20 feet of the East 156 feet of the North 168.24 feet of the South 336.48 feet of the
North 660 feet of the NE 1/4 of the SE 1/4 of Section 17, Township 33 South, Range 39 East,
according to the last general plat of the lands of the Indian River Forms Company recorded in Plat
Book 2, Page 25 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida.
Containing 0.08 acres, lying in Indian River County, Florida.
CERTIFICATION
SCALE: 1"=100'
I, Charles A. Cramer, hereby certify tha :l.m a registered Professional Land Surveyor licensed to practice in the state
of Florida, that this sketch was mode `aqd-q any immediate supervision, and that it is accurate and correct. I further
certify that this sketch meets the Minimumm�s—�echnical standards as described in Chapter 21HH-6 of the Florida Admin–
istrative Code, pursuant to F.S. Chapter. 472 'i N:
PREPARED FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
Ova ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
Charles A. Cramer, P.L.S. Reg. #4094..: ::1_540:-,25t Vero Beach, FL 32960 THIS IS NOT A SU
Indian River Count Surveyor =. RVEY
y y (' 7 ' 567=80c90 SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION
V G Zid 1 .1 1 1 au
1
1
1
BOOK 100 FADE 891
H. Resolution Urging Continued Appropriation of Funding for
Preservation 2000
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 97-020 urging the continued appropriation
of funding for Preservation 2000.
Resolution No. 97- 2D
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
URGING THE CONTINUED APPROPRIATION OF FUNDING
FOR PRESERVATION 2000
WHEREAS, the citizens of Indian River County have advanced
environmental land preservation efforts with voter approval to
locally fund a county wide preservation program; and
WHEREAS, Preservation 2000 is a ten-year program designed to
acquire and therefore save Florida's best remaining natural land,
and is the State's most comprehensive land protection program; and
WHEREAS, Florida's population growth and conversion of natural
areas continue to threaten our natural systems; and
WHEREAS, Preservation 2000 offers an opportunity for funding
partnership between Indian River County and the State to protect
environmentally significant lands and support the implementation of
our county comprehensive plan; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County recognizes the important of
Preservation 2000 in enabling the implementation of conservation
goals, growth management and comprehensive land use plans:
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. That the Indian River County Board of County
Commissioners hereby urges the Legislature of the State of Florida
to:
A. Appropriate funding for a eighth series of
Preservation 2000 bonds.
B. Designate a permanent funding source for the
Remaining years of the Preservation 2000 program.
Section 2. This Resolution shall become effective immediately
upon adoption.
The Resolution was moved for adoption by -Commissioner
Ginn the motion was seconded by Commissioner Tippin, and upon
being put to a vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
The Chairman declared the resolution duly passed and adopted
this 18 day of March, 1997.
Attest:
Jefffa en;
V
MARCH 18, 1997
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
4�2� tlz�
Carolyn I Eggert, airman
20
I. Stonebridge S/D Force Main - Developer's Agreement and Easement -
Baer Corp.
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1997:
DATE: MARCH 7, 1997
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF'UTILITY SERVICES
OF.
PREPARED WILLIAM IN .E.
AND STAFFED CAPITAL ENGINEER
BY: DEP AR ILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: STONESR DOE SUBDIVISION FORCE MAIN
DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT, EASEMENT WITH BAYER
CORPORATION
BACKGROUND AND ANALYSIS
As a result of the construction of the Master Planned force main
extension associated with the above -referenced Developer's
Agreement, the County has secured an easement on Bayer Corporation
Property for utility installation. The easement is attached and
has been executed by Bayer, now requiring County execution.
RECOMMENDATION
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends approval
of the proposed easement as presented on the consent agenda.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the proposed easement with Bayer Corporation, as
recommended by staff.
AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 189 1997 21 0:00K FADE 894
L_
BOOK 100 FACE S95
PUBLIC HEARWG -ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 104.06 - CODE
OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appe a Flesch
oath says that he is President of the Press,loumal, a newspaper published at Vera
in Indian River County. Florida; that the attached copy of adverdsernent, being
a I b ��L, fQ C, -Hc
b��fQC,-Hc
in the rnatter of 1�)— ryu c .
I C4 CCo
in the Cwt, was pub-
lished In said newspaper in the issues of I C� 9 /
said naifan R that the said Press,loumal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, In
:=Sly In said I�� Rim that the said newspaper has heretofore been
second case and has been entered as
mail matter at Che post office Beads, In said each Friction River County, Florida,
for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
adv000rrfippsooerrnent; and affiant further says that he has rheither pad nor promised any pers(rh, Finn
or corporation
forte discount. rebate, carunission orrehmd for the purpose of securing this
publication In said newspaper.
'�'"IIIA' 9# before
yr.r : NOH before mtoe o � I day of—ECL—A.1).1) 1
MY q m*. s I/J.
N�•No.CC31to63r ( )
•. - .I santA aL Turn.E. NOTARY PUBLIC
OF
Comminion Number. CC3 lae3
otaM SMWA M. TtJ1Tta
NOTICE
The Board of County Commission.
er of Indian River County, Florida,
hereby provides notice of a public
hearing scheduled for 9:05 a m. on
Tuesday, March 18, 1997 to be
held at the Indian River County
Administration Building, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida. This
public hearing will be for the pur-
pose of discussing the following
proposed ordinance entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING SECTION 104.06 -
CODE OF ETHICS AND CON-
DUCT OF INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY.
Any interested parties may appear
at the meeting and be heard with
respect to the proposed ordinance.
Copies of the proposed ordnance
ars available for inspection by the
public during regular business
hour at the Office of the Clerk to
to. Board of Cocmfy Commission.
-$trent, Vero Beach,
4: to appeal
irhjy decision which may be made
iat.ft meeting will need to ensure
that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings Is made, which includes
testimony and evidence upon which
the appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
may contact the County's Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Ad (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000, Ext. 223
at least 48 hours in advance of the
meeting.
Feb. 21, 1997 104046lr
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 5, 1997:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
-110
FROM : Terrence P. OBrien, Assistant County Attorney
DATE: March 5, 1997
SUBJECT: CODE OF ETHICS AND CONDUCT - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commission at its regular meeting of January 21, 1997
directed staff to amend the subject code. A public hearing for March 18, 1997
was recommended. The proposed ordinance amends the code of ethics and
conduct to the standardize requirements set out in Florida Statutes Chapter
112 in accordance with Board direction_
County Attorney Vitunac advised that this ordinance is now
ready for discussion or adoption.
MARCH 18, 1997
22
0
Chairman Eggert read a letter received from The Civic
Association of Vero Beach and Indian River County, Inc.:
The Civic Association
Of ijiid each and
Indian River County, Inc.
P.O. Box 3381, Vero Beach, FL 329643381 Pounded -
Marc 12, 1997 Cortrrtiastctra;s
y�L�iY? 4dinijI:strz:or
Attamey `1---
�`�' C Personnel �``
7
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert �- Q Public wor; •
Board of County Commissioners %0 = COMMUrrs•;p Del,.
Indian River County j d U:itii;es ----
1840 25" Street �y v�y��`' ,L Finacco
Vero Beach, FL 32960 amg------_
116 g Ems
Dear Chairman Eggert, r1l. Sam ____
Risk Mgt, _
As you know, the Indian River County Code of Ethics and Conauc ^-�-4�
104.06) establishes standards over and above the required in Chapter 112 of
Florida Statutes. Earlier this year, however, the county commissioners decided in a
3 to 2 vote to amend the county ordinance (in effect, to rescind it) and thereafter
adopt the state's regulations.
Following a review of the state ethics law, the Civic Association of Vero Beach and
Indian River County sincerely believes that the need for an Indian River County
supplementry code of ethics and conduct continues to be justified. The vote of
county -commissioners was obviously close and we believe that a great number of
people in our county also still support the need for a county ordinance.
We therefore respectfully recommend that any further action to amend the county
ordinance not be taken until a thorough study is completed to determine the
adequacy of the state's code for our county's purposes. The county's current code
of ethics may need to be Improved, but we do not believe the answer is to rescind
it.
We sincerely hope you will consider this recommendation. Also, we ask that this
letter be read at the March 18 County Commission meeting at which time we
understand this matter Is planned for public discussion.
For a Boar ireaors,
Robert M. Tenbus, President
Copies
to Commissioners: Fran B. Adams
Caroline D. Ginn
Kenneth RMacht
John W. Tippin
Dedicated To Preserving, Fostering, and Promoting the Beauty, Natural Resources
and Good Government or Vero Beach and Indian River County, Florida'
Chairman Eggert believed a delay of several weeks was asked
for to study the issue.
Commissioner Macht stated that legal staff has furnished
copies of decisions by ethics commissions which he found amazing,
in that they appeared to view gift giving allowable on a daily
basis of $100. He felt people who serve the public have no
business receiving gifts.
MARCH 189 1997 23 BOOK 100 FACE 896
L
BOOK 100 PAGE S97
Commissioner Ginn concurred with the delay and announced that
Bonnie Williams, Executive Director of the Florida Commission on
Ethics, will speak at a community wide meeting on ethics at the May
21, 1997 meeting of the Council of Public Officials.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously tabled this
matter to May 27, 1997.
MARCH 18, 1997 24
PUBLIC HEARING - SIDNEY M. BANACK, JR. - REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 15.02 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I, AND REZONE
THAT 15.02 ACRES FROM A-1 TO CG
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
IN Pre,0031ournal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K.
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida, that
p �
billed to 1 ` 1 &VAIIAld
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
Ak# /99 7 OA) Agar +,
Sworn to and subscribed efore me this
ay of
%� A
"••••�""4., President
. • my COmm. Expires ' state G:.X1.-.1_1
Augusl 25. 1997 _ c�� .. ._...�: .: ;ca
Na.CC310845 ) t
P Sip_ f 1,,f
TFOF F�
(SEAL)
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS, EXPANDING THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA, AND ADDING A NEW POLICY
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
1 2 3
3314 S, ..---—/ttll.ct /rOp�tP n r
-L-t 1 E L • r, t �,
Sob* hep4nr I ' T4 t '.•. l °n �I .
�t t ••
AG-
_—, -3
4 5 6
I w-, n,el4et t�
cn
Y_s
"6"s N
Ir,
PW
The Hoard of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con-
st several prop�ais to adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan changing
the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and
adding a new policy to the Fuwre Land Use Element. A public hearing on the
proposals will be held on Tuesday, Match 18, 1997, at 9:05 a m. in the County
Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners will make a final decision whether to amend the county'scompre-
hensive plan. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR -
1. t 15.2 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY % OF A MILE EAST
OF 74TH AVENUE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 28TH STREET,
FROM L-1 TO M-1;
2. t 111 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58TH AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-2170 C-1:
3. t15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58TH AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO
C/I;
4. :t4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63RD COURT, FROM M-1
TO CR;
5. ±101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SR 60 AND 102ND AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO CR, EX-
PANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY t 29.5 ACRES, AND
ADDING A NEW POLICY TO THE FUTURE LAND USE EL-
EMENT;
8. . 118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO
ROAD, 1:660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/I TO
PUB; AND
PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad-
ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between
the hours of 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public during regular busi-
ness hours at the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners, 1840
25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 exten-
sion 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. For more information contact
John Wachtel at 567.8000, ext. 247.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s• Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman 311114
MARCH 18, 1997 25 BOOK 100 PAGE 898
PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hides who on
oath says that he is President of the Press- Joumal, a dally newspaper published at Vero Beach
in Indian River County, Florida: that the attadied copy of advertisement being
,._ �i �►ra=.ys,�i�t�_�'� •ice
in the Court, was pub-
flshed in said newspaper in the issues err
Afflant further said Indian River that the said Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian
River C in y, I Florida, and
that the said newspaper has heretofore been
County, Florida, each daffy and has been entered as
second lass mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River Canty, Florida,
for a period of one year next preceding the first publication of the attached copy of
advertisement; and afflant 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 Oft
advertisement for publication in said newspaper. }-� [�
Swam jp S�G[7esribed before me this day of D t�A.D.1 —t
`' a M f (/�, .mil /� . �R?
��'
OT Ai?),*. ��i
�'• � President
a dtabF6 ( )
Orn.1197
+ maart n a -r yatYtY-RYYiif'
_ • Pio CC31 i --_ • - �
\` : Q+C state orRlorida. My Commisston Pap. le/11/e'f
(!••. . Co ton Nn r. CCS11063
rJ..........••d .*
f of ; o 8
oiray: 8 A 1N. iTlf7'ts
MARCH 18, 1997 26
BOOK 100 PAGE 899
RM -6
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River Canty,
Florida, will consider the adoption
of a county ordinance rezoning
land from. A-1, AgricuRaral Dbirld
'(up to 1 unit/5 acres) to CG, Gen-
eral Commercial Distrid.,TM sub•
Wmry
M. Jr.d property owned by S
Tiro sub{sctprop-
erty is located at the narthwat car.
ner of 5% Avenue and the Main
Relhd Canal, and contaba approx.
hnwfsly 15 acres. Tiro subled prop.
arty Des In the southeast 1/4 sec.
flan of Section 5, Township 33S,
Range 39E, lying and being in
Indian River Canty, Florida
A public hearing at whhdn par.
fin In Interest and diizens shall
have an opportunity to be. Mord,
will be held by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, in the
Courcy Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florldo. on Tuesday, March
18,1997, at 9:05 a.m. The pro.
posed ordinance to rezonni the sub-
Od property is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM-
1 PAWING ZONING MAR FROM
A-1 TO CG, FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58TH.AVENUE AND
THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, AND
DESCRIBM HEREIN,:AND PRO-
-YO" FOR EFF
The proposed ordinance moy be
impnnniad by the public during reg-
ular business hours at the Office of i
the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners, 1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida. For more
information, contact John Wachtel
at 567-8000, extension 247.
The Board of County Commis-
sioners may adopt another ioning
district, other than the district
requested, provided it is within the
same general use cofegory.
Anyone who may wish to
appeal any decision which may be
made at this meeting will need to
ensure that o verbatim record of
the proceedings is made, which
indudes testimony and eviden s
upon which the appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
mud contact tM ,county's Amed-
cans with Disabilities Ad (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000 exten-
sion 223 at least 48 hours in
advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s• Carolyn K. Eggert Chairman
March 5, 1997 1047643r
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
DE BEAD C CulUMME
Roer M. eat P
THROUGH: Sasan Rchani, AICP`= .d„
Chief, Long -Ran
ge Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior PlannLong-Range Planning
DATE: March 11, 1997
RE: Sidney M. Banack, Jr.'s Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 15.02
acres from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone that 15.02 acres
from A-1 to CG
PLAN AMENDMENT NMMER: LURA 96-07-0193
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone
approximately 15.02 acres, located at the northwest corner of the
intersection of 58th Avenue and the Main Relief Canal.
The request involves changing the land use designation from M-1,
Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I,
Commercial/Industrial Node, and rezoning the property from A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to CG, General
Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to secure the
necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the property
with commercial uses.
On September 26, 1996, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4-1
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.
On November 21, 1996, the
to transmit the proposed
their review. The Board
whether or not to adopt
zoning district.
ORC Report
Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
land use amendment request to DCA for
of County Commissioners is now to decide
the requested land use designation and
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report (dated January 30, 1997), which planning staff
received on February 4, 1997. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 7)
contained one objection to this proposed amendment. That objection
was procedural in nature and related to the county's state mandated
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).
According to state law, the county was required to submit an
adopted EAR to DCA by January 1, 1997. The county complied with
that requirement by adopting its EAR on December 17, 1996, and
transmitting it to DCA on December 20, 1996. Once a local
government's adopted EAR submittal date has passed, state law
prohibits that local government from amending its comprehensive
plan until DCA has determined that the EAR is sufficient. On
February 24, 1997, DCA determined that the county's EAR was
sufficient.
MARCH 189 1997 27
BOOK 100 PACE 930
BOOK 100 PAGE 901
Between the county's January 1, 1997 EAR submittal date and DCA's
February 24, 1997 sufficiency determination, the county was
prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan. Because the DCA
ORC Report was issued on January 30, 1997, prior to DCA's EAR
sufficiency determination (February 24, 1997), the ORC Report
contained an objection based on the county's EAR not having been
determined to be sufficient [Section 163.3187 (6), F. S. and Rule 9J -
5.0053(4)(e), F.A.C.]. The analysis section of this staff report
contains a response to DCA's objection.
Existina Land Use Pattern
The subject property consists of a citrus grove and is zoned A-1.
To the north, abutting land is zoned CG and consists of citrus
groves and a wooded area. A water tower is located in the
southwest corner of the wooded area. To the west, land is zoned
RM -6 and contains a correctiona1- officer training center. West of
that is the Indian River County campus of Indian River Community
College. The subject property is bounded on the south by the Main
Relief Canal. South of that canal, land is zoned A-1 and contains
citrus groves. The subject property is bounded on the east by 58th
Avenue. East of the site, across 58th Avenue, land is zoned CG and
contains an electrical sub -station.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property and property to the west are designated M-1,
Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map.
The M-1 designation permits residential densities up to 8
units/acre. Land south of the subject property, across the Main
Relief Canal, is designated AG -1, Agricultural -1. The AG -1
designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with
densities up to 1 unit/5 acres. Properties to the north of the
site, and east of the site (across 58th Avenue) are designated C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, which permits commercial and industrial
zoning designations.
Environment
The subject property is currently used for agricultural purposes
being a citrus grove. No wetlands or native upland plan -
communities exist on site. The subject property is within an "AE
100 year floodplain, with a minimum base flood elevatic
requirement of 21 feet NGVD for the eastern portion of the site an
22 feet NGVD for the western portion of the site.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
Abutting the site on the east is 58th Avenue. Classified as an
urban principal arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan
map, 58th Avenue is a two lane road with approximately 100 feet of
public road right-of-way. Expansion of this segment of 58th Avenue
to four lanes is scheduled to begin this fall.
The county is in the process of acquiring 60 feet of public road
right-of-way along the subject property's north boundary. That
will be the new location of Lundberg Road, a local road which
currently exists within the Main Relief Canal right-of-way.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
'application will be presented. The analysis will address:
• the county's response to DCA's ORC Report objection;
• concurrency of public facilities;
compatibili•
consistency twith t h
hecomprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
Cwnty Response to DCA's ORC Report Objection
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff
report, DCA, in its January 30, 1997 ORC Report, raised an
MARCH 18, 1997 28
objection based on the fact that the county's EAR had not yet been
determined to be sufficient. On February 24, 1997, DCA determined
that the county's EAR was sufficient. Therefore, that objection
has been addressed, and the county may amend its comprehensive
plan.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not
projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to -be
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested zoning district or land use designation. For
commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre -of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated and Rezoned:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
115.02 acres
L-1, Low -Density
Residential - 1 (up to 3
units/acre)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/ I, Commercial -
Industrial
ommercial-
Industrial Node
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
120 Dwelling Onits
S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 150,200 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service D or better on 58th Avenue and other impacted roads would
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Land IIse Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Southbound- (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
3. Peak Direction of 58th Avenue, from 16th Street to SR 60:
Southbound
MARCH 189 1997
29
Pa®r 100 PACEM2
BOOK 100 PAGE 903
Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units % P.M. Peak Hour
Rate % Inbound P.M. Percentage 8 Inbound -Southbound Percentage
(120 8 1.01 % .65 $ .525 m 41)
S. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units % Average Weekday Rate
(120 B 10.1 m 1,212)
Proposed Land Use Desicmation
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
2. For 150,200 sq.ft. Shopping Centers in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 60.7/1,000 square feet
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 5.66/1,000 square feet
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.5%
ii. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.5%
3. Peak Direction of 58th Avenue, from 16th Street to SR 60:
Southbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Total Square Footage 8 P.M. Peak
Hour Rate B Inbound P.M. Percentage B Inbound -Southbound
Percentage (150,200 B 5.66/1,000 B .5 8 .525 a 223)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
S. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Total Square Footage 8 Average Weekday Rate
(150,200 8 60.7/1,000 sq.ft. m 9,117)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 58th Avenue, at a Level of
Service "D": 1,890 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
(Based on completion of project currently under construction
to expand 58th Avenue from 2 lanes to 4 lanes)
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this
segment of 58th Avenue: 1,178 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,212. This was determined by multiplying the 120
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 9,117. This was determined by multiplying the
150,200 square feet of shopping center (most intense use), by ITE's
shopping center fitted curve factor of 60.7 Average Daily Trip
Ends/1,000 square feet.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 58th Avenue is
southbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 41. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (120) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%-
(79) will be inbound and 35% (42) will be outbound. Of the inbound
trips, 52.5* or 41.will be southbound.
MARCH 18, 1997 30
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total
square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed
amendment (150,200) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 5.66 p.m.
peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of
trips generated (850). Of these trips, 50%- (425) will be inbound
and 50%- (425) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 52.5% or 223
will be southbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed land use designation would generate 182
(223 - 41 = 182) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
than the 41 that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5!C) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of 58th Avenue adjacent to
this site is 1,890 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the Total Segment Demand
(existing traffic volume + vested traffic volume) on this segment
of 58th Avenue is 1,178 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak
direction). The additional 223 peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject
property under the proposed amendment would increase the Total
Segment Demand peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this
segment of 58th Avenue to approximately 1,401.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 58th Avenue and
all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips
without decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Capacity
Seament
Road
From
To
LOS "D°
1915E
S.R. 60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1915W
S.R. 60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1920E
S.R. 60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1920W
S.R. 60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1925E
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1925W
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1930E
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1930W
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1935E
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1935W
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1940E
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
1940W
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
2020E
lith St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
202OW
16th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.880
2210E
12th St.
82nd Ave.
58th Ave.
600
221OW
12th St.
82nd Ave.
58th Ave.
600
2220E
12th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2220W
12th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2470N
27th Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2470S
27th Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2480N
27th Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
24805
27th Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
.2930N
43rd Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
29305
43rd Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
2935N
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.880
293SS
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
880
301ON
58th Ave.
4th Street
8th Street
760
30303
58th Ave.
4th Street
8th Street
760
3015N
58th Ave.
8th Street
12th Street
760
30155
58th Ave.
8th Street
12th Street
760
302ON
58th Ave.
12th Street
16th Street880
30205
58th Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
880
MARCH 18,
1997
31
BOOK
100 FADE 004
BOOK 100 PAGE 905 7
3025N
58th Ave.
16th Street
B.R. 60
1890
3025S
58th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
303ON
Seth Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
30305
58th Ave.
B.R. 60
41st Street
1890
312ON
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
31208
66th Ave.
B.R. 60
26th Street
760
3330N
82nd Ave.
12th St.
B.R. 60
760
33305
82nd Ave.
12th St.
S.R. 60
760
3340N
82nd Ave.
S.R. 60
65th St.
600
33405
82nd Ave.
B.R. 60
65th St.
600
4830E
8th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
483OW
8th St.
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
Existing Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Seamen*
Volume Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand
Determination
1915E
925
534
1459
431
43
Y
1915W
1039
487
1526
364
43
Y
1920E
1120
771
1891
1219
49
Y
1920W
1294
711
2005
1105
49
Y
1925E
1170 1376
2547
294
70
Y
1925W
1288 1335
2623
217
70
Y
1930E
1116 1450
2566
274
70
Y
1930W
1209 1427
2636
204
70
Y
1935E
1074 1005
2079
761
56
Y
1935W
1202
983
2185
655
56
Y
1940E
863
730
1593
915
42
Y
1940W
859
719
1578
932
42
Y
202ON
113
256
369
511
14
Y
20205
154
251
405
475
14
Y
2210E
24
it
35
565
6
Y
221OW
11
11
22
578
6
Y
2220E
88
53
141
739
12
Y
2220W
113
51
164
716
12
Y
2470N
281
136
417
463
9
Y
24705
507
141
648
232
9
Y
248ON
65
34
99
781
5
Y
24805
126
35
161
719
5
Y
293ON
498
192
690
190
11
Y
29305
673
191
864
16
11
Y
Existing
Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing
Vested
Segment
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Segment
Volume
Volume
Demand
Capacity
Demand
Determination
2935N
380
146
526
354
3
Y
29355
504
142
646
234
3
Y
301ON
288
125
413
347
42
Y
30105
336
125
461
299
42
Y
3015N
418
229
687
113
57
Y
30155
364
228
592
168
57
Y
302ON
460
288
748
132
75
Y
30205
440
289
729
151
75
Y
3025N
510
616
1126
764
268
Y
30255
564
614
1178
712
268
Y
303ON
461
386
847
1043
34
Y
30303
495
394
889
1001
34
Y
312ON
214
76
290
470
21
Y
31205
169
77
246
514
21
Y
3330N
171
56
227
533
3
Y
33305
238
67
305
455
3
Y
3340N
48
39
87
513
3
Y
33403
44
40
84
516
3
Y
4830E
141
45
186
694
10
Y
483OW
122
99
221
659
10
Y
- Water
A retail commercial use of 150,200 square feet on the subject
property will have a water consumption rate of 45 Equivalent
Residential units (ERU), or 11,250 gallons/day. This is based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines
extend to the site from 'the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand
associated with the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the
proposed amendment, development of the property will have a
wastewater generation rate of approximately 45 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 11,250 gallons/day. This is based upon
the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The West
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 150,200 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
will be approximately 751 waste generation units (WGU) annually.
MARCH 18, 1997 32
M
A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste
generated, the 150,200 square feet of commercial development would
be expected to generate 1,252 cubic yards of waste/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 850,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
Proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin. Since
the site is located within the Indian River Farms Water Control
District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited
from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-
four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard
applies, since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent
with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than six inches above the
elevation of the 100 -year flood elevation as shown on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as
defined in a more detailed study report." Since the subject
property lies within Flood Zone AE, which is a special flood hazard
area located within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on
this property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no
less than 22.5 feet above mean sea level.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge standards also apply to this request. With the most
intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface
under the proposed zoning classification will be approximately
490,050 square feet, or 11.25 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour
design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement,
will be approximately 470,590 cubic feet. In order to maintain the
county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be required
to retain approximately 361,548 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With
the soil characteristics of the subject property, the estimated
pre -development runoff rate is 121.43 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours,
requiring retention of the 361,548 cubic feet of runoff for the
most intense use of the property, and requiring that all finished
floor elevations exceed 22.5 feet above mean sea level.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning
request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
land use designation.
Consistency with Co=rehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
Policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 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.
MARCH 189 1997
33
B009 100 FACE, 90
BOOK 100 FACE 90 d
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify the action which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies:
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan
amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive
Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires
that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a 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.
Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets
Policy 13.3's third criterion, a substantial change in
circumstances affecting the subject property.
That change relates to the relocation of Lundberg Road, which is
the only paved access to the Indian River County campus of Indian
River Community College (IRCC). Presently, Lundberg Road is
located where it was when the county's comprehensive plan was
adopted in 1990, within the right-of-way of the Main Relief Canal.
Because the Lundberg Road/58th Avenue intersection is dangerous and
IRCC plans a substantial expansion, a new access road is planned by
the county's public works department.
The existing Lundberg Road alignment is dangerous because of its
close proximity to the 58th Avenue bridge over the Main Relief
Canal. For that reason, Lundberg Road will be moved to the north
boundary of the subject property. Moving Lundberg Road to that
location will resolve the safety issue.
Additionally, relocating Lundberg Road to the subject property's
north boundary would have significant negative impacts on
residential development on_the site. Those impacts are primarily
related to the mixing of commercial and residential traffic, and to
the provision of buffers where commercial and residential uses
abut. Such buffers are not required where a road separates
commercial and residential uses.
Therefore, the relocation of Lundberg Road to the north boundary of
the subject property constitutes a substantial change in
circumstances affecting the site. For that reason, the request
meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
and is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
should be considered for expansion unless 70!k of the land area
(less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development,
with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise
warranted.
The intent of Future Land Use Policy 1.23 is to establish specific
criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are
often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70%r standard, then, is a
measure of whether a node needs to be expanded.
According to the County's Commercial/ Industrial Data Source, the
subject node is 72.5 developed. Therefore, the proposed amendment
to expand the node is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that node size shall be
based on population and other demand characteristics within the
general market area of the node. The fact that the subject node is
already 72.5* developed and is the fastest developing node in the
county demonstrates that there is demand for additional land in
that node. For those reasons, the request is consistent with
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20.
MARCH 189 1997 34
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that commercial/
industrial nodes are intended to provide for efficient use of land,
roads, and other public facilities while eliminating strip
development. In contrast to land fronting on SR 60, the subject
property is one of the few sites adjacent to the subject node that
could accommodate commercial uses without resulting in a strip
development pattern. With nearly 1,300 feet of depth, but less
than 300 feet of frontage along 58th Avenue, the shape of the site
is similar to a right triangle since the site is widest (nearly 700
feet) 'at the point furthest from 58th Avenue. For those reasons
and because the Main Relief Canal is a logical node boundary,
commercial use of the site will not result in a strip development
pattern. Therefore, the request is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.24
Future Land Use Element 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.
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that development under the proposed land use
designation and zoning would be compatible with surrounding areas.
Since properties to the north and east of the site have the same
land use designation and zoning as is being requested for the site,
the request is for a continuation of the existing land use
designation and zoning pattern. To the south, the site is
separated from agriculturally designated land by the Main Relief
Canal, which has 300 feet of right-of-way.
The primary impacts of commercial development on the site would be
on the multiple -family zoned land abutting the site on the west.
Several factors, however, work to somewhat mitigate the potential
impacts of commercial development on the subject property. Those
factors include required buffers between commercially and
residentially designated land. In this case, Land Development
Regulation section 911.10(8) states that development within the
requested CG district must provide a type "C" vegetative buffer
with a 6 foot opaque feature where it borders multiple -family
zoning. Additionally, all commercial development must be approved
through the site plan approval process. Through this process,
potential incompatibilities can often be mitigated by site design.
Another important consideration is the fact that the multiple -
'family zoned land that abuts the subject property on the west is
actually developed with an institutional use (a satellite campus
for IRCC). Community colleges are a Special Exception Use
permitted within the RM -6 zoning district. Therefore, the subject
property is the only site adjacent to the subject node that does
not abut any land that is developed with, or likely to be developed
with, purely residential uses.
The existence of IRCC on land adjacent to the subject property is
significant because commercial/residential incompatibilities would
be anticipated to occur at a much higher rate than commercial/
community college incompatibilities. For these reasons, commercial
development of the site would be compatible with surrounding areas.
Potential Impact on Environmental Quality
Environmental impacts of development on the subject property would
be the same under either the existing or the proposed land use
designation. The site has been cleared, and contains no
environmentally important land, such as wetlands or native upland
habitat. Therefore, development of the site is anticipated to have
little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no
adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are
anticipated.
MARCH 189 1997 35 BOOK 100 PAGE 908
BOOK 100 PAGE 909
CONCLUSION
The analysis demonstrates that commercial development on the site
can be accommodated by existing public facilities and services,
would be consistent with the comprehensive plan, would be
compatible with the surrounding area, and would not harm the
environment. Additionally, the analysis demonstrates that the site
possesses the following characteristics:
e Among properties adjacent to the node, the subject property is
the only site that does not abut any land that is, or likely
will be, residentially developed; and
a Commercial development of the site would not result in a strip
development pattern.
The presence of both of these factors on one site makes the subject
property uniquely appropriate for addition to the node. Finally,
DCA's sufficiency determination of the county's EAR. addresses the
one ORC Report objection. For these reasons, staff supports the
request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to redesignate the subject property to C/I and rezone the
subject property to CG.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that the
following five items were considered by Planning and Zoning on
September 26, 1996 and submitted to the Board for approval on
November 21, 1996. All amendments were submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs on January 30, 1997 and the DCA issued its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on each
amendment. The DCA filed one objection, that the County could not
amend its Comp Plan until its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report)
was approved. On February 24, 1997 the DCA determined that the
County's EAR is sufficient. The Board is now allowed to take
action on each amendment.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Michael O'8aire appeared on behalf of the applicant
and expressed his support of the application.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-005 amending the land use element of
the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation for ± 15.02 acres located at the
Northwest corner of the intersection of 58th Avenue
and the Main Relief Canal, from M-1 to C/I, and
providing severability and effective date.
MARCH 189 1997 36
ORDINANCE NO. 97-05
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±15.02 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF THE INTERSECTION OF 58TH AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF
CANAL, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND
EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on September 26, 1996,
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 November 12, 1996,
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 November 25, 1996, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report noted that, pursuant to Section
163.3191, F.S., the county cannot amend its comprehensive plan
until its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been determined
to be sufficient, and
WHEREAS, the EAR was determined to be sufficient on February
24, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on March 18, 1997, after advertising pursuant to
F.S.163.3184 (15) (b) (2) and (c) ;
MARCH 18, 1997 37 BOOK 100 PAGE 910
BOOK 100 PAGE 911
ORDINANCE NO. 97-05
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that:
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in Section 2 is hereby adopted, and three (3) 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 PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING NORTH OF THE MAIN
CANAL (300.00 FEET WIDE R.O.W.)(INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
CONTROL DISTRICT), INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND
EXCEPT THAT PART OF C.R. 613 (RINGS HIGHWAY/58TH AVE.) RIGHT
OF WAY THEREOF.
Is changed from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node and the Future Land
Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions
All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board
of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which
conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed
to the extent of such conflict.
SECTION 4. Severability
It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County
Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and
therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is
for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any
court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a
separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall
not affect the validity of the remaining provisions.
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(1)(b),
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 at a
public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource
Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of= :March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Ginn , seconded by Commissioner Adams
and adopted by the following vote:
MARCH 18, 1997
38
ORDINANCE NO. 97-05
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ATTEST BY:
Acknowledgment by the Department o State of the tate of Florida
this day of 1997.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this
day of , 1997, at A.M./P.M. and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-006 amending the zoning ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from A-1 to CG, for the
property located at the Northwest corner of the
intersection of 58th Avenue and the Main Relief
Canal and described herein, and providing for
effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 97- 06
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE
INTERSECTION OF 58TH AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL 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;
MARCH 18, 1997 39 BOOK 100 PAGE 912
BOOK 100 PAGE 913
ORDINANCE NO. 97-06
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 PART OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 SECTION 5,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING NORTH OF THE MAIN
CANAL (300.00 FEET WIDE R.O.W.)(INDIAN RIVER FARMS WATER
CONTROL DISTRICT), INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND
EXCEPT THAT PART OF C.R. 613 (ICINGS HIGHWAY/58TH AVE.) RIGHT
OF WAY THEREOF.
Be changed from A-1 TO CG
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the
issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice
of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 97- 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 18th day of March, 1997.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 5th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Ginn , seconded by Commissioner
Adams , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn R. Eggert Ave
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Ave
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Ave
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ATT
C_ -
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date:
MARCH 189 1997 40
PUBLIC HEARING - REDESIGNATE APPROIGMATELY 111 ACRES
FROM L-2 TO C-1- REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RM -6 TO CON -1
- WABASSO SCRUB CONSERVATION AREA
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
IN Preso Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida; that
a
bled f.R, PkkiV �,
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
/717 0,A) Aig
Sworn to and subscribed Wore me this
y of A
A�
,,,INI.IIIgq
P A. PR ;va President
;3�P� i PVEsrns-I. SC1R: PL3s: -
my C4nlr1. Expires —• _ A::;%:% 23.
Augusl25. t997 N _t)aron"!
No. CC iow 7
••sr•9 _ OP\• j tintz:r.siA PGi:Cr�"
,TEOF FU
(SEAL)`
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS, EXPANDING THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA, AND ADDING A NEW POLICY
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
1 z
L 1 ' ii f i' ►1 r �, �!•v
raei«r rrar.mr .r i•
' 1
:ems - •L t e.sre;, •1= T F _ �..'
4 5 r.
MAKIto Omit
RC
s.eM.1►,w.m . � � rIl 4 ►11 ' YI
The Boatel of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will con-
sider several proposals to adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan changing
the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County and
adding a new policy to the Future Land Use Element. A public hearing on the
prorosals will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1897, at 8:05 am. in the Couat nty
25th Strreeeot, Vero Flo fdda.BAt this mpubl crshearinng tltthe�Hoard of County
Commissioners will make a final decision whether to amend the county's compre-
hensive plan. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT By CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR:
1. t 15.2 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY S4 OF A MILE EAST
OF 74TH AVENUE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET,
FROM L -I TO M-1;
2. t II I ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58Th AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-2170 C-1;
3. t15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
C59 H AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M -I TO
4. 34.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 83RD COURT, FROM M-1
TO C/I;
5. t 101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SR 60 AND 102ND AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO CII, EX-
PANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY :t 29.5 ACRES, AND
ADDING A NEW POLICY TO THE FUTURE LAND USE EL-
EMENT;
6. tII8.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO
ROAD, x660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/I TO
PUB; AND
DP OVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
E.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
'rhe plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad-
ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between
the hours of 8:30 am. and 5:00 py.m. on weekdays.
nese
The
ap proposed
office of theaClerk o theme Boaredy of County Commissionduring ers, 18840
25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made which
includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the
county's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000 exten-
sion 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. For more information contact
John Wachtel at 567-8000, ext. 247.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert. Chairman
oma
MARCH 18, 1997 41 BOOK 100 PAGE 914
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
all Preso Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida; that
I I jE Ato
P92, 'Q��A)
billedto NY Q C ,
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
_rq QA)
IF
Sworn to and subscribed before me this
ay of J r — 9 ! isA
President
yPPP Pq,COlj'%
:W"D ,A.PResccn
My Comm. Expires _ sure a Florda a rn ,_ r:c; E;4Baa: 33. t3�'
August25.1997
sem.••_ ._..�-�::c_+",.tea
No. CC31UW �
st
s% O JRA A. PRFS�
-M
F fV
(SEAL)- .-,
MARCH 18, 1997
�I
42
BOOK 100 FACE 91
NOTICE OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE
• r Subject Property ,
.,1 ... i
co
+. r C a-.
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County, Florida, will consider the adoption of a county
ordinance rezoning land from: RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) to Con -1, Public
Lands Conservation District (zero density). The subject
property is owned by Indian River County. The subject
property is located at the northwest corner of C.R. 510
and 58th Avenue, and contains approximately 111
acres. The subject property lies in the southeast 'A
section of Section 29, Township 31S, Range 39E, lying
and being in Indian River County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in interest and
citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be
held by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, in the County Commission
Chambers of the County Administration Building,
located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on
Tuesday, March 18, 1997, at 9:05 a.m. The proposed
ordinance to rezone the subject property is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLOR-
IDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND
THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -6,
TO CON -I,. FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF C.R. 510 AND 58TH
AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVID-
ING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the
public during regular business hours at the Office of the
Clerk to the Board 'of County Commissioners, 1840 25th
Street, Vero Beach, Florida. For more • information,
contact John Wachtel at 567-8000, extension 247.
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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal
is 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
By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D AR HEAD CONCURRENCE
er X.—Keatifig, CP
Community Develo t Di etor
THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP -S -W .
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtelgv
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 4, 1997
RE: COUNTY INITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 111 ACRES FROM L-2 TO C-1,
AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM RM -6 TO CON -1f
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LURA 96-07-0231
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a county initiated request to change the land use
designation of approximately 111 acres from L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) to C-1, Publicly Owned
Conservation -1 (zero density), and to rezone the property from RM -
6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to
Con -1, Public Lands Conservation District (zero density).
The subject property, located at the northwest corner of 58th
Avenue and CR 510, is generally known as the Wabasso Scrub
Conservation Area. On October 2, 1995, Indian River County
purchased the subject property. Funding for that purchase was
provided through the county's environmental lands acquisition
program and a 50% cost -share grant from the State of Florida
(through the Florida Communities Trust).
In conjunction with purchasing the property, the Board of County
Commissioners 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 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.
Rezoning Procedures
Although the land use designation amendment portion of this request
may be adopted at the March 18, 1997 Board of County Commissioners
meeting, state law provides some special requirements for county
initiated rezoning requests, such as the subject request, that
involve more than 10 acres. Among those special requirements are
the following:
• The Board must hold 2 advertised public hearings.
• One of the public hearings must be after 5:00 p.m. on a week
day, unless 4 Commissioners vote to conduct that hearing at
another time of day.
• The second hearing must be held at least 10 days after the
first hearing and must be advertised at least 5 days prior to
the hearing.
The March 18, 1997 Board of County Commissioners meeting meets the
requirements for one of the public hearings. The second hearing,
at which the rezoning ordinance can be adopted, can be held on any
week day after March 28, 1997, provided the advertising
requirements are met.
ALARcx 18, 1997 43 BOOK 100 FACE 916
BOOK .100 PAGE 917
Past Actions
On September 26, 1996, 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 November 21, 1996, the Board -of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for
their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide
whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation and
whether or not to hold the second rezoning public hearing at 9:05
a.m. at a regular Board of County Commissioners' meeting.
ORC Report
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report (dated January 30, 1997), which planning staff
received on February 4, 1997. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 7)
contained one objection to this proposed amendment. That objection
was procedural in nature and related to the county's state mandated
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).
According to state law, the county was required to submit an
adopted EAR to DCA by January 1, 1997. The county complied with
that requirement by adopting its EAR on December 17, 1996, and
transmitting it to DCA on December 20, 1996. Once a local
government's adopted EAR submittal date has passed, state law
prohibits that local government from amending its comprehensive
plan until DCA has determined that the EAR is sufficient. On
February 24, 1997, DCA determined that the county's EAR was
sufficient.
Between the county's January 1, 1997 EAR submittal date and DCA's
February 24, 1997 sufficiency determination, the county was
prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan. Because the DCA
ORC Report was issued on January 30, 1997, prior to DCA's EAR
sufficiency determination (February 24, 1997), the ORC Report
contained an objection based on the county's EAR not having been
determined to be sufficient (Section 163.3187 (6), F. S. and Rule 9J -
5.0053(4)(e), F.A.C.]. The analysis section of this staff report
contains a response to DCA's objection.
Existing Land Use Pattern
Consisting primarily of undeveloped sand pine scrub and pine
flatwoods, the site is currently zoned RM -6. The area located
directly north of the subject property, within the Sebastian City
Limits, is zoned Mobile Home Planned Unit Development (up to 5
units/acre). Currently, the portion of that property that abuts
the subject property is undeveloped xeric oak scrub.
Wabasso Park, a county -operated park facility that is zoned A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), is located at the
northwest corner of the subject property. West of the site, land
is zoned RM -6. Land along the northern half of the site's western
boundary consists of rangeland and single-family houses on large
lots, while the Lows Park Subdivision of single-family houses abuts
the southern half of the site's western boundary.
South of the site, across CR 510, land is zoned RM -3, Multiple -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) and RS -3, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). Consisting
primarily of single-family homes, that area also contains several
churches.
Land east of the site contains a mix of land uses including The
John's Island Club -West Golf Course (zoned RM -6), an abandoned
citrus grove (zoned RM -8), a church (zoned RM -6), and a legally
established non -conforming mobile home park (zoned RM -6 and CL).
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property, land to the west of the subject property, and
the northern half of land to the east of the subject property are
designated L-2, Low -Density. Residential -2, on the future land use
map. The L-2 designation allows residential uses with densities of
up to 6 units/acre.
With the exception of two small C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node,
designated areas near CR 510, the land to the east of the subject
property is designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the
future land use map. The M-1 designation allows residential uses
with densities of up to 8 units/acre. The C/I designation allows
commercial and industrial uses.
MARCH 18, 1997 44
To the south of the subject property, across CR 510, land is
designated L-1, Low -Density Residential -1, on the future land use
map. The L-1 designation allows residential uses with densities of
up to 3 units/acre.
Environment
Consisting of approximately 54 acres of sand pine scrub, 42 acres
of pine flatwoods, and 15 acres of fresh water wetlands, the
subject property is an environmentally important site.
Approximately 2.4 acres, located primarily along the site's east
and west boundaries, are environmentally disturbed. Portions of
the site are within an "A" 100 -year flood plain for which no
minimum base flood elevation requirement has been determined.
Approximately 34 acres of the property's scrub have been identified
by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as occupied territory
of the federally threatened Florida scrub jay. FWS considers this
property to be one of the "core" scrub jay territories in the
county critical to the long term survival of the county's scrub jay
Population. Moreover, the site contains mature sand pine scrub
that, if properly managed, could expand the area of scrub jay
habitat on the property. Other rare listed species documented or
expected to occur on site include the gopher tortoise, eastern
indigo snake, and gopher frog. Overall, the scrub native plant
community is recognized as endangered regionally and statewide.
Utilities and Services
Potable water service is available to the site from the South
County Reverse Osmosis Plant. When it is complete, the North
County Reverse Osmosis Plant will (if necessary) provide potable
water to the site. Although wastewater lines from the North County
Wastewater Treatment Plant are planned to extend to the site by
2010, wastewater service is not currently available to the site.
Transportation System
The property abuts CR 510. Classified as an urban principal
arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this
segment of CR 510 is a 2 -lane road with approximately s0 feet of
existing public road right-of-way. This segment of CR 510 is
programmed for expansion to 4 lanes and 160 feet of public road
right-of-way by 2010.
AMLYSis
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will address:
• the county's response to..DCA's ORC Report objection;
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan;
• potential impact on environmental quality; and
• rezoning requirements.
County Response to DCA's ORC Report Objection
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff
report,. DCA, in its January 30, 1997 ORC Report, raised an
objection based on the fact that the county's EAR had not yet been
determined to be sufficient. On February 24, 1997, DCA determined
that the county's EAR was sufficient. Therefore, that objection
has been addressed, and the county may amend its comprehensive
plan.
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
MARCH 18, IM 45 BOOK 100 PACE 918
BOOK 100 PAGE 919
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'a) is the maximum number of units
that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and
the maximum density allowed under the proposed land use
designation. The site information used for the concurrency
analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be Redesignated:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Maximum Number of Units with
Existing Land Use Designation:
4. Proposed Land Use Designation:
tlll acres
L-2, Low -Density
Residential -2 (up to 6
units/acre)
666
C-1, Conservation -1
(zero density)
S. 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.
In contrast to the 666 units allowed under the existing land use
designation and zoning district, 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 associated with uses allowed under the proposed C-1
designation will be significantly less than those that would occur
with development under the existing land use designation. In fact,
the recreational uses allowed under the requested land use
designation will serve as an amenity for nearby residential uses.
For these reasons, staff has determined that the requested land use
designation and zoning district are 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:
MARCH 18, 1997
46
a
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Based upon its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's third criterion.
On February 13, 1990, when the current comprehensive plan was
adopted, the subject property was in private ownership. At that
time the site was correctly designated as L-2. Since then, the
site has been purchased for conservation purposes by the county.
The acquisition of the site by a public body constitutes a
substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property
and meets the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy
13.3. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.4 states that the Conservation
land use designations are applied to lands which play a vital or
essential role in the normal functioning of ecosystems, or meri'
preservation as vestiges of once common county ecosystems. As
important part of the Scrub Habitat ecosystem, the subject prope
meets both of these criteria. For this reason, the reques'
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
designation to publicly owned land with conservation and
recreational uses. Since the site is publicly owned, and uses w.
be limited to conservation_ and recreation, the property is eligib
for the C-1 land use designation. For this reason, the request
consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.5.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Potential Impact on Environmental Ouality
The site's existing land use designations offer limited
environmental protections. Residential development on the subject
property would be required to preserve only 15 percent of the site,
or 16.65 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.
Rezoning Requirements
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff
report, state law requires that the Board of County Commissioners
hold two public hearings prior to approving county initiated
rezonings of more than ten acres. Although normally applied to
ensure public participation when a county initiates the rezoning of
privately owned land, this requirement also applies to county
initiated rezonings of publicly owned land.
The March 18, 1997 Board of County Commissioners meeting will meet
state requirements for one of the public hearings. The second
public hearing then must be held at least 10 days after the first
hearing. Additionally, state law requires that at least one of the
public hearings be held after 5:00 p.m. on a weekday, unless four
Commissioners vote to conduct that hearing at another time of day.
In this case, several factors indicate that holding the second
rezoning public hearing at 9:05 a.m. at a regular Board of County
Commissioners meeting would be sufficient to ensure public
participation. Those factors include the following:
• although the state requirement for two public hearings is
normally intended for rezonings of privately owned land, the
subject property in this case is publicly owned; and
MARCH 189 1997 47
aoox 100PAGE 920
Fr -
BOOK 100 MU
• The future use of this land has already been discussed at
numerous public hearings and public meetings, including Land
Acquisition Advisory Committee meetings and other meetings
regarding the subject land use amendment and rezoning
requests.
For those reasons, staff feels that it would be appropriate to hold
the second rezoning public hearing at 9:05 a.m. on April 1, 1997.
That is the first Board of County Commissioners meeting that meets
the state requirement of at least 10 days between the first and
second hearings.
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. Finally, DCA's sufficiency determination of the
county's EAR addresses the one ORC Report objection. For these
reasons, staff supports the request.
Based on the analysis, 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. Staff also
recommends that the Board of County Commissioners hold the second
rezoning public hearing at 9:05 a.m., at the regular commission
meeting of April 1, 1997.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that this
is one of the five items considered by Planning and Zoning on
September 26, 1996 and submitted to the Board for approval on
November 21, 1996. All amendments were submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs on January 30, 1997 and the DCA issued its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on each
amendment. The DCA filed one objection, that the County could not
amend its Comp Plan until its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report)
was approved. On February 24, 1997 the DCA determined that the
County's EAR was sufficient. The Board is now allowed to take
action on each amendment.
Director Keating continued that the redesignation of the land
use will be decided at today's meeting. However, the rezoning
portion must be submitted to a second public hearing which must be
held after 5:00 p.m. unless 4 of the 5 commissioners vote to hold
the hearing at a regular meeting. Staff is recommending that this
hearing be held on April 1, 1997 at the Board's regular meeting at
9:00 a.m.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
MARCH 189 1997 48
M
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner -Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously
authorized the rehearing on the rezoning portion of
the matter for the regular meeting of April 1st,
1997, at 9:00 a.m. and adopted Ordinance 97-007
amending the land use element of the Comprehensive
Plan by changing the land use designation for ± 111
acres located at the Northwest corner of 58th Avenue
and CR 510, from L-2 to C-1; and providing
severability and effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-07
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR flll ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST
CORNER OF 58TH AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-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 July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on September 26, 1996,
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 November 12, 1996,
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 November 25, 1996, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 1997, and
MARCH 189 1997
49 BOOK 10U FAGS 992
L
BOOK 100 FACE 923
ORDINANCE NO. 97-07
WHEREAS, the ORC Report noted that, pursuant to Section
163.3191, F.S., the county cannot amend its comprehensive plan
until its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been determined
to be sufficient, and
WHEREAS, the EAR was determined to be sufficient on February
24, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on March 18, 1997, 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 Adoytion and
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in Section 2 is hereby adopted, and three (3) 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:
PARCEL is
THE NORTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP
31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 2:
THE SOUTHWEST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4, LESS THE WEST 10
ACRES, IN SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA;
PARCEL 3:
THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP
31 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
LESS RIGHT OF WAY FOR STATE ROAD 510 (WABASSO ROAD) A/K/A 85TH
STREET.
Is changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre)
to C-1, Publicly Owned Conservation (zero density) and the Future
Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Repeal of conflicting provigiong
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
MARCH 18, 1997 50
L_J
ORDINANCE NO. 97- 07
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 (1) (b) ,
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 at a
public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource
Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Macht , seconded by Commissioner Tippin ,
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn __Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIA&RIVER COUNTYBY : aJ i,"
ATTEST BY:
y p - 'v"' ;'''"_ '
Acknowled
gment b the De artmen of State of a State of Florida
this day of , 1997.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this
day of , 1997, at A.M./P.M. and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
MARCH 18, 1997 51 BOOK 100 PAG€ 9 A
L
BOOK. 100 PAGE 925
PUBLIC HEARING - TESSIE L. BALDWIN, ET AL - REDESIGNATE
APPR0701VIMATELY 4.6 ACRES FROM M-1 TO C/I - REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 7 ACRES FROM RS -6, RM -6 AND CL TO CG
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
NO ]Press Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K.
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida; that
�S
A0 &6 g
pp
i a2. �.ol _mk 0
billed to 9 , P N
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
/117 0,A) 0/f +,
Sworn to and subscribeZIA,) fore me this
aY o A
...`�"�•••,"4a President
yP��•• • t^Or��y iXD,%,A. PQESrC
My comm. Expires
August 25.1847c3Op'!
No. CC310845
(SEAL) O F El0
MARCH 189 1997
52
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS, EXPANDING THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA, AND ADDING A NEW POLICY
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
1
1,1_33.°Sl - -
SuEja1 ,we 10 t
I
4
y-1
RC
NOW /e00fR1� I - 1 Cn
i
.2
t'_+ s
wbNet
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Florida, will con -
ng
e use oflandthe unincorporated port'stoiions of Indfan�River Coulan nty�and
ding a new policy to the Future Land Use Element A public hearing on the
oposals wiA be held on Tuesday. March 18, 1997, at 9:05 am. in the County
mmission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840
:h Street, Vero Beach, Florida At this public hearing, the Board of County
mmisstoners will matte a final decision whether to amend the county's compre-
�v plan. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT BY CHANGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR:-
1.
OR1. t 15.2 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY % OF A MILE EAST
OF 74TH AVENUE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 28TH STREET,
FROM L-1 TO M-1;
2. t 111 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58TH AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-2 TO C -l;
3. 315 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58TH AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO
C/I..
4, :t4 .6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63RD COURT, FROM M-1
TO GI;
5. t 101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SR 80 AND 102ND AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO CIL EX-
PANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 129.5 ACRES, AND
ADDING A NEW POLICY TO THE FUTURE LAND USE EL-
EMENT;
6. t 118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO
ROAD, t660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/I TO
PUB; AND
PROVIDING CODIFICATION. SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
appnval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad-
ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach, Florida, between
the hours o
f 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
Ze proposed ordinance ma be inspected by the public during regular bust-
nhours at the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners. 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach. Florida
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing,
eet-
ing 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 587-8000 exten-
sion 223 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. For more information contact
John Wachtel at 567-8000, ext. 247.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert. Chairman
r � �
has. awrN
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commis.
:loners of Indian River County,
Flaido, will consider the adoption
Of,a county ordinance rezoning
land from: RS -6, Single -Family Res -
PRESS -JOURNAL Idential District (up to 6
untie/alts): RM -6, Multiple -Family
Published Daily Residential 'Distrid (up to 6
unitslacte), and CL, Limited Com -
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida mwdol District to CG' General
Commercial District. The abject
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA alProperty IIs owAed by Jests L
dwin,. Curtis A. Woods and
Before the uride W'ed authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who on Hein H Woods, Valentine J.
oath says that he is Pry Of the P►ess,loumal, a daily newspaper publisthed at Vero Beach Hahn, Leslie L Conaway and
In River County. Florida: that the attached copy of �, being Cadho L Canaway, Mildred Jove
a Long. James E. Vamroy and Peggy
Sue Vamwy, Fronds P. Kelley and
Eliza� -�-C ��E dJLlil Kasen aneth a Kersey, and Williaw a
In tm matter of 1. Keser � Undo Sue Korean. The
subject property is located an the
north side of SR 60, +/.1,335 feet
east of.66th Avenue, and contains
approximately 7 comes, The subject
In the CoProperty Bas in the 1 /
(� Court, was pub- section o¢•.Sectiori 5 T wns1,Ip
Bshed in said newspaper In the Issues of Curl 1 - (� I 33S, Rongle 39E, lying and being in
Indian River Courcy, Florida.
A public hewing g at which pa.
ties in interest and citizens ,hall
Affiant further says that the said PresWoumal is a h be held nfiy to be.heord,
said Indian River County. Florida, and that the published h Vora Beach. i by the Board of
continuousty published in said Indian River County. Florida, n y has theretofore been County Com ilssioners of Dian
second class mail matter at the d+hi1Y and hes been entered as FRhrar' County, Florida in the
fora Post office i Vero Beach. in said Wen River County, Florida,
period of arm year next preceding the first Pubtkmtah of the attached copy of d' Commission < umbers of
advertisement: and affiant furter says that he has neither paid nor promised arty person, firm the �Y Adm(nt,traton Building
advertisement for publicationcorporation any �discount,
i said newspaper.
spcommissionp or refund for the �rpose of semaing this 01 1840 25thSt@K Vero
,MNp„awwp,�•4 hodh, Florida on Tuesday. -March
S Ir`�pc,1� t--y}r��-� I 18,1997, at 9:05 a.m. ' The pro.
,'` T A� before me this J day o "�.D.19 `1 Posed ordinance to rezone the sub.
�. as Ay' ��� s i«t Property Is entitiad:
UJ? AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
• MYCOMM 'Fhas• • RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
OCT. 11, 1997
N:•i4oCC311p63;Q (President) AMENDING THE ZONING
I �,• �L;= •�-rrt F -ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM.
..... OQ,.� State of Florida.,arCommissfoa Esp. to/11/eJ PANTING ZONING MAP FROM
Co o a n CC311063 RSA RMA AND CL TO CG, FOR
w•••••••'"'' -PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE
=NORTH SIDE OF SR 60, APPROXI.
Warr. S >L T1 rna MATELY 1,335 FEET EAST OF
66TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED
EREIN,JAND°PROVIDING FOR
DATE, zt�
a' The proposed ordinance may
businessular inspedw hours at N Ofthe Public cluri,fce f
to 'Clerk to 16 Board of County
Commtnloners, 1840 25th Street,
Varo Beech, Florida. For more
kdornhotion, • 011tod John Wachtel
at 567.8000, extension 247.
The Board of County Comm,,.
,loners may adopt another zoning
district, other than the district
requested, provided R is within the
some general use category.
Anyone who may wish to
appeal any decision which may be
made at this meeting will need tib
mum that a verbatim record of
the Proceedings is made, which
Includes testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meeting
must contact the Manly', Amari•
cant with Disabilities Ad (ADA)
Coadhhctor at 567.8000 exten.
$;an 223 at least 48 hours in
In Rkw C" 0'
Board of County Commissioner,
BY -s- Carolyn K Eggert, Chairman.
March 5,1997 104764sr
MARCH 18, 1"7 53 BOOK 100 PAGE 946
BOOK 100 PAGE 927
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 10, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D AR IIR
CONCRENCE
ert X. Reat ,
TffitOIIaB: Sasan Rohani, AICA • /C - /
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 10, 1997
RE: Jessie L. Baldwin and Others' Request to Amend the
Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 4.6 acres
from M-1 to C/I, and to Rezone Approzimately 7 acres from
RS -6, RM -6 and CL to Ca
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LIIDA 96-07-0203
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request involves both a land use designation amendment and a
rezoning. The land use designation amendment involves changing the
land use designation of 4.6 acres from M-1, Medium -Density.
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial
Node. Located on the north side of SR 60, at 63rd Court, that land
consists of lots 1-10 of the 12 -lot Wallace Acres subdivision.
The retoning request, totaling 7 acres, involves the entire Wallace
Acres subdivision, as well as the adjacent tract to the west.
Those 7 acres presently are within the following zoning districts:
-6, Single -Family Residential
Lots 3 Through 10
strict (up to 6 units/acre)
-6, Multiple -Family Residential
[District
Lots 1 and 2
(up to 6 units/acre)
, Limited Commercial District
Lots it and 12, and the
Tract to the West
The request is to rezone the entire seven acre subject property to
CG, General Commercial District. The purpose of this request is to
secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to develop the
property with commercial uses.
On September 26, 1996, 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 November 21, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5-0
to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for
their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide
whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation and
zoning district.
ORC Report
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report (dated January 30, 1997), which planning staff
received on February 4, 1997. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 7)
contained one objection to this proposed.amendment. That objection
was procedural in nature and related to the county's state mandated
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR).
According to state law, the county was required
adopted EAR to DCA by January 1, 1997. The county
that requirement by adopting its EAR on December
transmitting it to DCA on December 20, 1996.
MARCH 189 1997
54
to submit. an
complied with
17, 1996, and
Once a local
government's adopted EAR submittal date has passed, state law
prohibits that local government from amending its comprehensive
plan until DCA has determined that the EAR is sufficient. On
February 24, 1997, DCA determined that the county's EAR was
sufficient.
Between the county's January 1, 1997 EAR submittal date and DCA's
February 24, 1997 sufficiency determination, the county was
prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan. Because the DCA
ORC Report was issued on January 30, 1997, prior to DCA's EAR
sufficiency determination (February 24, 1997), the ORC Report
contained an objection based on the county's EAR not having been
determined to be sufficient [Section 163.3187(6), F.S. and Rule 9J -
5.0053(4)(e), F.A.C.]. The analysis section of this staff report
contains a response to DCA's objection.
Existing Land Use Pattern
The Wallace Acres subdivision contains 8 single-family houses. The
tract to the west is zoned CL and contains the "Bill's TV" store.
Land to the north, east and west of the subject property is zoned
CG and consists of the Indian River Mall and its commercial
outparcels. South of the subject property, across SR 60, laud is
zoned RS -6 and contains single-family homes.
Future Land Use Pattern
Lots 1-10 of the Wallace Acres subdivision, as well as land ttj
south, across SR 60, are designated M-1, Medium-Dernity
Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The M-1.
designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/
acre. Lots 11 and 12 of the subdivision, as well as the tract
abutting the subdivision on the west, are designated C/I,
Commercial/ Industrial Node, a designation which permits commercial
and industrial uses. The Indian River Mall property, abutting the
subject property on the north, east and west, is designated RC,
Regional Commercial. The RC designation permits major zegional
shopping centers designed to accommodate the needs of the retail
market area extending beyond the boundaries of the cot,.zYy.
Environment
The subject property contains many large protected caks. No
wetlands exist on site, although the northern portion of the
"Bill's TV" site may contain a native upland plant ccmfiunitj
According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does
not contain any flood hazard areas.
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
SR 60 provides access to the site. Classified as a principal
arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, the portion
of SR 60 between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue is a six lane divided
roadway with approximately 200 feet of public road right-of-way.
No expansions of this portion of SR 60 are programmed at this time.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. The analysis will address:'
• the county's response to DCA's ORC Report objection;
• concurrency of public facilities;
• compatibility with the surrounding area;
• consistency with the comprehensive plan; and
• potential impact on environmental quality.
County Response to DCA's ORC Report Objection
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff
report, DCA, in its January -30, 1997 ORC Report, raised an
objection based on the fact that the county's EAR had not yet been
determined to be sufficient. On February 24, 1997, DCA determined
that the county's EAR was sufficient. Therefore, that objection
has been addressed, and the county may amend its comprehensive
plan.
Concurrency ofPublic Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed' suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
MARCH 18, 1997 55
BODK101J PACE ��8
I
BOOK 100 PAG€929
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests,
conditional concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since
Comprehensive Plan amendment and rezoning requests are not
projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested zoning district or land use designation. For
commercial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is
retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per
acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used
for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated:
2. Existing Land Use Designation:
3. Proposed Land Use Designation:
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current
Land Use Designation:
--t4.6 acres
M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
C/I, Commercial -
Industrial Node
36 Dwelling Units
S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 46,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial
(Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual).
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the
development of the property indicates that the existing level of
service "D" or better on SR 60 and other impacted roads would not
be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Land -use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
c. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65$
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.4%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.6%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47.6%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 52.4%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units 8 P.M. Peak Hour
Rate % Inbound P.M. Percentage % Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(36 S 1.01 8 .65 8 .524 . 12)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units g Average Weekday Rate
(36 8 10.1 . 364)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Shopping Center
MARCH 189 1997 56
2. For 46,000 sq.ft. Shopping Centers in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends:
b. P.M. Peak Hour
Trip Ends:
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour):
i. Westbound
(P.M. Peak
ii. Eastbound
(P.M. Peak
d. Outbound (P.M.
Peak Hour):
i. Westbound
(P.M. Peak
ii. Eastbound
(P.M. Peak
94.56/1,000 square feet
8.69/1,000 square feet
50%
Hour): 52.4%
Hour): 47.6%
50%
Hour): 47.6%
Hour): 52.4%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue:
Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Total Square Footage x P.M. Peak
Hour Rate x Inbound P.M. Percentage x Inbound -Westbound
Percentage (46,000 x 8.69/1,000 x .5 x .524 = 105)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Total Square Footage $ Average Weekday Rate
(46,000 8 94.56/1,000 sq.ft. = 4,350)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR 60, at a Level of
Service "D": 2,840 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Existing Traffic volume on this segment of SR 60:
1,288 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip..Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 364. This was determined by multiplying the 36
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 4,350. This was determined by multiplying the
46,000 square feet of shopping center (most intense use), by ITE's
shopping center fitted curve factor of 94.56 Average Daily Trip
Ends/1,000 square feet.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the.p.m. peak hour on SR 60 is westbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 12. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (36) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65'k
(23) will be inbound and 35%- (13) will be outbound. Of the inbound
trips, 52.4* or 12 will be westbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total
square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed
amendment (46,000) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 8.69 p.m. peak
hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips
generated (400). Of these trips, 50sk (200) will be inbound and 50%
(200) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 52.4* or 105 will be
westbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property
under the proposed land use designation would generate 93 (105 - 12
= 93) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 12
that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject
property under the existing land use designation.
Using
a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour
/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (5%-) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
MARCH 189 1997 57
BOOK 100 PAGE RJU
Fr-- I
BOOK 100 ME=
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed traffic volumes; this is
updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of SR 60 adjacent to this site
is 2,840 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level of
Service (LOS) "Dn, while the committed (existing + vested) traffic
volume on this segment of SR 60 --is 2,623 trips (peak hour/peak
season/peak direction). The additional 105 peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips created by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed amendment would increase the
total peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
of SR 60 to approximately 2,728.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR 60 and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Segment
Road
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
1230N
I-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2640
12305
I-95
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2640
1315N
U.S. 1
4tn Street ® IR Blvd.
8th Street
2270
1315S
U.S. 1
4th Street ® IR Blvd.
8th Street
2270
1320N
U.S. 1
8th Street
12th Street
2270
1320S
U.S. 1
8th Street
12th Street
2270
1325N
U.S. 1
12th Street
South VB City Lim.
2370
1325S
U.S. 1
12th Street
South VB City Lim.
2370
1330N
U.S. 1
South VB City Lim.
17th Street
2270
13305
U.S. 1
South VB City Lim.
17th Street
2270
1335N
U.S. 1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1335S
U.S. 1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
Segment
Roadway
Capacity
Seament
Road
From
To
LOS "D"
1915E
S.R. 60
I-95
82nd Ave.
1890
1915W
S.R. 60
I-95
82nd Ave.
1890
1920E
S.R. 60
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1920W
S.R. 60
82nd Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1925E
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1925W
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1930E
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1930W
S.R. 60
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1935E
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1935W
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1940E
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
1940W
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
1945E
S.R. 60
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
2328
1945W
S.R. 60
20th Ave.
Old Dixie Hwy.
2328
1950E
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
2328
1950W
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
2328
1955E
S.R. 60
10th Ave.
U.S. 1
2326
1955W
S.R. 60
10th Ave.
U.S. 1
2328
2335N
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S.R. 60
880
2335S
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S.R. 60
880
2470N
27th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
880
24705
27th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
880
2925N
43rd Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
880
2925S
43rd Ave.
12th Street
16th street
880
2930N
43rd Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
880
2930S
43rd Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
880
302ON
58th Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
880
3020S
Seth Ave.
12th Street
16th Street
880
3025N
58th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
30255
58th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
303ON
58th Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
30305
58th Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
3035N
58th Ave.
41st Street
45th Street
760
3035S
58th Ave.
41st Street
45th Street
760
304ON
Seth Ave.
45th Street-
49th Street
760
3040S
Seth Ave.
45th Street
49th Street
760
3045N
Seth Ave.
49th StrVet
65th Street
1230
3045S
58th Ave.
49th Street
65th Street
1230
305ON
58th Ave.
65th Street
69th street
1230
3050S
58th Ave.
65th Street
69th Street
1230
3055N
58th Ave.
69th Street
C.R. 510
820
30555
58th Ave.
69th Street
C.R. 510
820
312ON
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
3120S
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
313ON
66th Ave.
26th Street
41st Street
1230
MARCH 189 1997 58
31305
66th Ave.
26th Street
3330N
82nd Ave.reet
41st Street
1230
3330S
82nd Ave.
12th Street
S.R. 60
760
4420E
41st Street
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
760
4720E
26th Street
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
1230
4720E
26th Street
66th Ave.,
58th Ave.
880
4730W
26th Street
58th Ave.
58th Ave.
880
43rd Ave.
880
Roadway
Existing
Demand
Vested
Total
Segmentge
Available
Positive
Existing
Seament
Volume
Volume
Demand
Project
Concurrency
Agment
C acity
)eMand
Determination
1230N
12305
1149
129
1278
1362
2
1315N
1153
956
1181271
1369
3
Y
Y
13155
1262
144
161
1100
1170
3
Y
1320N
1120
168
1423
1288
847
3
Y
1320S
1269
163
1432
982
838
3
Y
132SN
1216
177
1393
977
3
Y
13255
1312
166
1478
892
3
Y
1330
1216
233
"'1449
721
4
Y
133055
1312
226
1538
732
q
Y
1335N
1442
304
1746
524
5
Y
1335S
1315
313
1628
642
5
Y
1915E
925
534
1459
431
6
Y
1915W
1039
487
1526
364
5
Y
1920E
1120
771
1891
1219
7
Y
1920E
1294
711
2005
1105
g
Y
1925E
1170
1377
2547
293
11
Y
1925W
1288
1335
2623
217
33
Y
1930E
1116
1450
2566
274
18
Y
1930E
1209
1427
2636
204
25
Y
20
Y
Roadway
Existing
Demand
Vested
Total
Segment
Available
Positive
Existing
Segment
Volume
Vol+mP
Demand
Se
Segment
Project
Concurrency
Caaacitv
Demand
)eterminatioit
1935E
1074
1005
2079
761
17
1935W
1202
983
2185655
14
Y
1940E
863
730
1593
917
15
Y
1940W
859
719
1578
932_
12
Y
1945E
928
642
1570
758
Y
1945E
985
628
1613
715
11
Y
1950E
1037
484
1521
807
g
Y
1950E
1955E
789
937
480
1269
1059
5
q
Y
Y
1955E
491
451
442
1388
933
940
4
Y
2335N
169
105
274
1395
606
3
Y
23355
134
102
236
644
5
6
Y
2470N
281
136
417
463
Y
24705
507
141
648
232
2
Y
2925N
431
96
527
353
3
Y
2925S
549
95
644
236
2
Y
2930N
498
192
690
190
3
Y
29305
673
191
864
3
Y16
302ON
460
288
748
132
4
Y
3020S
440
289
29
151
2
Y
302SN
510
616
11126
764
3
Y
3025S
564
614
1178712
3
Y
303ON
461
386
847
1043
4
Y
3030S
495
393
788
1002
q
.
Y
3035N
420
126
546
214
3
Y
30355
322
127
311
q449
Y
3040N
379
102
481
279
3
Y
.30405
331
102
433
327
3
Y
3045
380
38
418
812
3
Y
304555
299
43
342
887
4
Y
30505
3Z7
21
348
882
2
Y
30505
265
20
285
945
3
Y
3055N
278
109
386
433
2
Y
30555
212
109
321
499
3
Y
312ON
214
76
290
470
2
Y
3120S
169
77
246
514
50
Y
313ON
196
143
339
891
45
Y
31303
162
143
305
925
30
Y
3330
171
56
227
533
25
Y
333055
238
67
305
455
2
Y
4420E
17
9
26
1204
3
Y
4720E
4720E
26
143
169
711
20
25
Y
4730E
19
140
143
47
693
30
Y
Y
187
20
Y
- Water
A retail commercial use of 46,000 square the subject
t o
feen
Property will have a water consumption rate a 1n
Residential units (ERU), or 3,450 gallons/day. This 3.8 Equivalent
based upon
a level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines
extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant
which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000
gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand
associated with the proposed amendment.
- Wastewater
The subject property is serviced by the West Regional Wastewater
Treatment Plant. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the
proposed amendment, development of the property will have a
wastewater generation rate of approximately 13.8 Equivalent
Residential Units (ERU), or 3,450 gallons/day. This is based upon
the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The West
Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining
capacity of approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate
the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment.
MARCH 18, 1997
59
TOOK 100 PnE 93
I
BOOK loo PAGE 933
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 46,000 square foot
commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation
will be approximately 230 waste generation units (WGU) annually.
A WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of solid waste generated,
the 46,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected
to generate 383.3 cubic yards of waste/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 850,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess
of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved
IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the --property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most. -intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
approximately 150,282 square feet, or 3.45 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, would be approximately 145,836 cubic feet..
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 112,378 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 10.26 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum
discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 112,378 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense
use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment/rezoning
request would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to accommodate
the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed
land use designation.
Consistency with Comcrehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may only be amended in
such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan
pursuant to Section 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 the action which the county will take in order to direct
the community's development. As courses of action committed to by
the county, policies provide the basis for all county land
development related decisions --including plan amendment decisions.
MARCH 18, 1997 60
While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more
applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of
particular applicability are the following policies:
- Future Land Use Policy 13.3
The most important policy to consider in evaluating a plan
amendment request for consistency with the county's Comprehensive
Plan is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy requires
that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a 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.
Staff's position is that this land use amendment request meets
Policy 13.3's third criterion.
When the county's comprehensive plan was adopted in 1990, the
subject property and all surrounding land were correctly designated
for residential uses. Since that time, however, the plan has been
amended to allow the development of an approximately 1,500,000
square foot regional shopping center, including a regional mall, on
land abutting the subject property on the north, east and west.
That project received Development of Regional Impact approval, and
the associated regional mall has opened.
For several reasons, the subject property was not considered for
redesignation when the plan was amended to allow the regional
shopping center. First, the subject property consisted of single-
family homes. Second, there was no indication that residents of
the subject property wanted to convert their property to
commercial. Finally, the developer of the regional shopping center
project did not have control of the subject property.
Although the applicants for the subject request did not raise
objections to the regional shopping center land use plan amendment
when it was approved, the county did consider the shopping center's
impacts on the subject property. At that time, the county
determined that, while the C/I designation may be preferable for
the subject property, required buffers would somewhat mitigate
impacts on the subject property.
Nevertheless, adoption of the plan amendment associated with the
regional shopping center caused the subject property to become a
residential enclave that is nearly surrounded by commercial uses.
The subject request is an opportunity to eliminate that enclave and
create a more consistent land use designation pattern in this area
of the county.
Therefore, the commercial development of land abutting the subject
property on the north, east and west constitutes a substantial
change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that
reason, the third criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
has been met, and the proposed amendment is consistent with Future
Land Use Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.23
Policy 1.23 of the Future Land Use Element states that no node
should be considered for expansion unless 70% of the land area
(less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development,
with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise
warranted.
The intent of Future Land Use Policy 1.23 is to establish specific
criteria for node expansion. Without such criteria, decisions are
often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70%r standard, then, is a
measure of whether a node needs to be expanded.
According to the County's Commercial/Industrial Data Source, the
subject node is 72.5 developed. Therefore, the proposed amendment
to expand the node is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.23.
- Future Land Use Policy 1.20
Future Land Use Policy 1.20 states that node size shall be based on
population and other demand .characteristics within the general
market area of the node. The fact that the subject node is already
72.5% developed and is the fastest developing node in the county
demonstrates that there is demand for additional land in that node.
For those reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use
Policy 1.20.
MARCH 189 1997 61 600K 100 Face 934
L
BOOK 100 PAGE 935
- Future Land Use Policy 1.21
This policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate
strip,commercial development and urban sprawl, and to provide for
maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Given the
land use designation pattern along SR 60, between I-95 and the City
of Vero Beach, the proposed amendment will not result in strip
commercial development.
Presently, the SR 60/58th Avenue Commercial/ Industrial Node extends
on the north side of SR 60 from east of 58th Avenue to 66th Avenue,
a distance of more than one mile. The exception is the M-1
designated portion of the subject property. That portion of the
subject property abuts SR 60 for only 192 feet, constituting a
residential enclave in a commercial area. Redesignating this
property will result in infill, rather than strip, development.
Because the development pattern of the area is already set and will
not be impacted by the proposed amendment, the proposed amendment
will not cause strip commercial development along SR 60. For that
reason, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.21.
- Future Land Use 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. '-
Compatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that development under the proposed land use
designation and zoning would be more compatible with surrounding
areas than development under current conditions. Since properties
to the north, east and west of the site have a similar land use
designation and zoning as is being requested for the site, the
request is for a continuation of an existing land use designation
and zoning pattern. In fact, the subject property is a-4.6 acre
residential enclave within a 296 acre commercial/industrial node.
By eliminating that enclave, the proposed amendment would result in
a more consistent, efficient and logical land use designation and
zoning pattern in that area of the county. Additionally,
eliminating the enclave would also make zoning administration more
efficient.
Besides increasing compatibility, the proposed amendment would
eliminate potential incompatibilities associated with residential
use of the subject property. Potential incompatibilities
associated with residential development on the site include the
noise, lights, and traffic generated by a 130.3 acre regional
shopping center and a six lane highway. Although those impacts can
be somewhat mitigated through setbacks, buffering and site design,
the significant difference in -area, size, and intensity of uses
indicate that incompatibilities would continue.
In contrast, the primary impacts of commercial development on the
site would be on the single-family houses to the south, across SR
60. There are, however, 2 factors, in addition to the factors
previously mentioned (setbacks, buffering and site design), that
work to mitigate the impacts of commercial development on the site.
First,. there is the 200 foot separation provided by the SR 60
rightof-way. In addition, the county is presently developing a SR
60 Corridor Plan. That plan will contain enhanced sign,
landscaping and building design standards for commercial
development. The provisions of that plan would apply to any
commercial development on the subject site.
For these reasons, commercial development of the site would be
compatible with surrounding areas.
Potential Impact on E_nyi onmental ouality
Environmental impacts of development on the subject property would
be the same under either the existing or the proposed land use
designation. Since the subject property does not contain any
MARCH 189 1997 62
M M
M
parcels that are 5 acres or more, the county's native upland plant
community set aside requirement does not apply. Single-family
residential development on lots that are 1 acre or less are exempt
from the county's tree removal and land clearing permit
requirements. In contrast, all commercial and multiple -family
development is subject to the county's tree removal and land
clearing permit requirements. For these reasons, no adverse
environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated.
CONCLUSION
Surrounded by a 130.3 acre regional shopping center and abutting a
major road, the subject property is more appropriate for commercial
uses than for residential uses. Based on the analysis, staff has
determined that the requested land use designation and zoning
district are compatible with surrounding• areas, consistent with the
comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency criteria, will have no
negative impacts on environmental quality, and meet all applicable
land use designation amendment and rezoning criteria. Finally,
DCA's sufficiency determination of the county's EAR addresses the
one ORC Report objection. For these reasons, staff supports the
request.
Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission
recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this
request to redesignate the subject property to C/I and rezone the
subject property to CG.
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that this
is one of the five items considered by Planning and Zoning on
September 26, 1996 and submitted to the Board for approval on
November 21, 1996. All amendments were submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs on January 30, 1997 and the DCA issued its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on each
amendment. The DCA filed one objection, that the County could not
amend its Comp Plan until its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report)
was approved. On February 24, 1997 the DCA determined that the
County's EAR was sufficient. The Board is now allowed to take
action on each amendment.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-008 amending the land use element of
the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation for ± 4.6 acres located on the North
side of S.R. 60 at 63rd Court from M-1 to C/I and
providing severability and effective date.
MARCH 189 1997 63 BOOK 100 PAGE 936
BOOK 100 PAGE 937
ORDINANCE NO. 97-08
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR t4.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF S.R. 60, AT 63RD COURT, FROM M-1 TO C/I; AND PROVIDING
SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on September 26, 1996,
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 November 12, 1996,
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 November 25, 1996, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report noted that, pursuant to Section
163.3191, F.S., the county cannot amend its comprehensive plan
until its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been determined
to be sufficient, and
WHEREAS, the EAR was determined to be sufficient on February
24, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on March 18, 1997, after advertising pursuant to
F.H.163.3184 (15) (b) (2) and (c) ;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: _
MARCH 189 199'% 64
ORDINANCE NO. 97-08
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 three (3) 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:
ALL OF LOTS 1-10 INCLUSIVE, LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION IN
STATE ROAD 60 RIGHT-OF-WAY, WALLACE ACRES, ACCORDING TO THE
PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT
COURT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA IN PLAT BOOK 7,
PAGE 12, SAID LANDS SITUATE LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER -
COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Is changed from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node and the Future Land
Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Reveal 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(1)(b),
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 at a
public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource
Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Tippin , seconded by Commissioner Ginn ,
and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert �Aye
Vice -Chairman John W. TippinyA e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY _
BY:
ATTEST BY:
f K. ton, erk
Acknowledgment by the Department State of the tate of Florida
this day of , 1997.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this
day of , 1997, at A.M./P.M. and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
MARCH 18, 1997 65
BOOK 100 FACE � �
Boa DO PAGE 939
ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by
Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-009 amending the zoning ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from RS -6, RM -6 and CL
to CG for the property located on the North side of
SR 60 at 63rd Court and described herein and
providing an effective date.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-09
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RS -6,
RM -6, AND CL TO CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF SR 60 AT 63RD COURT, 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:
ALL OF LOTS 1-12 INCLUSIVE, LESS AND EXCEPT THAT PORTION
IN STATE ROAD 60 RIGHT-OF-WAY, WALLACE ACRES, ACCORDING
TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF
THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 12, SAID LANDS SITUATE LYING AND
BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
TOGETHER WITH THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THE WEST 175
FEET OF THE SOUTH 10 ACRES OF THE WEST 20 ACRES OF TRACT 6,
SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST LESS STATE ROAD 60
RIGHT-OF-WAY. SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Be changed from RS -6, RM -6, AND CL TO CG
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
MARCH 18, 1997 66
ORDINANCE NO. 97- 09
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. 97- 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 a. 163.3184(10).
Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida, on this 18th day of March, 1997.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 5th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Tippin , seconded by Commissioner
Ginn , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
Aye
Aye
A e
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY: z 1(""M4
Carol K. Egger hairman
ATTEST BY:
J ey R. Ba n, Clerk
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date:
MARCH 18, 1997 67
600K 100 PAGE940
L_
BOOK 100 PAGE 941
PUBLIC HEARING - THOMAS S. F[AMMOND -REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 15.2 ACRES FROM L-1 TO M-1 - REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 30.3 ACRES FROM A-1 TO RMH-8
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-231;
Proo Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, s
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida; that
billed to ! IV
was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of
Swwoom tato and subscribed for
me this
—t--_—uay o A-
Z.
-
YN,.,Ip4
PqZ. President
My Comm. Expires= _
Augusi 25. 1997 _-
Pk. CC31u845
SOF F1�,.•.
P9ESro-,T
Saari -o^Gi MV C'rn:r ALq�s- .
tinrx_••.Si\ �Q.+? pFFSr• �F��L�(ffJJJ ��`
MARCH 18, 1997
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS, EXPANDING THE URBAN
SERVICE AREA, AND ADDING A NEW POLICY
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
�e►�a.reri I '�
- �,- -
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian Rivertscom County, Florida, will con-
sider the use of�landrowi�thin a uls to nintrorerpodrated portisto ions of Indian River lCounty�and
adding a new celicy toe Future Land Use Element. A public hearing on the
900=on 11held on Vli Chambers of a CountyyAAdministration at9:05
located at County8
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida At this public hearing, the Board of County
Commissioners will make a Mal decision whether to amend the county's compre-
hensive plan. The proposed amendments are Included in a proposed ordinance
entitled:
AN AMENDING THE F INANCE OUTURE LAND UINDIAN SE ELEMENT By CHAONGING
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR:
1. t 15.2 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY S6 OF A MILE EAST
OF 74TH AVENUE• ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 26TH STREET,
r FROM L-1 TO M-1;
2. t 111 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58TH AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-2 TO C-1;
3. t 15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
58TH AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M-1 TO
C/I;
4. t4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 60 AND 63RD COURT, FROM M-1
TO C/I;
5. z 101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SR 60 AND 102ND AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I, EX-
PANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY :p 29.5 ACRES, AND
ADDING A NEW POLICY TO THE FUTURE LAND USE EL-
EMENT;
6. :L118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO
ROAD, x660 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE, FROM C/I TO
PUB; AND
PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILrrY AND EFFECrIVE
DATE
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com-
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad-
ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between
the hours or 8:30 am. and 5:00 py.m. on weekdays.
nese hoplar busi-
ers a o�flice or
thenee aClerk be o theBoardof Cthe onry Cotmmgiss(ieoners1840
pecte
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
ing 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
exten-
sion n223 at leasasta48 hoursinadtlitiesvance or meeting.i
F rdmom inf rmationn contact
John Wachtel at 567-8000, ext. 247.
68
Indian River County
Board or County Commissioners
BY: •s- Carolyn K. Eggert. Chairman
PRESS -JOURNAL
-Published Daily
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
Before the undersigned allthOnty personally appeared Darryl K. tucks who on
oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach
inInica River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
. _
in the matter of
in t1 3 Court, was pub
ILshed In said newspaper in the issues of%M ' 'w w 1 1 ( `R 1
Affiant further says that the said Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in
said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said W"peper has heretofore been
continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daffy and has been entered as
second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian Rim County, Florida,
for a period advertisement;of one and a year
next sa he has neither publicationeding the first nor opithe romisedany ypperso firpy m
or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this
advertisement for publication in said newspaper.
�p T
�
S atir before me this 15 day of
it•,��: apt A.9
C* �y Caeun. f � : /1. ii�latii
Ngo C11,17 ,
C311063; q_r (President)
fP 4 ��y SnEaA At TUTTLL. NOTARY PUBLIC
�'•., P� ;� OQ`,•F State of Florida. My Commission Exp. to/ 11/91
Co �n "`amber. CC311 F OF F
eaR: a IL i1rP1'Ii
C-19
.-,
Subject Property,
t
RYN-e ..•�y:
�I
NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING
The Board of County Commis-
sioners of Indian River County,
Florida, will consider the adoption
of a county ordinance rezoning
)land from: A-1, Agricultural District
I(up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RMH-8,
Mobile Home Residential District
(up to 8 units/acre). The subject
oroperty is owned by Thomas S.
Hammond. The subject property is
iocated on the north side of 26th
Street, approximately 1/4 mile
east of 74th Avenue, and contains
approximately 30.3 acres. The
subject property lies in the south-
west 1/4 section of Section 31,
Township 32S, Range 39E, lying
and being in Indian River County,
Florida.
A public hearing at which par-
ties in interest and citizens shall
nave an opportunity to be heard,
will be held by the Board of
County Commissioners of Indian
River County, Florida, in the
County Commission Chambers of
the County Administration Building,
iocated at 1840 25th Street, Vero
Beach, Florida on Tuesday, March
18,1997, at 9:05 am. The pro-
posed ordinance to rezone the sub-
ject property is entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AMENDING THE ZONING
ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM
PANYING ZONING MAP FROM
A-1 TO RMHA FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF 26th STREET, APPROXI-
MATELY ONE QUARTER MILE
EAST OF 74TH AVENUE, AND
DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PRO-'
VIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE.
The proposed ordinance may be
inspected by the public during reg-
ular business hours at the Office of
the Clerk to the Board of County
Commissioners, 1840 25th Street,`
Vero Beach, Florida. For more
information, contact John Wachtel
at 567-8000, extension 247.
The Board of County Commis-
sioners may adopt another zoning
district, other than the district
requested, provided it is within the
some general use category.
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 testimony and evidence
upon which the appeal is based.
Anyone who needs a special
accommodation for this meefing
must contact the county's Ameri-
cans with Disabilities Act (ADA)
Coordinator at 567-8000 exten.
sion 223 at least 48 hours in
advance of meeting.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s- Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman
March 5, 1997 1047644r
MARCH 189 1997 69
BOOK 100 PAGE
BOOK 100 PAGE 943
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
D CONCQRR$NCE
A e -,V// a r � 9�
ober Kent , CP
ROUGH: Sasan Rchani, AICP S 1
K*
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM: John Wachtel�N�
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATE: March 7, 1997
RE: Thomas S. Hammond's request to amend the comprehensive
plan to redesignate approximately 15.2 acres from L-1 to
M-1, and to rezone approximately 30.3 acres from A-1 to
RM8-8
PLAN AMENDMENT NQMBER: LDDA 96-07-0232
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County.Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This request involves both a land use designation amendment and a
rezoning. The land use designation amendment involves
redesignating approximately 15.2 acres from L-1, Low -Density.
Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre) to M-1, Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre). The rezoning request involves
changing 130.3 acres, consisting of the 115.2 acres to be
redesignated and the adjacent 115.1 acres to the east, from A-1,
Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RMH-8, Mobile Home
Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). The subject property is
located on the north side of 26th Street, approximately a quarter
mile east of 74th Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure
the land use designation and zoning necessary to develop the site
as a mobile home park.
On September 26, 1996, 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.
On November 21, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1
to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for
their review.
At both the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing and the
transmittal public hearing, Robert Adair of the Kerr Center for
Sustainable Agriculture raised concerns regarding a mobile home
park's compatibility with the existing agricultural uses to the
north of the subject property. At both of those meetings, Mr.
Adair asked that the subject request be denied. Mr. Adair also
stated, however, that if the subject request was not denied, then
requiring a large building setback on the subject property would be
an acceptable alternative. At both public hearings, staff pointed
out that special development conditions could not be imposed on a
land use designation amendment and/or rezoning approval.
After Mr. Adair spoke at the transmittal hearing, the Board of
County Commissioners discussed redesignating only the south 1,200
feet of the *1,320 foot site to M-1. The purpose of that
alternative would be to ensure that a 120 foot mobile home park
building separation distance would be established from the existing
agricultural uses to the north of the subject property.
The proposed amendment, along with an addendum, was transmitted to
DCA on November 21, 1996. The addendum explained that the Board
approved transmittal of an amendment redesignating only the
southern 1,200 feet of the subject property. The addendum,
however, requested that DCA review the request for the egtire site,
but to be aware that a portion of the site may be removed from the
request at the time of adoption. This issue will be discussed in
more detail in the Compatibility portion of the Analysis section of
this report.
MARCH 18, 1997
70
s
r
The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not
to adopt the requested land use designation and zoning district.
ORC tenort
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report proposed
received on Februaryed 4, 1.997y 30, 1997), which and
staff
contained one objecon to this The DCA ORC Report (attachment 8)
was procedural in nature and related to tosed heecouuntyy•s sthaa�eobjection
Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR), mandated
According to state law, the county was required to submit an
adopted EAR to DCA by January
that requirement by adoptinits 1997. The county complied with
transmitting it to DCA on adopting
2n Dlc�e�m6ber 17, 1996, and
government's to
EAR submittal date has passed,
Prohibits state local
prohibits that local government from amending its co
Plan until DCA has determined that the EAR is sufficient. comprehensive
February 24, 1997 DCA determined that the county's EAR was
sufficient.
Between the county's January 1, 1997 EAR submittal date and DCA,s
February 24, 1997 sufficiency determination, the county was
Prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan. Because the DCA
ORC Report was issued on January 30, 1997, prior to DCA's EAR
sufficiency determination (February 24, 1997), the ORC Report
contained an objection based on the county,s EAR not having been
determined to be sufficient [Section 163.3187(6), F.S. and Rule 9J -
5.0053(4)(e), F.A-C.]. The analysis section of this staff report
contains a response to DCA's objection.
Exis— tins nand UsePattern
The 130.3 acre tract and land to the north consist of citrus groves
and are zoned A-1. A portion of the land to the north of the
subject property is owned and used b
Sustainable Agriculture, an agricultural by
the facility. ter for
to the east, west and south of the subject site is zoned R _8Landd
is part of the Village Green Mobile Home Park.
residences exist to the west and south of the Mobile home
acre tract,
while land to the east of that tract is used by the mobile home
park for storage and maintenance.
The west *15.2 acres of the t30.3 acre tract are designated L-1,
Low -Density Residential -1, on the county future land use map. The
L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3
units/acre. The east 115.1 acres of the 130.3 acre tract are
designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1, on the county future
land use map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with
densities up to 8 units/acre. The ;30.3 acre tract is bounded on
the north by L-1 designated land and on the east, west and south by
M-1 designated land.
Environment
Being a site that has been cleared for agriculture, the subject
property is not designated as environmentally important or
environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlandsg is
or native upland plant communities exist on site. Accordin
Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property doe
any flood hazard areas. s not contain
Utilities and Services
The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county.
Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is
available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.
Transportation System
The property's south boundary abuts 26th Street. Classified as a
collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this
segment of 26th Street is a 2 -lane unpaved road with approximately
30 feet of existing public road right-of-way. This portion of 26th
Street is programmed for paving and for expansion to 60 feet of
public road right-of-way by 1998.
AIN YSIS
In this section, an analysis
application will be presented.
include:
MARCH 189 1997 71
of the reasonableness of the
Specifically, this section will
booK 100 FACE 944
BOOK 100 PAGE 94
• the county's response to DCA's ORC Report objection;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on the county's
residential allocation ratio;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the
county's comprehensive plan;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding area; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality,
County Response to DCA's ORC Report Obiection
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff
report, DCA, in its January 30, 1997 ORC Report, raised an
objection based on the fact that the county's EAR had not yet been
determined to be sufficient. On February 24, 1997, DCA determined
that the county's EAR was sufficient. Therefore, that objection
has been addressed, and the county may amend its comprehensive
plan.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area
deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan
establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water,
Wastewater, Solid Waste, Drainage and Recreation (Future Land Use
Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these services is necessary
to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community.
The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also
require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum
acceptable standards for these services and facilities are
maintained.
Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no
development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the
concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements
Element. For land use amendment and rezoning requests, conditional
concurrency review is required.
Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of
each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use
amendment and rezoning requests are not projects, county
regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the
most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested
land use designation or zoning. For residential land use amendment
and rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the
County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built
on the site, given the size of the -property and the maximum density
under the proposed land use designation and zoning. To account for
the most intense use, the concurrency review will consider the
development potential of the entire 30.3 acre parcel. The site
information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:
1. Size of overall parcel: 130.3 acres
2. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 115.2 acres
3. Existing Land Use Designation: ±15.2 acres of L-1, Low -
Density Residential -1 (up
to 3 units/acre) and
±15.1 acres of M-1,
Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
4. Proposed Land Use Designation:
S. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Existing Land Use Designation:
6. Most Intense Use of Subject Property
Under Proposed Land Use Designation:
- Transportation
30.3 acres of M-11
Medium -Density
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre)
166 dwelling units
242 dwelling units
A review of. the traffic impacts that would result= -from the
development of the maximum number of units allowed on the subject
property under the proposed land use designation indicates that the
existing level of service "D" or better on impacted roadways would
MARCH 18, 1997
72
not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60 (link receiving the most trips), from
66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue: Weetbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units E P.M. Peak Hour
Rate B Inbound P.M. Percentage B Inbound-Weetbound Percentage
(166 8 1.01 B .65 8 .80 . 87)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units 8 Average Weekday Rate
(166 8 10.1 . 1,677)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 65%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 20%
ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 80%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60 (link receiving the most trips), from
66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue: Westbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units B P.M. Peak Hour
Rate 8 Inbound P.M. Percentage 8 Inbound -Westbound Percentage
(242 B 1.01 8 .65 8 .80 . 127)
(trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model)
S. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of'Units 8 Average Weekday Rate
(242 % 10.1 a 2,444)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR 60, at a Level of
Service "D": 3,110 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this
segment of SR 60: 2,065 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
tripe
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 1,677. This was determined by multiplying the 166
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use
designation is 2,444. This was determined by multiplying the 242
units (most intense use), by ITE's single-family residential factor
Of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on SR 60 is westbound.
MARCH 18, 1997 73 BOOK 100 PACE
FP-- 7
BOOK 100 PAGE 947
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 87. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (166) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.0.1 -p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(109) will be inbound and 35%- (58) will be outbound. Of the
inbound trips, 80$ or 87 will be westbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the
subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total.
number of units allowed under the proposed amendment (242) was
multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit to
determine the total number of trips generated (244). Of these
trips, 65% (159) will be inbound and 35% (85) will be outbound. Of
the inbound trips, M or 127 will be westbound. Therefore, the
most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land
use designation would generate 40 (127 - 87 - 40) more peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 87 that would be
generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the
existing land use designation.
Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak
hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use
were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted
roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as
roadway segments which receive five percent (54k) or more of the
project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips,
whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
Based on the modified gravity model and the hand assignment, the
roadway segment on the county roadway concurrency network that is
most impacted by residential development on the subject property is
SR 60, from 66th Avenue to 82nd Avenue. That segment will receive
17 of the 127 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated.
The traffic capacity for the segment of•SR 60 most impacted by this
request is 3,110 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at
Level of Service (LOS) "D", while the Total segment Demand
(existing traffic volume + vested traffic volume) on that segment
of SR 60 is 2,065 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction).
The additional 17 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
created by the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment would increase the total peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips for that segment of SR 60 to
approximately 2,082.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR 60 and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in
this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the segments to
accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request.
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
Roadway
Seament
Road
--
From
To
Segment
Capacity
LOS "D"
1915E
S.R. 60
I-95
82nd Avenue
1,890
1920E
S.R. 60
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
3,110
1920W
S.R. 60
82nd Avenue
66th Avenue
3,110
1925E
S.R. 60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
2,840
1925W
S.R. 60
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
2,840
1930W
S.R. 60
58th Avenue
43rd Avenue
2,840
3025N
58th Avenue
16th Street
S.R. 60
1,890
312ON
66th Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
31205
66th Avenue
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
313ON
66th Avenue
26th Street
41st Street
1,230
3130S
66th Avenue
26th Street
41st Street
1,230
3330N
82nd Avenue
12th Street
S.R. 60
760
3340N
82nd Avenue
S.R. 60
65th Street s
600
3340S
82nd Avenue
S.R. 60
65th Street
600
4720E
26th Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
880
4720W
26th Street
66th Avenue
58th Avenue
880
MARCH 18, 1997 74
Roadway
Seament
Existing
Existing
Volume
Demand
Vested
volume
Total
Segment
De Ana
Available
Segment
Capacity
Project
Demand
Positive
Concurrency
Determination
1915E
925
534
1459
431
12
-y
1920E
1120
771
1891
1219
19
y
1920W
1294
711
2065
1105
17
y
1925E
1170
1377
2547
293
9
y
1925W
1288
1335
2633
217
19
y
1930W
1209
1427
2636
204
10
y
3025N
510
616
1126
764
9
y
312ON
214
76
290
470
38
y
31205
169
77
339
514
21
y
313ON
196
143
305
891
9
y
31303
162
143
305
925
16
y
3330N
171
56
227
533
6
y
3340N
48
39
87
513
25
y
33405
44
40
84
516
25
y
4720E
26
143
169
711
4
y
4720W
19
143
162
718
10
y
- Water
With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate
242 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of
242 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 60,500 gallons/day.
This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The
subject property is presently served by the South County Reverse
Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of
approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the
additional demand generated by the proposed amendment. When the
North County Reverse Osmosis Plant is complete, it will serve the
subject property. This plant will have a capacity of approximately
2,000,000 gallons/day and will be able to accommodate the
additional demand generated by the subject request.
- Wastewater
Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning,
development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate
of approximately 242 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 60,500
gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of
250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater lines extend to the site
from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently
has a remaining capacity of more than 200,000 gallons/day and can
accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject
request.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. __ The county's adopted level of
service standard for landfill capacity is 2.37 cubic yards/person/
year. With the county's average -of approximately 2.3 persons/unit,
a 242 unit residential development would be anticipated to house
approximately 557 people (2.3 X 242). For the subject request to
meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 2.37 cubic
yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to
accommodate approximately 1,320 (557 X 2.37) cubic yards/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 850,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on the analysis, staff determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site
under the proposed zoning district.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since
the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian
River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the
property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess
of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved
IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service
standards do not apply, since the property does not lie within a
floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge
standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the
proposed amendment, the maximum area of impervious surface would be
MARCH 189 1997 75 BOOK 100 PAA48
BOOK 100 PAGE 949
approximately 858,132 square feet, or 19.7 acres. The maximum
runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the
25 year/24 hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch
discharge requirement, would be approximately 926,461 cubic feet.
In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the
applicant would be required to retain approximately 706,129 cubic
feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the
subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff
rate is 245.29 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis, the drainage level of service standard
would be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum
discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and requiring
retention of the 706,129 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense
use of the property.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
A review of county recreation facilities and the projected -demand
that would result from the most intense development that could
occur on the property under the proposed amendment indicates that
the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below
illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed
development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by
park type.
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Imnact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land
use change on the county's Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). A
RAR is the measure of total residential units allowed under the
land use plan compared to -the number of residential units expected
to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on
population projections.
In 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, the plan allowed
over 119,000 units. In this case, the proposed amendment would
increase the maximum number of residential units allowed on the
site by 76. That increase would have an insignificant impact on
the county's RAR.
More than off -setting the 76 unit increase that would occur with
the proposed amendment is the reduction in build -out units that has
resulted from land use plan amendment approvals since plan
adoption. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments
involving residentially designated land within the urban service
area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been
a net decrease of 1,141 units in the county's build -out projection.
The following table depicts the information used to determine the
change in the number of units. Since the Commercial/ Industrial
(C/I), Regional Commercial (RC), and Conservation -1 (C-1)
designations are not intended for residential uses, land use
amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1
reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments
redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density
residential reduce the number of units allowed.
In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to
residential, or from -one type of residential to a higher density
residential, increase the number of units allowed. Since staff
estimates that 25% of land designated for residential ubes is used
for infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention, the net
developable acreage of any residential land use plan amendment is
75% --of the total acreage.
MARCH 18, 1997 76
r �
LOS
Project
(Acres per --
Demand
Surplus
Park Tyne
1000 population)
(Acres)
crea e
Urban District
5.0
2.79
170.661
Community (north)
3.0
1.67
15.895
Beach
1.5
0.84
61.598
River
1.5
0.84
22.595
Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to
accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the
proposed amendment. Therefore, the concurrency test has been
satisfied for the subject request.
Imnact on the Residential Allocation Ratio
Of particular importance to this request is the impact of the land
use change on the county's Residential Allocation Ratio (RAR). A
RAR is the measure of total residential units allowed under the
land use plan compared to -the number of residential units expected
to be needed through the plan's planning horizon, based on
population projections.
In 1990, when the comprehensive plan was adopted, the plan allowed
over 119,000 units. In this case, the proposed amendment would
increase the maximum number of residential units allowed on the
site by 76. That increase would have an insignificant impact on
the county's RAR.
More than off -setting the 76 unit increase that would occur with
the proposed amendment is the reduction in build -out units that has
resulted from land use plan amendment approvals since plan
adoption. Since plan adoption, several land use amendments
involving residentially designated land within the urban service
area have been approved. The effect of these amendments has been
a net decrease of 1,141 units in the county's build -out projection.
The following table depicts the information used to determine the
change in the number of units. Since the Commercial/ Industrial
(C/I), Regional Commercial (RC), and Conservation -1 (C-1)
designations are not intended for residential uses, land use
amendments redesignating land from residential to C/I, RC, or C-1
reduce the number of units allowed. Similarly, land use amendments
redesignating land from one type of residential to a lower density
residential reduce the number of units allowed.
In contrast, amendments redesignating land from C/I, RC, or C-1 to
residential, or from -one type of residential to a higher density
residential, increase the number of units allowed. Since staff
estimates that 25% of land designated for residential ubes is used
for infrastructure such as roads and stormwater retention, the net
developable acreage of any residential land use plan amendment is
75% --of the total acreage.
MARCH 18, 1997 76
r �
LAND USE AMENDMENTS RESULTING IN A NET CBANGE IN # OF UNITS
AMsl®.
Bsr
MAX.
=I
D9IT8/
MAX.
idiP CSASiiF
WAME
FROM
UNM AC.
ACRES
ACRES
To
ACBE
.oxlTs
nv oNITs
Salley
L-2
6/1
18.40
13.60
82
M-1
8/1
110
+26
Oslo Park
C-2
1/40
233.00
174.75
4
C-1
0
0
-4
M-2
10/1
65.00
48.75
487
'C-1
0
0
-487
Tarty
M-1
8/1
130.30
97.73
781
RC
0
0
-761
Rhodes
R
1/1
159.00
119.25
119
L-1
3/1
357
+238
Brewer
L-1
3/1
6.40
4.80
14
AG -1
1/5
1
-13
KAR Groves
M-2
8/1
8.40
6.30
50
_C/1
0
0
-50
C/I
0
8.40
6.30
0
L-2
6/1
37
+37
Xorine
L-1
3/1
15.00
11.25
33
C/I
0
0
-33
Smith
L-2
6/1
1.86
1.40
8
C/I
0
0
-8
Koerner
M-1
8/1
0.31
0.23
1
C/i
0
0
-1
Feldman
AG -1
1/5
40.00
30.00
6
R
1/1
30
.24
Windsor
C/I
0
15.33
11.50
0
L-2
6/1
69
+69
Sob. Assoc.
L-2
6/1
4.00
3.00
IB
C/I
0
0
-18
Seb. Assoc.
M-1
8/1
4.00
3.00
24
C/I
0
0
-24
Ames
L-1
3/1
20.00
15.00
45
C/I
0
0
-45
Rockwell
L-2
6/1
0.32
0.24
1
C/I
0
0
-1
McRae
M-2
10/1
6.80
5.10
51
C/i
0
0
-51
Oslo Plaza
L-2
6/1
4.83
3.62
21
CJI
0
0
-21
TOTAL
-1141
Because the comprehensive plan allowed over 119,000 units when it
was adopted, the 76 unit increase associated with the proposed
amendment would have a negligible impact on the county's RAR, even
if land use amendments had not lowered the number of units allowed
by the plan. When considering the 1,141 unit reduction in build-
out projections resulting from land use amendments, it is obvious
that the reduction more than compensates for the additional 76
units associated with this request. For these reasons, the
proposed amendment's impact on the county's RAR is insignificant.
Consistency with Comnrehensive 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 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 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 on its analysis, staff feels that the proposed land use
amendment meets policy 13.3's second and third criteria.
The subject property is located approximately one mile from the SR
60 and 58th Avenue Commercial/industrial Node. On July 19, 1994,
the Board of County Commissioners approved a land use amendment
that enlarged that node by 130.3 acres. That land use amendment
was associated with the Indian River Mall Development of Regional
Impact (DRI) for a regional shopping center consisting of
approximately 1.5 million square feet of retail space. A
Development Order for that DRI was also approved by the Board of
County Commissioners on July 19, 1994. On June 8, 1995,
approximately 1.275 million square feet of that shopping center
received site plan approval from the county.
MARCH 18, 1997 77 a
BOOK PAGE "'D
BOOK 100 PAGE 951,
The Indian River Mall land use amendment and development approvals
directly affect land surrounding the node in 2 ways, both related
to housing. First, the Indian River Mall will make the node one of
the county's largest employment centers, thus generating a
substantial increase in the need for moderately -priced nearby
housing.
Additionally, the Indian River Mall land use amendment resulted in
the loss of 130.3 acres of M-1 designated land. Thus, that
amendment not only helped create additional demand for medium -
density housing, but it also reduced the amount of land designated
for that use.
Since these actions constitute a change in circumstances, the third
criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 has been met.
The proposed amendment also meets the second criterion of Future
Land Use Element Policy 13.3. That criterion allows plan
amendments to correct an oversight in the approved plan. In this
case, the oversight is related to the plan that was in effect prior
to the 1990 adoption of the current plan. In that plan, the ±15.2
acre tract was given a low density residential designation. The
oversight was to allow that tract, which is a narrow peninsula of
low density designated land, to continue to extend into an area of
high density designated land. Therefore, the request also meets
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3's second criterion. For those
reasons, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use
Element Policy 13.3.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 1
Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will
have a compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. By
increasing the density of land currently within the urban service
area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the county
can efficiently support growth without creating urban sprawl or
sacrificing compactness. For these reasons, the proposed amendment
is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium -
Density Residential -1 land use designation is intended for areas
which are suitable for urban scale development and intensities, and
are within the urban service area.
The following factors demonstrate that the site is suitable for
'urban scale development and intensities:
1. The site is located within the urban service area.
2. Potable water and sanitary sewer service are available to the
site. -
3. The location of the site; -near 3 major roads, indicates that
the transportation demands of urban scale development on the
site can be met.
4. The site is within 2 miles of 2 major commercial/ industrial
nodes.
S. The site is bounded on 3 sides by land currently designated M-
1.
Since -the site is suitable for urban scale development and
intensities, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.13.
- Future Land Use Element Objective 4
Future Land Use Element Objective 4 states that the county will
reduce the number and length of trips on county roads by
implementing a land use pattern which places residential areas near
commercial and employment areas.
The site is located near several employment centers, including the
Vero Beach Municipal Airport, Dodgertown, the SR 60/I-95
Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/5sth Avenue
Commercial/ Industrial Node. Since those nodes are 2 of the
county's fastest developing nodes, they will soon become 2 of the
county's largest employment centers. Most people who will work in
those nodes will live in moderately -priced medium -density housing.
The proposed amendment places land designated for medium -density
residential uses near those nodes. Therefore, the proposed
amendment will increase the opportunity for people who work in
those nodes to live near their job, thus reducing the length of
MARCH 18, 1997 78
their trips to and from work. For this reason, the proposed
amendment implements Future Land Use Element objective 4.
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1
Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1'states that land use categories
shall be designated in a manner which- concentrates urban uses,
thereby discouraging urban sprawl.
By increasing the density of land currently within the urban
service area, as opposed to expanding the urban service area, the
proposed amendment concentrates growth in the area designated for
urban uses. For this reason, the proposed amendment is consistent
with Future Land Use Element Policy 4.1.
- Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4
Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5 and 4.4 state that the county
will encourage and direct growth into the urban service area and
areas near urban centers. Since the proposed amendment would allow
and encourage more development on the subject property, and the
subject property is within the urban service area and near an urban
center, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policies 2.5
and 4.4.
- Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5
Economic Development Element Policies 8.1 and 8.5 address the use
of incentives, including increased densities, to reduce the cost
per housing unit and to encourage the provision of affordable
housing. By allowing increased density on the subject property,
the request would implement Economic Development Element Policies
8.1 and 8.5. --
- Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2
Mass Transit Element Policy 1.2 states that the county will,
through the future land use element, provide higher densities along.
major transportation corridors in order to facilitate future mass
transit provision. Since the proposed amendment will increase the
allowed density along and near several major transportation
corridors, this request is consistent with Mass Transit Element
Policy 1.2.
As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed
request to all the objectives and policies in the plan and found no
conflicts. Therefore, staff's position is that the proposed
amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan.
Comnatibility with the Surrounding Area
Staff's position is that granting the request to redesignate the
±15.2 acre L-1 designated tract to M-1 would result in development
which is appropriate for the site and that such development would
be compatible with surrounding areas. Because the area is located
near an urban center of the county, with convenient access to
employment and shopping,,_the area is particularly suited for
medium -density development. Since land on three sides of that
tract is designated M-1, the request is for the continuation of an
existing land use designation pattern.
Similarly, granting the proposed rezoning would result in
development that is appropriate for the site and that is compatible
with surrounding areas. Since land on three sides of the 30.3 acre
tract proposed for rezoning is currently zoned and used for mobile
home development, the request is also for a continuation of an
existing zoning pattern.
The primary impacts of development on the site would be on future
residences on the abutting L-1 designated area to the north. That
land is currently zoned A-1 and consists of citrus groves on 10 and
20 acre parcels.
Two factors, however, work to mitigate impacts of development on
the subject property. The first involves the county's Land
Development Regulations. Section 911.09(6)(e)2 states that, where
a mobile home park abuts a residential use of lower density or a
non-residential use, a forty -foot setback with a type "B" buffer
and a six-foot opaque feature shall be provided by the mobile home
park.
The second factor involves the size of the parcels north of the
subject property. At 10 and 20 acres in size, they are large
enough to provide additional buffering, if necessary.
Another important issue for this request involves the compatibility
of mobile home park development on the subject property with the
existing agricultural use of abutting property to the north.
MARCH 18, 1997 79 BOOK 100 PAGE19162
BOOK 100 FACE 953
Although presently zoned A-1, that land is designated L-1 and is
anticipated to eventually be converted to residential uses.
In the past, compatibility has been a problem where agricultural
uses and residential uses, particularly single-family houses, abut.
That is one reason for the required setbacks and buffers described
above.
Staff's position is that, with those setbacks and buffers, a mobile
home park development on the subject property would be compatible
with an abutting agricultural use. This is demonstrated by the low
rate of reported compatibility problems between the existing mobile
home park and agricultural uses in the area. In contrast, past
experience indicates that single-family development of the subject
property would be more likely to generate incompatibility
complaints, not only with the agricultural uses to the north, but
also with the mobile home park to the south, east, and west.
Additionally, the proposed rezoning would reduce potential
incompatibilities by substantially reducing the length of the
existing A-1/RMH-8 border.
One alternative raised at the transmittal public hearing was the
possibility of redesignating and rezoning only the south 1,200 feet
of the subject property, with the north 120 feet of the site
remaining unchanged. This alternative was proposed after Robert
Adair spoke. Mr. Adair is the director of the Kerr Center for
Sustainable Agriculture, -an agricultural research center located
north of the subject property.
Concerned about the compatibility of a mobile home park on the
subject property with agricultural uses to the north, Mr. Adair
requested that the subject request be denied. Mr. Adair also
requested that, if the request was granted, then a 100 foot buffer
be required along the site's north boundary. After staff noted
that site development conditions cannot be imposed on land use
amendment and rezoning approvals, the Board discussed the option of
redesignating and rezoning only the south 1,200 feet of the subject
property. The Board then indicated general support of that
alternative.
Although that alternative would ensure a greater separation between
mobile home development on the site and the agricultural uses of
The Kerr Center, the following problems would be associated with
that alternative:
• Since the existing A-1 zoning for the north 120 feet of the
subject property would not change, the A-1/RMH-8 zoning
district border would continue to exist. In fact, that border
would be longer than it would be if the subject request were
granted;
• Illogical and irregularly shaped land use designation and
zoning district borders would be created;
• Based on recent court decisions, the Board must cite a
specific reason, supported by comprehensive plan policies, for
not granting the RMH-8 zoning district to the 15.1 acre M-1
designated portion of the subject property. That reason must
advance a legitimate public purpose. As adopted, the county's
comprehensive plan contains no policies specificly requiring
transitional zoning or buffers in excess of those presently
required by county LDRs; and
• The applicant could seek and, based on recent court decisions
likely receive, a rezoning to RS -3 or any residential zoning
district allowing a density up to 3 units/acre for the north
120 feet of the L-1 designated portion of the site. Based on
past experience, such a rezoning would likely result in more
potential incompatibilities than would occur if the subject
request were granted.
Therefore, staffIa position is that redesignating and rezoning only
a portion of the site _would not decrease potential
incompatibilities. For these reasons, staff's position is that the
M-1 land use designation and mobile home park development on the
entire subject property would be compatible with the surrounding
area.
Potential Impact on En ironmental Ouali,
Environmental impacts of residential development on the subject
property would be the same under either the existing or the
proposed land use designation. The site has been cleared and
contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or
sensitive uplands. Therefore, development of the site is
anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality.
For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with
this request are anticipated.
MARCH 18, 1997 so
M M
M
CONCLUSION
Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land
use designation and zoning district are compatible with surrounding
areas, consistent with the comprehensive plan, meet all concurrency
criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality,
and meet all applicable land use designation amendment and rezoning
criteria. The data and analysis demonstrate that the proposed
amendment will have an insignificant impact on the county's RAR.
Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed
suited for medium -density mobile home residential uses. Finally,
DCA's sufficiency determination of the county's EAR addresses the
one ORC Report objection. 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 request
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that this
is one of the five items considered by Planning and Zoning on
September 26, 1996 and submitted to the Board for approval on
November 21, 1996. All amendments were submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs on January 30, 1997 and the DCA issued its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on each
amendment. The DCA filed one objection, that the County could not
amend its Comp Plan until its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report)
was approved. On February 24, 1997 the DCA determined that the
County's EAR was sufficient. The Board is now allowed to take
action on each amendment.
Director Keating reminded the Board that they had discussed at
the prior meeting requesting redesignation of only the southerly
1200' of this property, which would leave a 120' buffer. Staff is
recommending that the entire piece of property be rezoned and
redesignated. If only the south 1200' is rezoned, the applicant
would have a right to request development of the north 120' as
single-family residential. Staff also believes that the existing
LDRs provide adequate buffers.
Commissioner Adams expressed her concerns regarding the
adjacent property owner and felt compatibility of use was not being
taken into consideration.
Leah LeFeve, a biologist at Kerr Center, wanted to again
propose the additional buffer. Kerr Center is an extremely
important research site for the USDA and is concerned about
possible noise conflicts. They spray at night, often up to
midnight, which is extremely loud. They also have a diesel pump
directly adjacent to the subject property for irrigation which is
also very noisy.
Commissioner Adams felt it is unfortunate that existing
agricultural operations are now running into conflicts with other
zoning categories. Agriculture makes money for this County and
does not cost as much for services. We must be very serious about
conserving agricultural zoning.
MARCH 18, 1997 81
BOOK DO PAGE 954
BOOK 100 PAGE 955
County Attorney Vitunac expressed his opinion that perhaps the
LDRs should be expanded as to the buffer zoning if they are not
sufficient.
Commissioner Macht noted that the airport has been there 50
years, but there are people who move to a property directly under
a flight path and then complain about the noise.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Ms. LeFeve again expressed Kerr Center's opposition to this
rezoning.
The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this
matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing.
Director Keating suggested consideration of whether or not
agricultural zoning could be treated differently if within an urban
service area.
Discussion followed regarding whether to rezone the entire
parcel or just the southerly 12001.
Staff was directed to come back within 8 weeks with a proposed
LDR amendment concerning the buffers between residential
development and active agricultural zoning within the urban service
area.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-010 amending the land use element of
the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation for ± 15.2 acres located on the North
side of 26th Street approximately 1/4 mile East of
74th Avenue from L-1 to M-1 and providing
severability and effective date.
MARCH 189 1997 82
� s
ORDINANCE NO. 97-10
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR 115.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE
OF 26TH STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF 74TH AVENUE,
FROM L-1 TO M-1; AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all comprehensive plan amendment requests on September 26, 1996,
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 November 12, 1996,
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 November 25, 1996, for the
State review pursuant to F.S.163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report noted that, pursuant to Section
163.3191, F.S., the county cannot amend its comprehensive plan
until its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been determined
to be sufficient, and
WHEREAS, the EAR was determined to be sufficient on February
24, 1997, and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on March 18, 1997, 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:
MARCH 189 1997 83 D03 100 MEMO
BOOK 100 PAGE 95 7
ORDINANCE NO. 97- 10
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 three (3) copies are
directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to
the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council.
SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan
The land use designation of the following described property
situated in Indian River County, Florida to wit:
THE WEST % OF THE WEST 30.34 ACRES OF TRACT 14, INDIAN RIVER
FARMS COMPANY SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOR 2, PAGE
25, ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING
IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY
DESCRIBED AS:
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14, RUN S
90000'00" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE
OF 831.44 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID WEST % OF
SAID WEST 30.34 ACRES; THENCE CONTINUE S 90000100" W ALONG
SAID SOUTH LINE A DISTANCE OF 499.95 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST
CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14; THENCE RUN N 00008150" E ALONG THE
WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 1321.99 FEET TO THE
NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14; THENCE RUN S 89056144" E
ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 499.95
FEET; THENCE FUN S 00008150" W AND PARALLEL TO SAID WEST LINE
A DISTANCE OF 1321.51 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID
LANDS LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE
39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.
Is changed from L-1, Low -Density Residential -1 (up to 3 units/acre)
to M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and the
Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly.
SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflictincr 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. S v r hility
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 S. Efact iye 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 aiiiendment in compliance with Section 163.3184 (1) (b) ,
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 at a
public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource
Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 11th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of Mar h, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Ginn , seconded by Commissioner Macht
and adopted by the following vote:
MARCH 18, 1997
84
ORDINANCE NO. 97-10
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert 8ye
Vice -Chairman John W. TippinyA e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNT);
BY:
ATTEST BY: \ .j 1
on, Cl,gr)�
Acknowledgment by the Department 4 State of the ate of
pp Florida
this day of , 1997.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this
day of , 1997, at A.M./P.M. and filed in
the of f ice of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-011 amending the zoning ordinance and
the accompanying zoning map from A-1 to RMH-8 for
the property located on the North side of 26th
Street, approximately 1/4 mile East of 74th Avenue
and described herein, and providing for effective
date.
ORDINANCE NO. 97-11
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM A-1 TO
RMH-8, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 26TH
STREET, APPROXIMATELY 1/4 MILE EAST OF 74TH 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
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:
THE WEST 30.34 ACRES OF TRACT 14, INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY
SUBDIVISION, AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, ST. LUCIE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED
AS:
MARCH 18, 1997
85
`ry
BOOK 100 PAGE� J
50%
ORDINANCE NO. 97-11
COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID TRACT 14, RUN S 900
00,00" W ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF
331.31 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF SAID WEST 30.34
ACRES; THENCE CONTINUE S 00000100" W ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE A
DISTANCE OF 1000.08 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID TRACT
14; THENCE RUN N 00008150" E ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID TRACT
14 A DISTANCE OF 1321.99 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SAID
TRACT 14; THENCE RUN S 89056144" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF
SAID TRACT 14 A DISTANCE OF 1000.08 FEET; THENCE RUN S
00008150" W AND PARALLEL TO SAID WEST LINE A DISTANCE OF
1321.04 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
SAID LANDS LYING AND BEING IN SECTION 31, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA -
Be changed from A-1 TO RMH-8
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in
said Land Development Regulations.
Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the
issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice
of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use
Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 97- 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 18th day of March, 1997.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the 5th day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Ginn , seconded by Commissioner
Macht , and adopted by the following vote:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Ave
Ave
Aye
Ave
Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
ATT
This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the
following date:
MARCH 18, 1997
86
E7
PUBLIC HEARING - COUNTY IN HATED REQUEST TO
REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 101.8 ACRES FROM M-1 AND AG -2
TO C/I - REDESIGNATE APPROXESIATELY 118.4 ACRES FROM C/I
TO PUB - EXPAND URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 29.5 ACRES - ADD
NEW POLICY 1.38 TO FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT CHANGING LAND USE
DESIGNATIONS, EXPANDING THE URBAN
SERVIG'E AREA, AND ADDING A NEW POLICY
TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
1
P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315
all ]Press Journal
COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA
tRC M ._ .. _�-�� _.3x9 en
Before the undersigned -authority personally appeared Darryl K. .aa ;yT Ii
Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a m I „<y, b� ,, M
daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
Florida; that r e.
feyz—
^�u�� �� ^/� The Hoard of County CoTmisslonro of Indian River Count , Flori
(I V alder several Y da will con -
proposals to adopt amendments to its comprehensive plan changingg
the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County acid
adding a new policy to the Future Land Use Element. A public hearing on the
proposals will be held on Tuesday, March 18, 1997, at 8:05 a m. in the County
billed tp I ` I �/I% Commission Chambersof the County Administration Building, located at 1840
25th Street Vero Beach, Florida At this public hearing, the ,lovaoard d County
Commissioners will make
Dina decision whether to amend the county's cook'
was published in said new ive per• The Proposed amendments are included in a Ppoo�seect
P/� n n q newspaper in the issue(s) of entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF'RERMLAND USE ELEMCEI�I I Y CHLANG NG
THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR
1. s 15.2 ACRES LOCATED AppRp7{pyp I�I,Y �i OF A MILE EAST
Sworn to and subscribed fore me this OF 74TH AVENUE, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF 28TH STREET,
FROM L -I TO M•1;
/./�/J 2.: 111 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
"'+*' • ay o -j- 58TH AVENUE AND CR 510, FROM L-2 TO C-1;
/ _ 3. t 15 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF
K �_O I AVENUE AND THE MAIN RELIEF CANAL, FROM M TO
C/I;
4. t4.6 ACRES LOCATED AT SR 80 AND 83RD COURT, FROM M-1
President TO CR;
- � Q� . •' • Cp j 1, 5. x 101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SR 80 AND 102ND AVENUE FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO CR, 10{-
=��.�:.,.t PQeSr . �Lt �: _ •t PANDING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA BY ±29.5 ACRES. AND
My Comm. E%p fes s�:e ei -c-:, 1t::crr» �:c;. £;- q y; 5S. ,�,- ADDING A NEW POLICY TO THE FUTURE LAND USE EL -
C: �•�:. `.::_cam: CC3t•)'�:° EMENT;
August 25. 1997 - e. • 118.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF OSLO
No. CC310845 > ROAD. ±880 FEET EAST OF 82ND AVENUE. FROM C/I TO
/✓ PUB; AND
•�P.'- Sign PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE
DATE.
TEOF F� .
(SEAL) PlInterested es may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the
a these Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments.
Plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the Com.
munity Development Department located on the second floor of the County Ad.
ministration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between
the hours of 8:30 am. and 5:00 pThe
sed o
rd
na
yy.m. on weekdays
cress hours apo
the office o theaClerk of theme B tery! of County Commgissio�rte s 1840
25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meet-
Ing will need toe that a verbatim'recorti 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
countyy's Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Coordinator at 587-8000 exten-
sion Z23 at least 48 hours in advance of meeting. For more information contact
John Wachtel at 587-8000, ext, 247.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
BY: -s- Carolyn K. Eggert. Chairman
aaa.a
MARCH 18, 1997 87 BOOK 10 0 PAGE 91' )0
BOOK 100 PAGE 961
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
Community Develcoent lDsrector
TBROUGfis Sasan Rchani, AICP •2.
Chief, Long -Rang Planning
FROM: John Wachtel
Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning
DATES March 11, 1997
RE: COUNTY nNITIATED REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREBENSIVE PLAN
TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 101.8 ACRES FROM 14-1 ASID AG -
2 TO C/I; TO AMEND THE COMPREBENSIVB PLAN TO REDESIGNATE
APPROXIMATELY 118.4 ACRES FROM C/I TO PUB; TO EXPAND THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 29.5 ACRES; AND TO ADD NEW POLICY
1.38 TO THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LVDA 96-07-0225
It is requested that the data --herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular
meeting of March 18, 1997.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
This is a request to redesignate approximately 101.8 acres from M-
1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8 units/acre) and AG -2,
Agricultural -2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) to C/I, Commercial/
Industrial Node, while simultaneously redesignating 118.4 acres
from C/I, Commercial/ Industrial Node, to PUB, Public Facilities.
The subject tracts are under separate ownership.
More specifically, the request involves reconfiguring two nodes.
The proposed amendment will remove 118.4 acres from the 9th Street
S.W. (Oslo Road)/74th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node, while
simultaneously adding 101.8 acres to the SR 60/I-95 Commercial/
Industrial Node. Granting the request would result in a decrease
in the county's total amount of C/I designated land. Additionally,
the request involves extending the county's Urban Service Area
(USA) boundary approximately one-eighth of a mile to the west, on
the north side of SR 60. That change would result in a USA
expansion of approximately 29.5 acres. Finally, the request also
involves adding a new policy to the future land use element of the
comprehensive plan.
The property to be redesignated to C/I is located at the northeast
corner of SR 60 and 102nd Avenue and 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) and AG -2, Agricultural -2 (up to 1 unit/10 acres) 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),
approximately one-half of a mile west of 74th Avenue. This
property, recently acquired by Indian -River County's Solid Waste
Disposal District (SWDD) for future landfill expansion, or
potentially the site of a recycling based waste conversion center,
will be referred to as Subject Property 2. The request involves
changing the land use designation of this tract from C/I to PUB.
A concurrent rezoning of Subject Property 2 is not part of this
request.
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
MARCH 18, 1997
88
Element of the county's comprehensive plan. The Future Land use
Element Policy to be added will limit Subject Property 1 to
industrial uses, rather than other commercial, retail, or'office
uses.
On September 26, 1996, 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 November 21, 1996, the Board of County Commissioners voted 4-1
to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to DCA for
their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide
whether or not to adopt the requested amendments to the
comprehensive plan.
ORC— Report
Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed
amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments
(ORC) Report (dated January 30, 1997), which planning staff
received on February 4, 1997. The DCA ORC Report (Attachment 8)
contained two objections to this proposed amendment. One of those
objections was procedural in nature and related to the county's
state mandated Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR). The other
objection related to the analysis of transportation impacts.
- EAR Related Objection
According to state law, the county was required to submit an
adopted EAR to DCA by January 1, 1997. The county complied with
that requirement by adopting its EAR on December 17, 1996, and
transmitting it to DCA on December 20, 1996. Once a local
government's adopted EAR submittal date has passed, state law
prohibits that local government from amending its comprehensive
plan until DCA has determined that the EAR is sufficient. On
February 24, 1997, DCA determined that the county's EAR was
sufficient.
Between the county's January 1, 1997 EAR submittal date and DCA's
February 24, 1997 sufficiency determination, the county was
prohibited from amending its comprehensive plan. Because the DCA
ORC Report was issued on January 30, 1997, prior to DCA's EAR
sufficiency determination (February 24, 1997), the ORC Report
contained an objection based on the county's EAR not having been
determined to be sufficient [Section 163.3187 (6), F. S. and Rule 9J -
5.0053(4)(e), F.A.C.] .
- Transportation Impact Related Objection
The DCA ORC Report stated:
The amendment did not provide data and analysis that
adequate transportation facilities are, or will be,
available to serve the proposed Future Land Use Map
change based upon the maximum allowable use. The
amendment also did not evaluate the maximum impacts on
the roadway network (Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11 F.A.C.).
The analysis section of this staff report contains a response to
DCA's objections.
Existing --Land Use Pattern
- Subject Property 1
Subject Property 1 and land to the west consist of citrus groves.
The east 72.3 acres of the site are zoned A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), while the west 29.5 acres of the
site and land west of the site are zoned A-2, Agricultural District
(up to 1 unit/10 acres).
South of the site, across SR 60, land is also zoned A-1 and A-2.
That land contains groves and the Kenilworth Estates subdivision of
single-family houses on large lots Southeast of the site, land is
zoned A-1 and contains citrus groves.
To the east of the site, across 98th avenue, is the RS -6, Single -
Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) zoned Vero
Tropical Gardens subdivision. Land North of the site is zoned A-2
and contains rangeland and a sand mine.
MARCH 18, 1997
89
BOOK I00 PAGE
BOOK 100 PAGE 963
- Subject Property 2
Subject Property 2 and properties to the north and west consist
primarily of citrus groves. The exception is the Perfection Truss
Building. Examination of an aerial photograph indicates that there
may be two small isolated wetlands on Subject Property 2. Most of
the western portion of the site, as well as land to the west and
south of the site, is zoned A-1. The county landfill borders the
site on the south.
Most of the eastern portion of Subject Property 2, as well as land
to the east of the site is zoned IG, General Industrial District.
That land contains the M & W Pump building as well as rangeland and
wooded areas. The eastern portion of land to the north of the
site, across Oslo Road, is zoned CG, general Commercial District,
while the western portion of that area land is zoned A-1.
Future Land Use Pattern
-Subject Property 1
The east 72.3 acres of Subject Property 1 and lands to the east,
across 98th Avenue, are designated M-1, Medium -Density Residential -
1, on the county's future land use map. The Kenilworth Estates
subdivision, to the south, across SR 60, is also designated M-1.
The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to
8 units/acre.
Lands north and west of the site, as well as the west 29.5 acres of
the site, and land west of the Kenilworth Estates subdivision, are
designated AG -2, Agricultural -2, on the county's future land use
map. The AG -2 designation permits agricultural uses and
residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/10 acres.
To the southeast of the site, abutting land 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 and east are
designated C/I. Properties to the south and west are designated
POB, Public Facilities, on the county's future land use map. The
POB 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 --
Except for the truss plant and the two small isolated wetlands,
Subject Property 2 is also a citrus grove. Portions of the site
are within Flood Zone A.
Utilities and Services
Water lines extend to
Reverse Osmosis Plant,
quarter mile of the
Treatment Plant.
s- .V_ ._t
- Subject Property 1
both subject sites from the South County
while wastewater lines extend to within a
sites from the West Regional Wastewater
Both SR 60 and 98th Avenue abut Subject Property 1. West of I-95,
SR 60 is classified as a principal arterial roadway on the future
roadway thoroughfare plan map. This segment of SR 60 is a two-lane
paved road with approximately 200 feet of existing pubiic road
right-of-way. This segment of SR 60 is currently programmed for
expansion to four lanes by.1999.
MARCH 18, 1997 90
Thd site also has access to 98th Avenue. North of SR 60, 98th
Avenue is an unpaved local road.
- Subject Property 2
9th Street S.W. (Oslo Road) and 13th Street S.W. (Kelly Road)
provide access to Subject Property 2. Oslo Road is a two-lane
paved road with 60 feet of existing public road right-of-way and is
classified as an urban principal arterial on the future roadway
thoroughfare plan map. This segment of Oslo Road is programmed for
expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010.
The portion of 13th Street S.W. that abuts the site is a two-lane
unpaved road with 30 feet of existing public road right-of-way and
is classified as a collector road 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.
ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the
application will be presented. Specifically, this section will
include the following:
• a response to DCA's ORC Report objections;
• a discussion of node reconfiguration;
• an analysis of the proposed expansion of the Urban Service
Area;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's impact on public
facilities;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's compatibility with the
surrounding areas;
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's consistency with the
- comprehensive plan; and
• an analysis of the proposed amendment's potential impact on
environmental quality. --
County Response to DCA's ORC Report Objection
As noted in the Description and Conditions section of this staff
report, DCA, in its January 30, 1997 ORC Report, raised two
objections. One of those objections was based on the fact that the
county's EAR had not yet been determined to be sufficient. On
February 24, 1997, DCA determined that the county's EAR was
sufficient. Therefore, that objection has been addressed, and the
county may amend its comprehensive plan.
The other objection was that the staff report accompanying the
proposed amendment did not show that adequate roadway capacity
would be available to serve the most intense development allowed on
Subject Property 1 under the proposed land use designation.
As noted in the concurrency analysis below, this request is exempt
from concurrency review because the requested land use designation
changes would not increase the potential land use intensity within
the county (as proposed, the amendment would result in a net
reduction in C/I designated land). A concurrency analysis of
Subject Property 1 (the property "receiving" the C/I designation
and therefore, potentially increasing its land use intensity),
however, was included to ensure that the proposed amendment will
not cause the provision of public services to fall below adopted
levels of service.
For land use amendments, the concurrency analysis is typically
based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed land use
designation. For C/I land use amendments, that use is retail
commercial development with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area
per acre of land proposed for redesignation. In this case, using
the typical method would have resulted in a concurrency analysis
for 1,018,000 square feet of retail commercial development, the
equivalent of a regional mall.
Staff noted, however, that the intent of the request was to allow
an industrial park on the site, and that the county had zoning and
site plan control over the site. For this reason, the concurrency
analysis was based on industrial development of the site.
Upon coordination with DCA and the Florida Department of
Transportation, both agencies agreed that capacity was available
for industrial development of the site, but expressed concern that
MARCH 189 1997 91
BOOK 100 PAGE
BOOK 100 FAGE 965
retail commercial development could occur on the site. For that
reason, DCA suggested adding a policy specifically limiting
development on that site to an industrial park and related uses.
Staff agreed and has developed such a policy. That policy is
included on Attachment 9.
By adopting such a policy, DCA's objection will be met, and the
proposed amendment can be adopted.
Discussion of Node Reconfiauration
- 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 an overall decrease in
land use intensity.
Staff's position is that these different types of plan amendments
warrant different standards of review. Since the typical type of
amendment can be justified only by challenging the projections,
need assessments, and standards used to prepare the original plan,
a high standard of review -is justified. For amendments involving
just shifts in land uses and no intensity/density increase, less
justification is necessary. This recognizes that no single land
use plan map is correct and, in fact, many variations may conform
to accepted land use principles and meet established plan policies.
Another consideration involves the purpose of the county's three
C/I nodes along I-95. In contrast to other nodes which are located
and sized based on market area, these nodes were established for
economic development purposes to attract industry and manufacturing
employment to the county. Since these nodes, in aggregate, serve
the entire county, they function as one node with a countywide
market area. For that reason, shifting land between these nodes
without updating the projections, need assessments, and standards
used to prepare the original plan is acceptable.
- Land Use Efficiency
The proposed amendment involves reconfiguring two commercial/
industrial nodes. The node containing Subject Property 1 has
access to both SR 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 SR 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 SR 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 SR 60 Corridor and in the northern
portion of the county;
• recent developments in the SR 601I-95 Node (including a retail
center that is anticipated to soon surpass DRI thrgsholds);
• future landfill expansion; and..
• the land owners' proposed -use of the subject properties.
MARCH 18, 1997
92
M
M
For these reasons, the proposed node reconfiguration represents a
logical and rational land use plan change that will facilitate
efficient land use within the county.
tTTW_.� - - - •
Besides node reconfiguration, the proposed amendment includes
extending the USA boundary approximately one-eighth of a mile west,
on the north side of SR 60. In terms of distance and area (29.5
acres), this is a minor expansion that will not encourage urban
sprawl.
The USA expansion, however, is important to the county's efforts to
attract industry and increase employment. The proposed amendment
would result in the creation of the first tract in the county that
meets the minimum size; location and ownership requirements
necessary to develop an adequately sized, viable industrial park.
That site would consist of Subject Property 1 and the adjacent,
industrially designated 36.5 acre tract at the northwest corner of
SR 60 and 98th Avenue. For the industrial park to be developed,
however, centralized potable water and wastewater service must be
available to the entire 138.3 acre site.
For these reasons, the proposed USA expansion will implement the
county's economic development goals without encouraging urban
sprawl.
Concurrency of Public Facilities
Except for the west 29.5 acres of Subject Property 1, both sites
comprising this request are located within the County Urban Service
Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The
comprehensive plan establishes standards for: Transportation,
Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste; Drainage, and Recreation
(Future Land Use Policy 3.1). The adequate provision of these
services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life
enjoyed by the community. To ensure that the minimum acceptable
standards for these services and facilities are maintained, the
comprehensive plan requires that new development be reviewed. For
land use designation amendment requests,.this review is undertaken
as part of the conditional concurrency determination application
process.
As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of
the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not
increase land use intensity are exempt from concurrency
requirements. For the subject request, the amount of land to be
removed from a C/I node exceeds the amount of land to be added to
another C/I node. Therefore, this land use amendment request is
exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use
designation changes would not increase the potential land use
intensity that the sites could accommodate.
Nevertheless, to ensure that the proposed amendment will not cause
the provision of public services to fall below adopted levels of
service, a concurrency review is included in this report. That
review will focus on Subject Property 1, the property "receiving"
the C/I designation and thereforer-potentially increasing its land
use intensity.
A concurrency review examines the available capacity of each
facility with respect to a proposed project. Since Comprehensive
Plan amendment requests are not projects, the concurrency review is
based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon
the requested land use designation. Typically, for commercial/.
industrial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense
use is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor
area per acre of land proposed for redesignation.
In this case, however, the intent of the request is to allow
development of an industrial park on Subject Property 1. That
intent is consistent with the county's Overall Economic Development
Plan and with the Comprehensive Plan's Economic Development
Element. Proposed new future land use element policy 1.38 will
specifically limit development of Subject Property 1 to industrial
uses.
For that reason, the concurrency review for Subject Property 1 will
be based on industrial development of the entire 101.8 acre site.
The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as
follows:
MARCH 18, 1997 93
BOOK 100 FACED
Fr-
BOOK 100 PAGE 967
1. Size of Area to be
Redesignated:
*101.8 acres
2. Existing Land Use Designation: 172.3 acres of M-1,
M e d i u m- D e n s i t y
Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre) and 129.5
acres of AG -2,
Agricultural -2 (up to 1
unit/10 acres)
3. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/117
/ 117 rial Nocomm e r c i a 1 -
4. Most Intense Use of Subject
Property under Current 580 Dwelling Units
Land Use Designation:
5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use
Designation: 101.8 acres of Industrial
- Transportation
A review of the traffic impacts that would result from industrial
development on Subject Property 1 indicates that the existing level
of service (LOS) "C" or better on SR 60, from 100th Avenue to I-95,
and "D" or better on other impacted roads would not be lowered.
Because it is part of the Florida Intrastate Highway System, state
regulations require that LOS "C" be maintained on that portion of
State Road 60. The site information used for determining traffic
impacts is as follows:
Existing Land Use Designation
1. Residential Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
Single -Family
2. For Single -Family Units in 5th Edition ITE Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 10.1/unit
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 1.01/unit
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour). 65%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
ii. Westbound (P.M: -Peak Hour): 49%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 100th Avenue to I-95: Eastbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units 8 P.M. Peak Hour
Rate 8 Inbound P.M. Percentage S Inbound -Eastbound Percentage
(3 80 8 1.01 S .65 g .51 = 194)
5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Number of Units 8 Average Weekday Rate
(580 8 10.1 0 5,858)
Proposed Land Use Designation
1. Use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Industrial
2. For 101.8 acre Industrial Developments in 5th Edition ITE
Manual:
a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 6.75/acre
b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 2.16/acre
C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50$
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51$
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50%
i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 49%
ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 51%
3. Peak Direction of SR 60, from 100th Avenue to I-95: Eastbound
4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak
Direction Trips Generated: Total Acreage % P.M. Peak Hour Rate
% Inbound P.M. Percentage B Inbound -Eastbound Percentage
(101.8 acres B 2.16/acre B .5 B .51 • 56)
MARCH 18, 1997
94
s
S. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips
Generated: Total Acreage % Average Weekday Rate
(101.8 acres 8 6.75/acre = 687)
6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of SR 60, at a Level of
Service "C": 980 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips
7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this
segment of SR 60: 496 peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most
intense use of the subject property under the existing land use
designation is 5,858. This was determined by multiplying the 580
units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor
of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit.
The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with industrial
development on Subject Property 1 is 687. This was determined by
multiplying the 101.8 acres by ITE's industrial development fitted
curve factor of 6.75 Average Daily Trip Ends/acre.
Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak
hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation
concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the
peak hour and affecting the peak -direction of impacted roadways.
According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the
p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m.
peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The
peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on SR 60 is eastbound.
Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak
direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of
the subject property under the existing land use designation was
calculated to be 194. This was determined by multiplying the total
number of units allowed (580) under the existing land use
designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to
determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65%
(381) will be inbound and 35%r (205) will be outbound. Of the
-inbound trips, Sit or 194 will be eastbound.
To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips that would be generated by industrial development on Subject
Property 1, the total site acreage (101.8) was multiplied by ITE's
factor of 2.16 p.m. peak hour trips/acre to determine the total
number of trips generated -(220). Of these trips, 50% (110) will be
inbound and 50t (110) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, sit
or 56 will be eastbound. Therefore, industrial development Subject
Property 1 would generate 138 (194 - 56 = 138) fewer peak hour/peak
season/peak direction trips than the 194 that would be generated by
the most intense use of the subject property under the existing
land use designation.
Using a hand assignment, the peak hour/peak season/peak direction
trips generated by the proposed use were then assigned to impacted
roads on the network. Impacted roads are defined in section
910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadway segments which
receive five percent (5k) or more of the project traffic or fifty
(50) or more of the project trips, whichever is less.
Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are
calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best
available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix
G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of
Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the
total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic
volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with
project approvals.
The traffic capacity for the segment of SR 60 adjacent to this site
is 980 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) at Level of
Service (LOS) "C", while the Total Segment Demand (existing traffic
volume + vested traffic volume) on this segment of SR 60 is 496
trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 56
peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would increase the Total Segment
Demand peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment
of SR 60 to approximately 552.
Based on the above analysis, staff determined that SR 60 and all
other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without
decreasing their existing levels of service.
The table below identifies each of the impacted roadway segments
associated with industrial development on Subject Property 1. As
indicated in this table, there is sufficient capacity in all of the
segments to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the
request.
MARCH 18, 1997 95
moK DO P* 968
BOOK 100 FAU
TRAFFIC CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION
Impacted Road Segments
(peak hour/peak season/peak direction)
MARCH 189 1997 96
Segment
Capacity
Roadway
From
To
LOS D
Seaman
Road
1220N
I-95
C.R. 512
S.R. 60
2700
2700
12205
I-95
C.R. S12
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2640
1230N
12305
I-95
I-95
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
Oslo Road
2640
1335N
U.S. 1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
13353
U.S. 1
17th Street
S.R. 60
2270
1340N
U.S. 1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm
2300
13403
U.S. 1
S.R. 60
Royal Palm
2300
1910E
S.R. 60
100Ave.
I-95
980
980
1910W
S.R. 60
100 Ave.
I-95
1890
1915E
S.R. 60
I-95
82 Ave.
1890
1915W
S.R. 60
I-95
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1920E
S.R. 60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
3110
1920W
1925E
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
82 Ave.
66th Ave.
58th Ave.
2840
1925W
S.R. 60
66th Ave.
Seth Ave.
2840
2840
1930E
S.R. 60
Seth Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1930W
S.R. 60
Seth Ave.
43rd Ave.
2840
1935E
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2840
1935W
S.R. 60
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
2510
1940E
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
2510
1940W
S.R. 60
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
2328
1945E
S.R. 60
20th Ave.
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
2328
1945W
1950E
S.R. 60
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
2328
2328
1950W
S.R. 60
Old Dixie Hwy.
10th Ave.
2328
1955E
S.R. 60
1Cth Ave.
U.S. 1
2328
1955W
S.R. 60
10th Ave.
U.S. 1
S. VBCL
880
2335N
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
880
23355
Old Dixie Hwy.
16th Street
S. VBCL
600
2530E
Oslo Road
82nd Ave.
Seth Ave.
600
2530W
Oslo Road
82nd Ave.
Seth Ave.
880
2540E
Oslo Road
58th Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2540W
Oslo Road
Seth Ave.
43rd Ave.
880
2550E
Oslo Road
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
8e0
2SSOW
Oslo Road
43rd Ave.
27th Ave.
880
2560E
Oslo Road
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
880
256OW
Oslo Road
27th Ave.
20th Ave.
Segment
Capacity
Roadway
Seament
Road
From
To
LOS "D"
2570E
Oslo Road
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
880
2570W
Oslo Road
20th Ave.
Old Dixie
880
2860N
20th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
28605
20th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
2870N
20th Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
28705
20th Ave.
S.R. 60
Atlantic Blvd.
880
2930N
43rd Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
880
29303
43rd Ave.
16th St.
S.R. 60
980
2935N
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
880
293SS
43rd Ave.
S.R. 60
26th St.
880
3025N
58th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
30255
58th Ave.
16th Street
S.R. 60
1890
3030N
58th Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
30305
Seth Ave.
S.R. 60
41st Street
1890
3120N
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
31203
66th Ave.
S.R. 60
26th Street
760
3310N
82nd Ave.
Oslo Road
4th St.
820
33105
82nd Ave.
Oslo Road
4th St.
820
3320N
82nd Ave.
4th St.
12th St.
760
3320S
82nd Ave.
4th St.
12th St.
760
760
3330N
82nd Ave.
12th St.
S.R. 60
760
33303
82nd Ave.
12th St.
S.R. 60
3340N
82nd Ave.
S.R. 60
65th St.
600
33405
82nd Ave.
S.R. 60
65th St.
600
Existina Demand
Total
Available
Positive
Roadway
Existing Vested
Segment
Segment
Project Concurrency
Secment
Volume Volume
Demand
Cavacity
Demand Determination
1220N
1222 76
1298
1402
4
Y
12205
1227 72
1299
1401
4
Y
1230N
1149 129
1278
1362
8
Y
12305
1153 118
1271
1369
8
Y
1335N
1442 304
1746 "`
524
7
Y
Y
13355
1315 313
1328
642
7
1340N
643 186
829 __
1471
7
Y
13403
680 203
883
1417
7
Y
1910E
371 125
496
484
100
Y
1910W
356 132
488
492
101
Y
1915E
925 535
1460
430
66
Y
1915W
1039 487
1526
364
66
Y
1920E
1120 771
1891
1219
46
Y
1920W
1294 711
2005
1105
46
Y
1925E
1170 1376
2547
294
34
Y
1925W
1288 1335
2623
217
34
Y
1930E
1116 1450
2566
274
24
Y
1930W
1209 1427
2636
204
24
Y
1935E
1074 1005
2079
761
22
Y
1935W
1202 963
2185
655
22
Y
1940E
863 730
1593
915
17
Y
1940W
859 719
1578
932
17
Y
1945E
928 642
1570
758
15
Y
1945W
985 628
1613
715
15
Y
1950E
1037 484
1521
807
14
Y
1950W
789 480
1269
1059
14
Y
1955E
937 451
1388
940
14
Y
1955W
491 442
933
1395
14
Y
2335N
169 105
274
606
1
Y
23355
134 102
236
644
1
Y
MARCH 189 1997 96
2530E
213
51
264
336
13
2530W
170
52
222
378
13
Y
2540E
347
34
381
499
11
y
2540W
235
33
268
612
11
y
2550E
334
50
384
496
9
y
2550W
255
48
303
577
9
Y
2560E
314
38
352
528
6
Y
2560W
368
35
403
477
6
Y
2570E
390
82
472
408
1
Y
257OW
414
77
491
389
1
y
Y
286ON
28605
212
298
54
54
266
1624
1
Y
287ON
135
21
352
156
1538
724
1
y
28705
136
22
158
722
1
1
1.
2930N
498
192
690
190
2
y
2930S
673
191
864
16
2
Y
2935N
380
146
526
354
2
Y
29355
504
142
646
234
2
Y
3025N
510
616
1126
764
5
Y
y
Roadway
Exiatinv
De�
Vested
Total
segment
Available
g
Positive
Existing
Sa
_ement
Volume
Volume
Demand
CaneaCity
Project
Concurrency
Demana
Determination
30255
303ON
564
461
614
1178
712
5
3030S
495
386
394
847
889
1043
5
Y
Y
312ON
214
76
290
1001
470
5
Y
31205
3310N
169
101
71
246
514
12
12
Y
33105
84
31
23
132
688
13
Y
Y
3320N
123
18
107
141
713
13
y
33205
100
16
116
619
644
13
Y
3330W
171
56
227
533
13
Y
3330S
3340W
238
48
67
305
13
13
Y
33403
44
39
40
87
84
513
y
516
7
Y
- Water
A 1,018,000 square foot industrial park on Subject Property 1 will
have a water consumption rate of 407.2 Equivalent Residential units
(ERII), or 101,800 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of
service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the
site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently
has a remaining capacity of approximately 2,000,000 gallons/day and
therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with
an industrial park on Subject Property 1.
- Wastewater
Sanitary Sewer service is available to Subject Property 1 from the
West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. A 1,018,000 square foot
industrial park on Subject Property 1 will have a wastewater
generation rate of approximately 407:2 Equivalent Residential Units
(ERU), or 101,800 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of
service standard of 250 galIons/ERU/day. The West Regional
Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of
approximately 200,000 gallons/day and can accommodate the
additional wastewater generated by an industrial park on Subject
Property 1.
- Solid Waste
Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and
disposal at the county landfill. For a 1,018,000 square foot
industrial park on Subject Property 1, solid waste generation will
be approximately 4,072 waste generation units (WGU) annually. A
WGU is a Waste Generation Unit measurement equivalent to one ton
(2,000 pounds) of solid waste. Using the accepted conversion rate
of one cubic yard for every 1,200 pounds of compacted solid waste
generated, a 1,018,000 square foot industrial park would be
expected to generate 6,787 cubic yards of waste/year.
A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the
county landfill indicates the availability of more than 850,000
cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year
capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010.
Based on staff analysis, it was determined that the county landfill
can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the
proposed amendment.
- Drainage
All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater
regulations which require on-site retention, preservation of
floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In
addition, development proposals must meet the discharge
requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. The
MARCH 189 1997 97 Boa NO FAA70
BOOK 100 FAGE971
subject property is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin. Since
the site is located within the Indian River Farms Water Control
District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited
from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-
four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.
In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard
applies, since the property lies within a floodplain. Consistent
with Drainage Policy 1.2, "all new buildings shall have the lowest
habitable floor elevation no lower than six inches above the
elevation of the 100 -year flood elevation as shown on the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's Flood Insurance Rate Map, or as
defined in a more detailed study report." Since the subject
property lies within Flood Zone A, which is a special flood hazard
area located within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on
this property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no
less than 25.7 feet above mean sea level, or 18 inches above the
crown of the adjacent roadway, whichever is higher.
Besides the minimum elevation requirement, on-site retention and
discharge standards also apply to this request. With the most
intense use of this site, the maximum area of impervious surface
under the proposed zoning classification will be approximately
3,769,247 square feet, or 86.53 acres. The maximum runoff volume,
based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour
design storm, and given the IRFWCD two inch discharge requirement,
will be approximately 3,274,475 cubic feet. In order to maintain
the county's adopted level of service, the applicant will be
required to retain approximately 2,535,003 cubic feet of runoff on-
site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, the
estimated pre -development runoff rate is 824.1 cubic feet/second.
Based upon staff's analysis,-- the drainage level of service
standards will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the
IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours,
requiring retention of the 2,535,003 cubic feet of runoff for the
most intense use of the property, and requiring that all finished
floor elevations exceed 25.7 feet above mean sea level, or 18
inches above the crown of the adjacent roadway, whichever is
higher.
As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted
during the development approval process.
- Recreation
Recreation concurrency requirements apply only to residential
development. Therefore, this comprehensive plan amendment request
would not be required to satisfy recreation concurrency
requirements.
Based on the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all
concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid
waste, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate
an industrial park on Subject Property 1.
Comoatibility with the Surrounding Area
- Subject Property 1
The proposed amendment will not increase potential
incompatibilities associated with development of Subject Property
I. Since this property abuts commercial/ industrial designated land
to the southeast, the proposed redesignation would result in a
continuation of an existing land use designation pattern.
The primary impacts of industrial development on Subject Property
1 would be on the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision along the east
side of 98th Avenue. Despite being platted in 1960, this
subdivision remains largely undeveloped.
There are also several factors that indicate that industrial
development on Subject Property 1 would not be incompatible with
residential development in the Vero Tropical Garden subdivision.
In contrast to the properties to the north and west of Subject
Property 1, the Vero Tropical Garden properties are relatively
small in size and, therefore,. do not have the option of providing
additional buffering. They do, however, have the advantage of an
additional 100 feet of separation due to canal and road right-of-
way. LDR provisions that would work to mitigate potential impacts
on these properties from industrial development on Subject Property
MARCH 189 1997 98
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 SR
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 of Subject Property 2 is dominated
by the landfill, agriculture, and various industrial uses, impacts
on surrounding property are 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 a recycling park. Some
activities associated with commercial/industrial uses are also
associated with public facilities uses, particularly landfill uses.
Examples of such uses include heavy equipment operation, repair,
and storage. In fact, in terms of impacts on surrounding areas,
there is sometimes no difference between landfill uses and C/I
uses.
For these reasons, staff feels that Subject Property 2's proposed
land use designation would not increase potential incompatibilities
with surrounding areas.
Consistency with Comprehensive Plan
Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all
policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of
the land development regulations, the "comprehensive plan may only
be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of
the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2) F. S." Amendments must also
show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as
depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural,
residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and
industrial land uses and their densities.
The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of
the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which
identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the
community's development. As courses of action committed to by the
county, policies provide the basis for all county land development
related decisions --including plan amendment decisions. While all
comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have
more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment
requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the
following policies.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3
In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important
consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3. This policy
requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a
land use amendment request. These criteria are:
• a mistake in the approved plan;
• an oversight in the approved plan; or
• a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject
property.
Future Land Use Element Policy 13.3 is especially important when
evaluating land use amendment requests to increase density or
intensity. Compared to such requests, amendments that do not
increase density or intensity warrant a lower level of scrutiny.
In this case, the subject request is for a minor node
reconfiguration and a decrease in land use intensity.
With respect to Policy 13.3, staff --feels that the proposed land use
and text 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, as
well as a decrease in land use intensity, a physical change in
circumstances need not be documented. In this case, the change in
circumstances relates to overall land use efficiency.
MARCH 18, 1997 99 BOOK 100 pm 7
BOOK 100 PAGE 973
As noted previously, the county recently purchased Subject Property
2 for landfill expansion or a recycling based waste conversion
center. Since those uses do 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 and text amendment
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 properties. 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 with
urban services available, Subject Property 1 is appropriate for
industrial uses. The minor expansion of the USA associated with
this request would ensure that Subject Property 1 would remain
within the USA. 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.
Based on the above criteria, including service area population
projections, the county has an acknowledged overallocation of C/I
designated land. Since this request would actually reduce that
overallocation by reducing the amount of C/I designated land by
16.6 acres, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land
Use Element Policy 1.20.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21
Future Land Use Element Policy 1.21 states that node boundaries
should provide for efficient land uses and maximum use of
transportation facilities while eliminating strip development.
Based on demand characteristics, the most efficient uses of the
subject sites are as requested in the proposed amendment.
'Additionally, C/I designated land along SR 60 would provide for the
maximum use of that transportation facility. Subject Property 1,
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 more land from one node than is added to another 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 70W 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.
MARCH 18, 1997 100
— M
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 (the recycling park or landfill expansion), the
proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element
Policy 1.27.
- Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2
Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the USA should
contain areas which receive services deemed necessary to support
urban and suburban development. Located on a major roadway, with
water and wastewater service available, Subject Property 1 meets
that criteria. This policy also states that land within the USA
shall be considered suitable for urban and suburban development.
Since the analysis shows that all of Subject Property 1 (including
the portion that is currently outside the USA) meets that criteria,
the proposed amendment, including the proposed expansion of the
USA, is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.
- 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 Polity 6.2 states that the county
shall evaluate the configuration of nodes to ensure they can
properly provide for growth— Since the proposed amendment
reconfigures the two subject nodes to better provide for growth,
the proposed amendment implements Economic Development Element
Policy 6.2.
As part of the staff analysis, all policies in the comprehensive
plan were considered. Based upon this analysis, staff determined
that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with
the comprehensive plan.
Potential Imcact on Environmental Oualitv
Since Subject Property 1 is presently a grove and therefore has
been disturbed, development of that site under either the existing
or the requested land use designation would have no significant
negative environmental impact.
If an environmental survey shows that wetlands exist on Subject
Property 2, the applicant would need to obtain a Wetlands Resource
Permit prior to site development. That requirement is in effect
under either the existing or the requested land use designation.
For that reason, the proposed amendment would have no significant
negative environmental impact.
CONCLUSION
The proposed future land use policy and land use designation
changes 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 while decreasing the county's overallocation
of C/I designated land. Finally, adoption of the proposed new land
use policy and DCA's sufficiency determination of the county's EAR
addresses the ORC Report objections. For these reasons, staff
supports the request.
RECOZQ=ATION
Based on the analysis performed, staff and the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve
this request.
MARCH 18, 1997 101 BOOK ��G974,
BOOK FAGS
Community Development Director Bob Keating advised that this
is one of the five items considered by Planning and Zoning on
September 26, 1996 and submitted to the Board for approval on
November 21, 1996. All amendments were submitted to the Department
of Community Affairs on January 30, 1997 and the DCA issued its
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report on each
amendment. The DCA filed one objection, that the County could not
amend its Comp Plan until its EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report)
was approved. On February 24, 1997 the DCA determined that the
County's EAR was sufficient. The Board is now allowed to take
action on each amendment.
Director Keating continued that an objection was received from
the DOT and included in the DCA ORC Report relating to concurrency
analysis. This objection has been dealt with in the County's
response to the objection by working to create a new Policy 1.38
which specifically limits development on the site to an industrial
park and related uses.
Responding to questions from the Board, Director Keating
reminded the Board that the Comprehensive Plan contains provisions
for reverting the property to residential should industrial
development not begin on the site within a 2 year period.
The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed
the public hearing.
Commissioner Ginn wanted to be sure the public was aware that
this project was approved unanimously by the Planning & Zoning
Commission.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 97-012 amending the land use element of
the Comprehensive Plan by changing the land use
designation for ± 101.8 acres located at the
Northeast corner of S.R. 60 and 102nd Avenue from M-
1 and AG -2 to C/I; by changing the land use
designation for ± 118.4 acres located between 9th
Street S.W. and 13th Street S.W. approximately 1/2
mile West of 74th Avenue from C/I to PUB; by
expanding the Urban Service Area by 29.5 acres; and
by adding a new policy; and providing severability
and effective date.
MARCH 18, 1997 102
r
ORDINANCE NO. 97-12
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE
LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±101.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST
CORNER OF S.R. 60 AND 102ND AVENUE, FROM M-1 AND AG -2 TO C/I;
BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±118.4 ACRES LOCATED
BETWEEN 9TH STREET, S.W., AND 13TH STREET, S.W., APPROXIMATELY
MILE WEST OF 74TH AVENUE, FROM C/I TO PUB; BY EXPANDING THE
URBAN SERVICE AREA BY 29.5 ACRES; AND BY ADDING A NEW POLICY;
AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian
River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and
WHEREAS, the county received Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications during its July 1996 amendment submittal window, and
WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on
all Comprehensive Plan amendment requests on September 26, 1996,
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 November 12, 1996,
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 November 25, 1996, for the
State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4), and
WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida
Department of Community Affairs on February 4, 1997, and
WHEREAS, after considering the ORC Report and pursuant to F.S.
163.3184(7), Indian River County recognized the need for a new
Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element policy limiting the use of the
101.8 acres located at the northeast corner of SR 60 and 102nd
Avenue, and
WHEREAS, the ORC Report noted that, pursuant to F.S. 163.3191,
the county cannot amend its Comprehensive Plan until its Evaluation
and Appraisal Report (EAR) has been determined to be sufficient,
and
WHEREAS, the EAR was determined to be sufficient on February
24, 1997, and
MARCH 18, 1997 103 800E -1
BOOK 100 m '17
ORDINANCE NO. 97- 12
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing
on March 18, 1997, 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 AdQat-ion and*
Transmittal
The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan
identified in Section 2 is hereby adopted, and three (3) 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:
TRACTS 1, 2, AND 7 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 BOOR 2,
PAGE 25 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,
FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STATE ROAD 60
SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, RESERVATIONS, AND
RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
AND LESS THE WEST 250.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1,145 FEET OF SAID
TRACT 2.
Is changed from M-1, Medium -Density Residential -1 (up to 8
units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node and 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:
TRACTS 3 AND 6, AND THE EAST % OF TRACTS 4 AND 5, SECTION 25,
TOWNSHIP 33 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, ACCORDING TO THE LAST
GENERAL PLAT OF LANDS OF THE INDIAN RIVER FARMS COMPANY
SUBDIVISION AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOR 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA. SAID LANDS NOW LYING
AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT
ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY.
Is changed from C/I, Commercial/Industrial Node to PUB, Public
Facilities and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised
accordingly; and
• The urban service area is expanded to include the following
described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to
wit:
THE WEST % OF TRACTS 2 AND 7 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 LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER
COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT ROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY FOR STATE
ROAD 60 SUBJECT TO ALL EASEMENTS, RIGHTS-OF-WAY, RESERVATIONS,
AND RESTRICTIONS OF RECORD.
AND LESS THE WEST 250.00 FEET OF THE NORTH 1,145 FEET OF SAID
TRACT 2.
And
• Policy 1.38 of the Future Land Use Element, as shown on
Attachment A, is added.
MARCH 18, 1997 104
ORDINANCE NO. 97- 12
SECTION 3. Ren a1 of c!nnf 1;r+r;ng Provisinniq
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(i)(b),
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 at a
Public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs, Division of Resource
Planning and Management, Plan Processing Team.
This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal
on the lith day of March, 1997 for a public hearing to be held on
the 18th day of March, 1997 at which time it was moved for adoption
by Commissioner Adams , seconded by Commissioner Macht
and adopted by the following vote: '
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin A e
Commissioner Fran B. Adams ye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BY:
Caro
ATTEST BY:
t� ton,' irk
Acknowledgment by the Department o�State of the tate of Florida
this day of 1997.
Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this
day of , 1997, at A.M./P.M, and filed in
the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of
Indian River County, Florida.
NEW FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICY 1.38
The county shall limit the use of the 101.8 acres of C/I designated
property located at the northeast corner of SR 60 and 102nd Avenue
to industrial uses only. Those uses include an industrial park,
light manufacturing and assembly, and distribution centers. This
policy shall be implemented through zoning and/or planned
development requirements.
MARCH 18, 199% 105 BOOK 100 PAGE 978
Fr- -7
BOOK 100 PAGE 9 79
/ 1 1 E' 1 -FAURGENCY RGENCY '
GTSTWCT. AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTSOF OKEECHOBEE AND
/ 1 01ORW V 1 _m_, im
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 7, 1997:
TO: Honorable Board of County
-\Commissioners
THROUGH: Doug Wright, Director'
Department of Emergency Services
FROM: John King, Emergency Management Coordinator
Division of Emergency Management
DATE: March 7, 1997
SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreements For Mutual Aid Between Indian River County, the Indian
River County Emergency Services District, and the Local Governments Of
Okeechobee and Osceola Counties
It is respectfully requested that the information contained herein be given formal consideration
by the Board of County Commissioners at the next scheduled meeting.
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS:
The Division of Emergency Management is reviewing the County's Comprehensive Emergency
Management Plan and associated documents for the upcoming hurricane season. Indian River
County and the five (5) municipalities are participating signatories to the Statewide Catastrophic
Mutual Aid Agreement, and we are required to maintain an Interlocal Mutual Aid- Agreement
with our contiguous counties for lesser events.
It is recommended that existing Interlocal Mutual -Aid Agreements be reviewed every five (5)
years for legal sufficiency. Staff has been corresponding with the Emergency Management staff
from Okeechobee and Osceola Counties to update and renew our current interlocal agreements,
which are nearly five (5) years old. The County Attorney from each of the respective counties
has approved the existing language in the agreements, and the only changes are on the signature
page to reflect the current authorities.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
The Florida Interlocal Cooperation Act of 1969, Section 163.01, Florida Statutes, permits local
government units to cooperate with other local governments on the basis of mutual advantage.
In this agreement, the parties agree to provide fire and rescue services, emergency medical
treatment, and emergency management services for the health, safety, and welfare of their
respective citizens.
Staff feels that the issues relating to the method of requesting assistance, number of units
responding, liability, costs, and on -scene coordination have been adequately addressed in the
attached Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreements and requests Board approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends the approval of the Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreements with Okeechobee and
Osceola Counties and requests that the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the agreements.
With Board approval, staff will forward the partially executed agreements to the respective
Emergency Management Offices. They will present these documents to their County
Commissioners for approval and then return the appropriate number of original agreements to
Indian River County.
MARCH 189 1997
106
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved
the Interlocal Mutual Aid Agreements with Okeechobee
and Osceola Counties and authorized the Chairman to
execute the Agreements, as recommended by staff.
AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
DUNES COURSE GREENS RENOVATIONS PROTECT - CONTRACT
AWARD - THION GOLF SERVICES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 4, 1997:
Date: March 4,1997
To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners
Thru: James E. Chandler
County Administrator
v �
From: Bob Komarinetzifwf
Director of Go
Subj: Dunes Course Greens Renovations Project - Contract Award
In December 1996 the Board approved the subject project and authorized staff to proceed with all
aspects in order to be complete with the "grow in" of the grass by October 1997.
On February 10, 1997, the Board approved staffs ranking of contractors that had submitted proposals
and authorized staff to proceed with negotiations for a contract with the number one ranked firm,
Tifton Golf Services, Inc. who also submitted the lowest price to perform the work. The submittals
received out of twenty-six requests sent out, reflected the following pricing:
L Tifton Golf Services, Inc. $295,972.50
2. Total Golf Construction, L.C. -- 366,960.51
3. GRC, Inc. 444,380.00
4. Quality Grassing & Services, Inc. -- 458.842.50
Staff met with Tifton Golf Services, Inc. to negotiated a contract with price and time table to have
the work completed to accommodate the season.
Section 105.04, (1) of the County Code provides for waiver of a Performance Bond on certain
contracts.. Staff feels, that due to the short period of time to perform the work and reputation of
this company, a Performance Bond is not necessary. The submittal of Tifton, included $6,000 for a
such a bond which could be eliminated and those momes be used to enhance the golf course.
Staff recommends award of a contract to Tifton Golf Services, Inc. and authorize elimination of a
Performance Bond. Total contract price would be $289,972.50. A budget of $360,000 had been
approved for this project. It is also requested the Board Chairman be authorized to execute the
attached contract.
MARCH 18, 1997 107 BOOK 100 FAGG 980
L
BOOK 100 FAGE91 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously awarded
the contract to Tifton Golf Services, Inc. for a
total contract price of $289,972.50; authorized
elimination of a Performance Bond; and authorized
the Chairman to execute the contract, as recommended
by staff.
CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE
CLERK TO THE BOARD
VACATION LEAVE POLICY, AM -502.1
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1997:
TO: James E. Chandler
Count Administrator
FROM: Ronk Baker
Personnel Director
DATE: March 11, 1997
SUBJECT: Vacation Leave Policy, AM -502.1
BACKGROUND
Attached is a proposed revision -to page two of the Vacation Leave
policy, AM -502.1. The revision would allow for the accrual of
vacation over 30 days through the end of a calendar year without
loss in order to provide more flexibility to use the vacation
leave. However, effective January 1 of the next year, vacation
balances exceeding 30 days would be rolled back to the 30 -day
maximum.
In addition, although an employee may have accrued vacation leave
in excess of 30 days during a calendar year, a maximum of 30 days
would be paid upon termination of employment, including retirement,
resignation, or death.
The Board of County Commissioners approve the attached revision to
Vacation Leave policy, AM -502.1, of the Administrative Policy
Manual effective March 18, 1997.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the revision to Vacation Leave Policy, AM -502.1 of
the Administrative Policy Manual effective March 18,
1997, as recommended by staff.
MARCH 18, 1997 108
PERSONNEL AM -502.1
VACATION LEAVE 2 OF 2
5. Employees will earn vacation monthly, in hourly increments, and may
carry over unused vacation from year to year up to a maximum of 30 days.
eatlenn time-wil! not aeeeree beyond the 39 day -made untl!-some vaeatl
Is used. When the 39 day vaeatlen balanse appeaLms en the payr
.prellst and the payeheele steb, the employee must take vaeatlen by the
last pay perled in the seath }a WhIeh it 3s -she. n ems- these -deemsents, he
have the aser al eentinue if the vaeatien--is—used afteF that ment`t
the aeevual will resume bet will net aredit the balanee retreaet
with monthly - - s missed d%e to being at he 39 day ma3elaus. Anv
6. Vacation leave may be taken after approval by the division head.
Employees are encouraged to take their vacation in increments of five
working days or more. It may be charged in increments as small as one
hour.
7. Employees shall not be paid for earned vacation leave in lieu of
taking the leave, except upon termination of employment. In no event
will an employee be paid for more than 30 days of vacation leave upon
termination of employment Earned vacation leave for employees who die
while in County employment shall be paid to the same beneficiary as is
designated for the life insurance benefit.
8. When a County observed holiday falls within an authorized vacation
leave period, that time shall be charged as holiday pay, and vacation
leave will not be charged.
9. Vacation leave will always be paid at the employee's pay level at
the time the vacation is used.
Example:
On April 1, 1997, an employee has accrued 30 days of vacation leave.
Employee will continue to accrue for the remainder of the year. If the
employee was eligible to accrue one day per month, on December 1, 1997,
the employee would have 38 days of leave for purposes of leave only and
30 days of leave for termination payment only.
RESOLUTION TO W ADOPT Il"ACT FEE ANALYSIS BY CMM
H MLL(B) ADJUST LINE EXTENSION FEES
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of February 28, 1997:
DATE: February 28, 1997
TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
FROM: TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF DTI SERVICES
PREPARED JOHN J. BYRNE
AND STAFFED ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF UTILITIES
BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT:- RATE RESOLUTION TO (a) ADOPT IMPACT FEE ANALYSIS
BY CH2M HILL (b) ADJUST LINE EXTENSION FEES
BACKGROUND
The Department of Utility Services, in a continuing effort to
ensure equal treatment of its customer base, has reviewed the
current Rate Resolution and proposes amendments as they relate to
the following items: (a) Impact Fee Analysis done by CH2M Hill,
January 1997, (b) Line Extension Fee Adjustment.
MARCH 189 1997 109 aooK ���
BOOK 100 PAGE 933
ANALYSIS
The Department proposes the attached amendment to the current
Rate Resolution 91-9 as follows:
(a) Adopt the proposed impact fees as detailed in the attached
analysis done by CH2M Hill- in January 1997. The proposed
impact fees would slightly decrease the existing impact fees
by a combined total of $25.00 or 0.6% to $4,096.00. The
water impact fee would decrease from $1,570.00 to $1,300.00
and the wastewater impact fee would increase from $2,551.00
to $2,796.00.
The Department proposes the attached additions amending and
replacing Resolution 95-16 as follows:
(a) Line Extension Fee Adjustment - The Line Extension Fee is
charged to recover line extension costs in areas that have
not been assessed. The current Line Extension Fees (Water -
$11.25 per linear front foot; Sewer - $15.77 per linear
front foot) were approved on January 24, 1995. (See copy of
minutes attached) The Line Extension Fee Adjustments -are as.
follows:
1. Water Main Extension, per foot measured along front
Of property served, where service is available on
both sides of facilities, $11.25. Water Main
Extension, per foot measured along front of property
served, where service ism0 19 available on one side
of facility, $22.50.
2. Sewer Main Extension, per foot measured along front
of property served, where service is available on
both sides of facilities, $15.77. Water Main
Extension, per foot measured along front of property
served, where service is only available on one side
of facility, $31.54.
RECpMMMAT1ON
The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that
the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of the
attached resolution which sets forth the above-described changes
and amends portions of Resolutions 91-31 and 95-16, which adopted
rates, fees and charges for the Department of Utility Services
Pursuant to the authority of Ordinance 91-9, etc.
Chairman Eggert inquired whether the studies asked for in the
contract had been done, and Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised
that the septage reuse study came before the Board September 15,
1994. An analysis was done as to whether wastewater effluent
disposal or reuse water were the most cost-efficient and it was
determined that the maximum cost which should be recovered was
around $25,000. It would not be effective to establish a reuse
water cost at this time. The impact.fee analysis has evolved to
what is before the Board now.
Commissioner Ginn felt the report should have included an
analysis of preliminary line fees, and Director Pinto stated the
fee is not changing on a per foot basis. Effectively, what is
being said that was not covered in the original analysis, is that
when you run a utility line down a street, it can only be utilized
by one side of the street -so you can only recover 50% of the cost
of that line from the "benefitted" properties.
Commissioner Ginn also felt future reports should be easier to
read as far as indexing and cross-referencing.
MARCH 189 1997 110
M M
M
ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by
Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 97-021 amending Resolution No. 91-31 and
Resolution 95-16, which adopted rates, fees, and
charges for the Department of Utility Services
pursuant to the authority of Ordinance No. 91-9, by
adopting new rates for water and sewer impact fees
and a new rate for line extension charges for water
and sewer lines.
RESOLUTION NO. 97- 21
A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 91-31 AND RESOLUTION 95-16, WHICH
ADOPTED RATES, FEES, AND CHARGES FOR THE DEPARTMENT
OF UTILITY SERVICES PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY OF
ORDINANCE NO. 91-9, BY ADOPTING NEW RATES FOR WATER
AND SEWER IMPACT FEES AND A NEW RATE FOR LINE
EXTENSION CHARGES FOR WATER AND SEWER LINES
WHEREAS, it is necessary that the Indian River County Department of Utility
Services enact a revised rate for impact fees to recover the costs associated with the need
for additional system based on the equitable portion of the cost of funding the extension of
the county's water and sewer system; and
WHEREAS, the Department also has recommended enacting a new revised rate
for line extension charges to recover the line extension costs associated with water lines
and sewer lines that have not been assessed and which are available for service.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Impact Fees to recover the costs associated with the need for additional system
expansion based on the equitable portion of the cost of funding the extension of the
county's water and sewer system, attached to this resolution as Exhibit "A," are
adopted replacing the rates already adopted by Resolutions 91-31 and 95-16.
2. The Schedule of Line Extension Charges for the recovery of line extension costs
associated with water and sewer lines that have been installed but which have not been
assessed and which are available for service, attached to this resolution as Exhibit "B,"
are adopted replacing the rates already adopted by Resolutions 91-31 and 95-16.
3. These changes shall go into effect on adoption of this resolution.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner G i n n . and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner M a c h t , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was
as follows:
Chairman, Carolyn K. Eggert A y e
Vice Chairman, John W. Tippin Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R Macht Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 18
day of March , 1997.
Board of County Commissioners
At Indian River County, Florida
By:
93� Carolyn K ggert, Chair
EXHIBITS "A" AND "B" ARE ON FILE
IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
MARCH 189 1997 111 BOOK 100 RASA
BOOK 100 PAGE 935
WEST REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, FINAL PAY
MM ; D) ZR 1 P'
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1997:
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
PREPARED AND STAFF BY:
SUBJECT:
MARCH 11, 1997
JAMES E. CHANDLER
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
TERRANCE G. PINTO
DIRECTOR OF UTILITY SE CES
WELLIAM F. .K
CAPITAL P S ENGINEER
WEST GIONAL WASTEWATER
TREATMENT PLANT (WWTP), FINAL PAY
REQUEST & CHANGE ORDER
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT
NO. US -93 -04 -DC.
On August 23, 1994 the Board of County Commissioners approved a contract with John J. Kirlin
for the above referenced project (See attached Agenda Item and Minutes). The project has been
completed and the final negotiated change order along with the final pay request has been
submitted to our department. The staff of the Utilities Department is seeking approval on both
items.
Analysis
The current contract amount is $ 5,809,925.30. The final change order is in the amount
$15,000.00 (See attached Change Order for details). The final pay request (See Attached) is in
the amount of $128,250.00.The final contract amount is in the amount of $5,824,925.30.
Attached is a letter of change order and payment recommendation from Malcolm Pernie Inc, the
engineer of record for the project. Staff concurs with the Engineer's recommendations in this
matter and wishes to finalize this project.
Recommendation
The Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners
approve the final pay request and change order as presented, while also authorizing Commission
execution of same.
Director Pinto felt the County can be very proud of this
facility which won an award from the State of Florida, Society of
Engineers.
Rick Johnson, representative from Malcolm Pirnie, advised the
project had been submitted in January to the Institute of
Consulting Engineers as an engineering excellence project.
Approximately 80 projects were submitted and this one took 2nd
place. This year the project will be in the running for national
recognition at the Orlando National Conference in August.
MARCH 189 1997 112
ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by
Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved
the final pay request of $128,250 and change order
in the amount of $15,000 with John J. Kirlin, and
authorized the Chairman to execute the same, as
recommended by staff.
DOCUMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE
OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
RESOLUTION SUPPORTING AM MAZE W OF FLORIDA STATUTES
TO ELIMWATE FIVE-YEAR ACCUMULATION PROVISION
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 3, 1997:
BOARD OF
401 North Cedar Street
TO:
Post Office Box 2600
CO = COM11 MSIONERS
Cross City, FL. 32628
904
DIXIE CO= FLORIDA
Phone 352/498-1206
FAX 352/498-1207
SUNCOM 656-1206
C.W. "Johnny" Stephenson Alton J. Land Danny C. Herring
John L. Driggers James T. Valentine
Disma One DnWaTwo D Binet Thm
Dim= Four Dim= Five
DATE:
March 3, 1997
TO:
Honorable Governor Lawton C. Chiles
Senator Charles Williams
Representative Janeg'ale Boyd
Representative Randy Mackey
Florida League of -Cities
Florida Association of Counties
All FloridaC tal Counties
FROM:
Winnie Hicks
Administrati ssistant
Dixie County ommissioners
SUBJECT:
Resolution to Amend Florida Statutes to
Eliminate Five -Year Accumulation Provision
The Dixie County Commission approved the attached
Resolution (No. 97-12) pertaining to the consequences
following tropical Storm Josephine. The consequences were
a result of the State of Florida's cumulative substantial
damage recjuirement in the "V" zone. It became evident that
many residents would be required to tear down their homes
due to extremely minor damage.
It is requested that your Board consider this resolution
for adoption and forward to the appropriate state officials.
l:orlT;ianers
. k•�rtinia;ref;,r
P,tFCmpy
- F$,s;7nnei
misc/10/pU �.
Theodore M. Burt Joe Hubert Allen Winnie Hicks Arthur Bellot2sz vva-Ree�
Conry Anm
oey oak -Auditor Admunamlive As". EM.19M Mump. t Dbsaor SepssisWdeat
MARCH 18, 1997 113 8001( FAGE9316
BOOK 100 PAGE 98 7
ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by
Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 97-022 to the State of Florida,
requesting that the State amend Part III, Chapter
161, Florida Statutes, Coastal Zone Protection, to
eliminate the five-year accumulation provision.
RESOLUTION NO. 97-2 2
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, TO THE
STATE OF FLORIDA REQUESTING THAT THE STATE AMEND PART
III, CHAPTER 161, FLORIDA STATUTES, COASTAL ZONE
PROTECTION, TO ELIMINATE THE FIVE-YEAR ACCUMULATION
PROVISION.
WHEREAS, tropical storms and hurricanes damage coastal homes in Indian River
County as well as thousands of other homes throughout the state; and
WHEREAS, some of these homes will be declared "substantially damaged" due to
the five-year accumulation requirement of the Florida Coastal Zone Protection Act; and
WHEREAS, FEMA's substantial damage/improvement rule neither includes nor
requires an accumulation of damages or improvements; and
WHEREAS, no state, other than Florida, requires a five-year accumulation of
damages/improvements; and
WHEREAS, most houses would not be considered "substantially damaged"
without the accumulation requirement; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County does not want anyone living in unsafe houses
and does not want to preclude any necessary repairs to storm damaged homes; and
WHEREAS, Indian River County recognizes the need for ordinances to minimize
future damage and to reduce the hazards to our residents who live in the coastal areas;
and
WHEREAS, the federal government and the state have developed or are
developing mitigation policies to accomplish this goal;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:
1. The Legislature and the Governor of the State of Florida are urged to abolish the five-
year accumulation requirement associated with the federal flood insurance program.
2. The Legislature is requested and urged to repeal the five-year accumulation
requirement contained in the Coastal Zone Protection Act of 1985.
3. A copy of this resolution shall be sent to the Honorable Governor Lawton Chiles and
the Legislators, the Florida League of Cities, and the State Association of Counties,
and shall constitute a request for the abolishment of the five-year accumulation
requirement; and for a repeal of said requirement contained in Sections 161.52
through 161.58, F.S.
The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner Adams, and the motion
was seconded by Commissioner Tippin, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as
follows:
Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert
Aye
Vice Chairman John W. Tippin
Aye
Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn
Aye
Commissioner Fran B. Adams
Aye
Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht
Aye
MARCH 189 1997 114
RESOLUTION NO. 97-2.2
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this
18th day of March, 1997.
Attest:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By /L _
CarolynA. Eggert
Chairman
INDIAN RIVER LAGOON - AMERICAN ASSEMBLY - APRIL 18 AND
19, 1997
The Board reviewed a letter of March 10, 1997:
MARINE RESOURCES COUNCIL OF EAST FLORIDA
March 10, 1997
Carolyn K. Eggert
Vice Chair
Indian River County Commission
18.10 25th St.
Vero Beach. Florida 32960
Dear Commissioner Eggert:
A 10
I
�•¢EE�° •^r-_ _tin `. -
C�Ud GC.. G=►.—C?1 �C�
On behalf of the sponsors of the Beaches, Barrier Islands and Lagoons American Assembly, I would I&c
to invite you to serve as a delegate to the American Assembly on April 18 and 19, 1997. Critical issues
..ill be discussed and policy formulated to guide future management of our coastal systems. Your
participation and perspective on issues facing the Lagoon are vital to this consensus building plrocess.
The purpose of the Assembh is to bring together leaders and decision -makers, representing a variety of
vic.vs and geographic areas of the central Florida coast, to make reccmmendations for the improved
management of the region's land and water resources. The recommendations approved by the Assembly
,..ill be presented to the federal, state and local leaders for action.
The Assembly will be limited to one hundred people selected from Brevard, Indian River, St. Lucie and
Martin counties to represent thirt% interest groups with decision-making responsibilities or who depend on
the lagoon for their livelihood, recreation, and borne.. Each view and perspective is valuable in reaching
workable solutions to problems facing as today and tomorrow. It is, therefore, essential that you commit
your full time and attention to each of the Assembly sessions because you will be representing the
constituency of those with similar interests and views.
The two day event will begin with a full-day optional symposium on Friday, April 18. The day will offer
sessions addressing topics ranging from basic information about barrier island geology, ecosystems and
management alternatives. The session will conclude at 5 p.m. when we will convene for dinner from 6 - 7
p.m.
After dinner, Assembly delegates will convene for a brief introduction to the assembly consensus building
Process and assignment to one of five groups. The groups will hold discussion for three hours that evening
and reconvene the following morning to continue their negotiations to late Saturday afternoon. The
consensus will be presented at the Assembly banquet Saturday evening, April 19, at the Howard Johnsons
Plaza / Hotel Ball Room. Various agencies assisting_m the organizing of the assembly will host
complimentary meals for you on Friday evening, Breakfast and Lunch on Saturday. Reservations for you
and your guests can be made for the banquet. (S35 per person. S60per couple), by completing the attached
reservation form.
MARCH 189 1997 115
BOOK 100 PAGE
BOOK 100 FAGS 989
Tln: 1996 Assembly is the sixth in a series beginning in 1985. It signifies a successful collaborative effort
of the Canaveral Port Authority. Brevard County Tourist Development Council and St. John's River Water
Management District. The staff at the Marine Resources Council is at your service to make the Beaches,
Barrier Island and Lagoons Assembly a comfortable, meaningful and enjoyable experience for you. Please
feel free to contact Beth McMillen or me at 952-0102, if you have any questions or need assistance in
making your plans to attend.
Please respond on the attached reservation form, or by phone, by March 20, so we can be assured
that your perspective is represented in the Assembly.
I look forward to seeing you.
Most Sincerely,
lane D. Barile
Exceuuve Direcxor. Marine Resources Council
PO BOX 22892 MELBOURNE, FLORIDA 32902.2892 407-952-0102 407.952.0103 FAX
LOCATED AT 5890 USI IN GRANT, FLORIDA
CONSENSUS was reached that Commissioner Ginn, Environmental
Chief Roland DeBlois and/or Community Development Director Bob
Keating would attend, if possible.
LIBRARY COOPERATIVES FiJNDING
The Board reviewed a Memorandum of March 11, 1997:
Dow March 11,1997
TM CFLC Member Libraries - DimetorslDelegates
From Sims KUns, CFLC Leglela8ve Committee Chair
CCs Jody Fitzgerald, FLA Leglslative Advocate
Im Legislative Information ALERT - TELEPHONE'BLW
r 119 ��r r
As most of you know, the t3avemor's Preliminary Budget for FY 1997198 did MOT hhdude fu>t Amding for
each of Ftorlda's B multltype Library Cooperadves (ego attached Page 33-10, Line Item BA "State
Funding for Library Programa - Library Operatives). As you can see, the Preliminary Budget allows for
no increase In fundingl
• Full funding at $2.4 miWan (5400,000 per Cooperative) is part of the Florida
Library Association's Legislative Platform.
• For CFLC, full funding is critical if we are to maintain (much less improve)
our current level of service to our Members.
Our "last - to explain to Legislators the importanr n of full rundng for Rorlds's mutdtype LA rary
Cooperatives rests with two (2) key Legislative Committees:
• HOUSE OF REPROENTATPAM, Transportation d Economlc Development Committee
VICE CHAIR: Rep. Abo J. Roddick (Democrat)
(804) 488-0760 (TaAlahassee Office)
(407) 297-2071(Odando District Office)
Rep. Tom Feeney (Republican)
(904) 488-0498 (Tallalmsee Office)
(407) 971-65M (Oviedo District Office)
Rep, o.R. "Rick" Minton (Democrat)
(904) 488-5588 (Tallahassee Office) -
(581) 595-1380 (Ft. Plena District Office)
Rep. Charles W. "Charlie" Gambler (Republican)
(904) 488-0952 (Tallahassee Office)
(1561) 778-11077 (Vero Peach DWct ofilce)
MARCH 18, 1997 116
• SENATE Ways and Means Commitee (Subcommittee A - General Government)
MEMBER: Senator Charlie Bronson (Republican)
(904) 487-5056 (Tallahassee O1firs) .
(407) 779-1155 (indlan Harbour Beach District Office
PLEASE TAKE A FEW MINUTES TO CALL ONE (OR MORE) OF THESE "KEY" LEGISLATORS
(representing CFLC CountiewMenlber Lixaries). REMEMBER, TIME 18 CRITICAL AND CALLS MUST BE
PLACED DURING THE NEXT FEW DAYSI1 (With the Legislative Session underway, recommend placing
W05 to legislators' Tallahassee OMM forlmmedlefe hnpact).
• Ask to speak vAh the Representative's1Senetor's Aide.
• Wen* yourself (Librarian, Library Dkeetor, Concerned Citizen, etc.).
If you also reside in the Legislator's District, be sure end let the Aide know thiel
• Express to the Legislative Aide your support for Full Funding for Florida's
Meldtype Library Cooperatives.
• Ask the Legisiative Akio to relay your coneems to the Representfftivg/Sanator,
requesting Chet he (the Legnletor) support full tend/ng lbrAmy cooperatives
by mconrmending that fire FY 199798 Budget {Fags 38-10, Urns !tent 8A)
be changed to include full funding at $14 mlWon.
• Bn sure to tit mk the Aloe for hislher time.
• EXE the CFLC Office to let us know who you tailed and when (for our records).
THANKS FOR YOUR CONTINUED SUPPORT -
YOUR HELP IS GREATLY APPRECIATED AND
REALLY CAN MAKE A D/FFERENCEI
Library Director Mary Powell felt it is extremely important
that the Library Cooperatives receive funding.
General discussion followed as to the best method of
supporting this effort and CONSENSUS was reached that each
Commissioner would write or call in support of full funding for
Florida's Multitype Library Cooperatives.
USE OF COUNTY RIGHTS-OF-WAY
Commissioner Macht brought up some recent incidents involving
solicitations at intersections and noted that the City of Vero
Beach had passed an ordinance several years ago prohibiting these
solicitations in City rights -of -ways.
County Attorney Vitunac reminded the Board that Section 312.06
of the County's Code states that it is unlawful to conduct any
sales or business in County rights-of-way and suggested that
perhaps the language should be strengthened.
CONSENSUS was reached to have the County Attorney strengthen
the language in the County's Ordinance.
EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that, immediately upon adjournment, the
Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the
Emergency Services District. Those Minutes are being prepared
separately.
MARCH 189 1997 117 BOOK 100 FAGE 990
BOOK IUO PAGE 991
SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT
The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of
the Emergency Services District Meeting, the Board would reconvene
as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District.
Those Minutes are being prepared separately.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded
and carried, the Board adjourned at 10:47 a.m.
ATTEST:
J. K. rton, Clerk
Minutes Approved: T Z - J
MARCH 18, 1997 118
Carol . Egge Chairman