The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About10/29/1997MINUTL"SMATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A SPECIAL MEETING Wednesday, October 29,1997 7:00 p.m. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida r < 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) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 7:00 p.m. Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) Based Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments The Elements and Sub -Elements will be discussed in the following order: Land Use Element Infrastructure Element A. Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element B. Potable Water Sub -Element C. Solid Waste Sub -Element D. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element E. Stormwater Management Sub -Element Transportation Element Conservation Element Coastal Management Element Recreation and Open Space Element Economic Development Element Capital Improvement Element Housing Element Intergovernmental Coordination Element Introductory Element 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 A meeting. Meeting broadcast live on: TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times throughout the week Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening P�10!' 1033 FACE 2043 Fr,_ 'I ROOF x.03 PAGE 244 INDEX TO MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING OF OCTOBER 29, 1997 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS LAND USE MAP ..................................................... 3 LAND USE ELEMENT ............................................... 16 INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT ........................................ 23 A. SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT .................... 23 B. POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT .................... 23 C. SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT ....................... 24 D. NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB - ELEMENT ........................................ 25 E. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB -ELEMENT ........ 26 TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT ....................................... 26 CONSERVATION ELEMENT .......................................... 38 COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT ................................. 38 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT ............................ 41 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT ................................ 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT .................................. 42 HOUSING ELEMENT ................................................ 42 INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT .................... 43 INTRODUCTORY ELEMENT ......................................... 44 i October 29, 1997 SPECIAL MEETING EAR - COMPREHENSIVE PLAN The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Special Session to workshop Elements of the Comprehensive Plan at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 29, 1997, at 7:00 p.m. Present were Carolyn K. 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 Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. Other staff present were Community Development Director Bob Keating, Public Works Director James Davis, Planning Director Stan Boling, Environmental & Code Enforcement Chief Roland DeBlois, Long -Range Planning Chief Sasan Rohani, Planners John Wachtel, James Rosich, Peter Radke. Chairman Eggert announced they would follow the agenda and topic discussion would go element -by -element. Community Development Director Bob Keating will address each element and there would be questions from the Commissioners and comments from the public. Director Keating introduced the staff from his department and advised that he would not do presentations, just give introductory remarks. Director Keating then reviewed the following Memorandum dated: October 22, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D ION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AIC Community Development Director 1 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 F,gGE 245 BOOK 103 PAGE246 -7 FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S % Chief, Long Range Planning DATE: October 22, 1997 SUBJECT: Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) Based Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its workshop meeting of October 29, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: In 1996, the county prepared its Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) and submitted the report to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA). DCA found the county's evaluation and appraisal report to be sufficient. Since January 1997, planning staff has worked on all 15 elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan. Based on the findings and recommendations in the evaluation and appraisal report, the county has now revised its comprehensive plan. All elements and sub -elements of the plan were distributed to the Board members and other interested parties on October 8, 1997. At the workshop, the Board of County Commissioners should review each draft element and sub - element with emphasis on objectives and policies. The Board then should identify needed changes and provide direction to staff. Staff recommends that elements and sub -elements be reviewed in the following order: Land Use Element Infrastructure Element A Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element B. Potable Water Sub -Element C. Solid Waste Sub -Element D. Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element E. Stormwater Management Sub -Element Transportation Element Housing Element Conservation Element Coastal Management Element Recreation and Open Space Element Economic Development Element Capital Improvement Element 0 OCTOBER 29, 1997 Intergovernmental Coordination Element Introductory Element LAND USE MAP In introducing the Land Use Map topic, Director Keating advised that there were six land use designation amendments under consideration, three of which he believed were not controversial: 1) change all acquired conservation properties to the new conservation land designation; 2) a C/I property change; and 3) expansion of the medical node to 41' Street (M-1). The other three proposed changes he felt were to some extent controversial: 1) abolishing the R designation between the City of Sebastian and CR -510, 2) abolishing another R designation on 40 acres off 4' Street on Kings Highway, and 3) a change to L-2 at the corner of 66' Avenue at 33`d Street. There has been concern expressed by the residents of those three areas, but staff felt that all the amendments are warranted. Chairman Eggert asked if there were any questions from the Commissioners regarding proposed changes to the Land Use Map. Commissioner Ginn cited numerous reasons for being opposed to the proposed designation change to L-2 to the parcel bounded by 33`d Street and Wh Avenue. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone from the public wished to speak concerning any of the proposed changes to the Land Use Map. Several citizens raised their hands. The first proposed change discussed related to the proposed L-2 designation at 33`d Street and 661 Avenue. (CLERK'S NOTE: The first proposed change discussed by the public is depicted in the following area map.) C OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 10 P�,uE 24 1 BOOK 103 PAGE 248 - S.R.60 _ TR.12 TR"0c T .IO i ,TR.9 ®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED L-2 0 OCTOBER 29, 1997 Robert Adair, who resides at 7060 33' Street and operates a business at 7055 33rd Street (aka Cherry Lane), presented slide photographs of his property and surrounding area to show how it is used currently. His lengthy presentation included concerns about his Kerr Center Groves and nearby Osceola Organic (farm) and the viability of their research station to solve a particular pest problem. He asked why the change in land use was proposed and what the benefit would be. Kevin O'Dare, 700 Indian Lilac Road, owns 10 acres on Cherry Lane where he raises organic vegetables. He has seen many changes in the last two years which have affected the quality of life in Indian River County. He believed that the developers are the ones who are benefitted by the changes. He urged that the land use designation remain as it is. Dick Baker, 695 43`d Avenue, said he was associated with a research lab. He recalled sometime ago that he and others had spoken out against development in the Oslo Road area and now that property is a premier park. He stated years and years of research had gone into the research lab and he was against the change to L-2. Louis Gerbhardt owns property to the west of the parcel on 33rd Street/66th Avenue. He was against the change in land use to L-2. Dan Dempsey of 6910 33`d Street, had moved there in 1984. At that time he did not expect that a large mall would be built. He felt it was prudent to wait and see what else happens and not change the land use designation now. County Attorney Vitunac pointed out that the Board would not vote tonight, but this issue would come back on November 4, 1997, when a public hearing would be held and there would be another opportunity to speak to the issue. Michael Ziegler of 3375 12' Street, said he was an organic farmer. He was concerned about the process and asked that the land use be kept as it is. He concluded his remarks with a quote from a California report, California's Future: Maintaining Viable Agriculture at the Urban Edge, dated December 4, 1996, as follows: k, OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 PAGE 249 Bou 103 FAGS 25)0 The bottom line has to do with the way that you perceive the agricultural -urban edge. It can be viewed in two different ways: • As a short-term zone of nuisances. There are problems, but fortunately they are temporary because this is a tran- sitional area. Eventually growers in this zone are going to give up and sell out, and the next wave of urban develop- ment will create another edge further out—incidentally, a larger edge with even more exposure to agriculture. • Or you can look at the edge as a zone of long-term relative stability where, as a result of innovative policy and de- sign, farming and urban residential uses can co -exist with a reasonable degree of peace. Ben Bailey, 1415 43rd Court, a citrus grower, espoused that it made sense to "rezone" the property at 33rd Avenue and gave his reasons. He pointed out that it is in the urban service area. He recently gave 35' for a turning lane along Lateral A and about the same on 26'. He understood what was happening with the growth in the area. He supported the activities of the research station (on the Apopka weevil) but felt the citrus emphasis has moved west. He urged the Commissioners to go along with the staff recommendation and that of the Zoning Board. Sid Banack, 6125 Atlantic Blvd., citrus grower, farmer, and businessman, told of the changes since he came to this area 42 years ago. He stated his property is infected with the Apopka weevil and cited other reasons why his property can no longer be considered agricultural. He urged the Commissioners to listen to staff's recommendations. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to speak on the 33' Street matter; there were none. She then asked if anyone wished to speak on any other suggested land use designation change. (CLERK'S NOTE: The following map area was discussed by the next speaker.) C OCTOBER 29, 1997 M M M i 7 OCTOBER 29, 1997 Boa 103 PAPE 251 BOOK 103 PAGE 252 Kathy Woolsey, 8625 70' Avenue, was opposed to the change in land use designation by SR -510. She asked why it was being proposed, what the pressures were to make it happen, and why it should be done now. She also asked how it would affect her taxes. Director Keating stated he had spoken to the Property Appraiser who told him that generally they do not change their assessment, particularly if there is an agricultural exemption, unless the property owner requested, and the County approved, a rezoning. He went on to explain in detail the reasoning behind the recommendation which drew the conclusion that in order to prevent "urban sprawl", it is better to have land use designation a little bit higher than R, which is not a good developable type of land use designation. Commissioner Adams explained that in the Comprehensive Plan, there is an attempt to "step down" the designations. With respect to Ms. Woolsey's pressure concerns, Chairman Eggert pointed out this is a land use designation, not zoning. The present zoning will be maintained unless the property owner comes in specifically asking for a zoning change. Commissioner Adams added that this is looking to the future, to the year 2020. Chairman Eggert asked if anyone else wished to speak concerning proposed land use designations. (CLERK'S NOTE depicted in the following area map.) OCTOBER 29, 1997 The next speaker spoke about land use designation n. 1 1 1 - -- TREE PAR PINI laud FARK- m� alp . �. UNIT—� E G E F S+MJ ' i I 1 W j C[H F o N G M G o I � I J ¢ H J K L_ TR.121 jR II 4tF7ST TR.101 ---- TR.5 T ... TR.13-t— TR I1 r TR.I `I I R � AG -1 I I _ .. _ I _ I 1 t ST SW I -40-402 2p �- AREA PROPOSED TO B8 DESIGNATED L-1 109 L'D BOOK 103 FADE 254 Grant Gilmore, 5920 ? Street SW, had a question about an earlier statement of Mr. Keating that 1 -unit per acre increases urban sprawl and L-1 (3 -units per acre) does not. Chairman Eggert explained that the Florida Department of Community Affairs favors more dense population, which Indian River County does not. Director Keating added, for example, that the county is expecting another 50,000 people in the 20 -year time horizon in the plan. If that were 50,000 households it would take 3 -times as much land area to accommodate them at 1 -unit per acre, than at 3 -units per acre. None of the concepts today involve extending the urban service area. So, what is being said is that we have an outer boundary and we would like to make sure that the area within that boundary is used efficiently, instead of sprawling out further. Mr. Gilmore thought that the cost per acre (1 -unit vs 3 -units) would slow down the growth. Nevertheless, he has watched the parcel adjacent to his go from Agriculture to Rural and now it is proposed to go to L-1. He wondered if staff has considered the association of the property with major drainage systems to the Lagoon, such as the Lateral D canal, which is adjacent and is a major tributary to the Lagoon. He was concerned about pesticide runoff from more units next to that canal. He suggested that homeowners needed to change their tactics in the use of pesticides. He wondered if staff was aware that continued increase in housing densities had a long-term impact county -wide to the entire Lagoon system. Chairman Eggert assured Mr. Gilmore that staff looks carefully into all the concerns. Mr. Gilmore had just returned from China where agricultural land is extremely dear. He felt it was ironic that this most valuable land in coastal Florida is disappearing so rapidly, particularly for a crop (Indian River fruit) which is very dear in the Orient. There was a brief discussion about the prior Rural designation on this property and Director Keating explained that when the Comprehensive Plan was approved an intervenor (Mr. Feldman) went to Tallahassee. A negotiated settlement was reached in order to avoid an administrative hearing. It was explained that if it were changed to AG -1 (like the surrounding property) that it would probably end up in court and staff is trying to be more efficient in the urban service area. Commissioner Tippin liked it much better as he was growing up in the county near Lateral A. SR -60 had only grapefruit trees and cows. He told about shooting cottontail 10 OCTOBER 29, 1997 M M ■r rabbits in Bent Pines, because they were better than the marsh rabbits over on Storm Grove Road. He recalled that ten years ago the D.C.A. said we had one of the best Comprehensive Plans; now they are saying we have created urban sprawl. It is a paradox and we are in a transition period trying to plan for the future. People need to understand and realize that we are going to change and going to grow. Planning is being done to try to have the county grow in a orderly manner in the best interest of all the people in the county. Commissioner Ginn stated she was advised by the Director of Community Development who told her that we have everything we need in the Comprehensive Plan for future growth. It seemed to her that some of the suggested land use changes were spot changes and she was opposed to that. She felt this last piece of property should be changed to AG -1 from Rural. Gene Winne noticed that there had been other Comprehensive Plan changes in the advertisement, and Director Keating advised that they were not part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) changes. The two others were changes submitted by individuals. Steve Walker, 3055 62' Court, owner of Walker Citrus on 33' Street, spoke concerning the proposed land use change on 33`d Street. He had arrived late and stated that good things are going on at the Kerr Center and their Apopka weevil research. He had to replace 10 acres of citrus because of the weevil. He saw no need to make any more L-2. Concerning a buffer between agricultural and subdivisions, he agreed that dense buffers are beneficial to both and stated his reasons. Joan Martinelli, 7110 33' Street, had also arrived late and wished to address the proposed land use change on 33`d Street. They chose their property (a 5 -acre tract) a year ago because they wanted room to spread out. They have been working with the Kerr Center in raising crops. She was opposed to having the area get more dense. There were no other speakers who wished to address these proposed land use changes. Chairman Eggert asked if any Commissioner wished to make any comments to staff concerning these three or the other three proposed land use changes. (Clerk's Note: Maps showing the other three proposed land use changes follow.) 11 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 FAGE945-5 cc ko LLJ CE L- r . iY,y. Of 'flu Land Used Density 1 �+�h C-2 r i1' 1:4 0 C-3 :!.i_J 1:2.5 •�f�c. {�`'1"yy:�1�i A G - 1 AG -2 1:50A 1:10 �i i -%h1 �•l��ri'!S's AG -3 1:20 R 1:1 L -1 3:1 L-2 8:1 M-1 8:1 M-2 1 0: 1 L',:_ I RFC PUBLIC j o. j°1f� j e't p Sy e'arn'er / 65tpl:T/ ,5 "e tip, P6�4' 1 Y f COM/IND - See following page FUTURE LAND USE MA g Sebastian °le�� • Indian Rover shot* 7 A M � t A -. A Veto Beach .Jua /SCALE .. • • W V S — V�yyld�:�T� V IM1r V� . I `� $n m -AffS1 R mg, Sf1 1l�� t�lltS7 FIlt1. }MPo L aiju ow W7 '10 I: l L, L�f a:.J U .d V .If' N!� 11l:•, Alli: i2fQ1, QllllE_ OCTOBER 29, 1997 L 13 BOOK PACE'? i til EnM G� :00 HO Mro 00 M !d O w M BOOK 103 FACE,258 v j ' � I :I I f§53C7 OCTOBER 29, 1997 1 =rte t ` 1 � 14 In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, the 58`x` Avenue change was again discussed together with the Florida Department of Community Affairs negotiated settlement on that site. County Attorney Vitunac warned that if they attempted to change that property to AG - 1 they would run afoul of the private property rights act. A discussion ensued on the pros and cons regarding that property. Commissioner Macht inquired about the changing of the conservation lands, whether we may be passing up an opportunity to use the properties for mitigation from time -to -time or should we wait and do it case-by-case. Director Keating stated it should not affect mitigation at all; that, in fact, some of which are covered by Florida Communities Trust cost -share agreements, we have actually committed to changing the land use designation do that with any of these properties. He felt we would not have the ability to Commissioner Ginn commented that on the full Land Use Designation map we have a lot of L-2, and it was not like we need more. She read the following from page 45 of the Future Land Use Element: "As is detailed in the Land Needed to Accommodate Population section, there is more than enough existing vacant land within the urban service area to accommodate the projected 2020 population". She thought that said everything. Chairman Eggert pointed out that there is no new land being added to the urban service area, it is just what we are planning to do with that land. Commissioner Ginn stated we are adding density, and she did not think it was needed. George Hamner, 995 Sandfly Lane, quoted from page 61 of the Future Land Use Element as follows: "the amount of single-family land needed is expected to increase from 13,289 acres to 19,522 acres". That is not a lot of property, but it does not mean that we have enough land currently in the urban service area. He felt we need to come to terms with what is in the EAR. It needs to be balanced out so we do not have a conflict. He felt it was the single-family needs that are driving these proposed changes. Chairman Eggert suggested they all keep in mind that we have gone through this EAR process and those that were approved need to be put in the Comprehensive Plan. 15 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOCK 103 PACE 259 BooK 103 FACE 200 Commissioner Ginn asked if the statement on page 45 was accurate, and Director Keating assured her it was. Director Keating advised that we have a residential allocation ratio that is over 4 which indicates we can accommodate 4 times our 2020 need. The numbers on page 61 relate to how much land will be developed in each of those categories. Staff is not saying that these changes have to be done for "need" purposes, but for the area to develop in a compact manner, appropriate densities are being suggested to be put in the appropriate places. Commissioner Ginn and Director Keating discussed their different philosophies. He suggested that in an ideal world, everything would develop nicely with no vacant land parcels and no leap frog development. The intent is that everything inside the urban service area be developed except conservation land. Commissioner Adams concluded that the historical agricultural uses are not being protected in the urban service area or even the edge of it, and Director Keating said she was correct. She understood the feelings of the people who did not favor these changes and what Commissioner Ginn was saying. Discussion continued on philosophies. Director Keating stated he hoped that staff would not have to come to them in the future to expand the urban service area. He explained how Portland, Oregon has a very strict urban growth boundary by ensuring that land within the urban service area is used more efficiently. LAND USE ELEMENT Director Keating called attention to a handout that Chief of Long Range Planning Sasan Rohani was distributing concerning changes to Objective 18. He described it as a work -in -progress and pointed out two things concerning it: staff is proposing that there be a density bonus for developers that do TND (traditional neighborhood design) and allowing some of the property currently outside the urban service area, if contiguous to the urban service area and developed in conjunction with property in the urban service area as a TND community to have some urban uses outside the urban service area and to increase the densities for that property somewhat. He thought this was an important part of the plan and represented where planning is going in a lot of initiatives. 16 OCTOBER 29, 1997 M M OBJECTIVE 18: Traditional Neiehborhood Design (TND) Communities Between January 1, 1998 and January 1, 2010, ten percent of new residential development (dwelling units) occurring in unincorporated Indian River County will be located in Traditional Neighborhood Design projects. Policy 18.1: By January 1999, the count), shall adopt land development regulations that establish the TND, Traditional Neighborhood Design zoning district. The TND district shall be limited to planned developments. To qualify as a TND development, projects must meet the following criteria: Development Parameters 1. The minimum contiguous project land area shall be 40 acres. 2. Land shall be under unified control, planned and developed as a whole in a single development or as an approved series of developments or neighborhoods. The project shall be approved under the Planned Development (PD) rezoning process. Street Network 3. In order to disperse traffic by offering many alternative routes and connections between destinations within the project, the street network shall consist of a grid or modified grid pattern. 4. Not more than 10% of blocks shall have a block face dimension exceeding 400 feet. 5. The project shall contain a network of interconnected streets, sidewalks, and pathways. 6. Streets shall be designed to balance pedestrian and automobile needs, to discourage high automobile speeds, to effectively and efficiently accommodate transit systems, and to distribute and diffuse traffic rather than concentrate it. 7. Canopy trees that provide shade to sidewalks shallbe planted along project streets. Street trees shall b Provided so as to shade sidewalk areas and buffer sidewalk areas from automobile traffic. 8. Streets and adjacent buildings shall be sited and designed to encourage interactions between the street and buildings through the use of amenities such as reduced building setbacks, "build -to" lines, front porches, rear and side yard parking lot locations, and other means. 9. Projects shalle'.ghaste decrease g the prominence of e:t and_in frOnt wand°Sias front yard driveways_ g-� es and Park' to s "` AA"° ".' e or more of the following: mid -block alleys, garages located toward the rear of through rrearnand de loaded garages, ger es w ich are not the Pred minant archi' f f buildings off-street parking at the rear of buildings, restricted driveway connections to streets, and traffic calming techniques. Mixing—off Uses 17 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 PnE ZU r Box a 6 10. The project shall be designed as a compact or clustered development. Projects may include the following mix of uses occurring together in close proximity: • single-family residential, • multiple -family residential, • commercial and work place, • civic and cultural, and • open space. 11. The following ratios shall apply to land uses within the project: a. Communi open spaces open to the public, such as squares or parks, shall comprise a minimum of 5% of the total project area. b. Civic uses, such as post offices, community centers, meeting halls, schools, day care centers and cultural facilities shall comprise a minimum of 1% of the total project area. C. Residential uses shall comprise a minimum of 50% and a maximum of 80% of the total non -conservation and non-agricultural project area. d. Commercial and office uses located on residentially or agriculturally designated land shall not exceed 7% of the total land area designated on the land use plan as residential and agricultural ftMdetiiipy,-�"a�tfi31 d %hated land. 12. The vertical mixing of uses is allowed and strongly encouraged around designated town centers, main streets, mixed-use centers, and central squares and greens. Centers 13. Each project must have at least one public square, town center, or mixed use area within a '/4 mile walking distance from 50% of the project's residential units and within %z mile walking distance from 75% of the project's residential units. 14. To accommodate increased pedestrian use, 50% of sidewalks in public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall have a minimum unobstructed width (clear and passable for pedestrians) of seven feet. 15. On -street parking shall be allowed within public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas. 16. Off-street parking within public squares, town centers, or mixed use areas shall be provided only at the rear of buildings. Edges 17. Project edges located outside the Urban Service Area shall be established and designed for environmental, agricultural, recreational, or other open space uses. Public Buildings 18. Public buildings, such as schools, churches, post offices, and community centers, shall be provided in prominent, accessible locations within the project. Such locations generally are 18 OCTOBER 29, 1997 M M M at the termination of streets, the perimeter of the neighborhood center, or the frontage along a designated main street of a neighborhood or adjacent thoroughfare plan road. Policy 18.2: The county shall provide incentives to develop Traditional Neighborhood Design projects within the urban service area. Those incentives shall include, but not be limited to, the following: • 10% density bonus for TND projects located entirely within the urban service area; • reduced building setback requirements; • reduced lot size requirements; • increased maximum impervious surface limits for individual lots; • reduced right-of-way and travel lane widths; • reduced comer radii requirements; and • reduced off-street parking requirements. Policy 18-3: To facilitate TND projects east of I-95 that are partially outside but adjacent to the urban service area, 1Oand to continue to preserve the agricultural and natural character and function of the area, the county shall allow portions of TND projects to be located outside of the urban service area. No more tliai 25% A minimum of 60% of the total iroject density number of residential -units shall be derived from the nortion of the roiect located outside within -the urban service area. Density shall be calculated and allowed based upon: • the land use designation underlying the portion of the project within the urban service area; • 1 unit/acre for project property located outside of the urban service area; and • a density bonus up to 10% for projects located entirely within the urban service area. Director Keating advised of a suggested change to the Goal on Page 70 that resulted from a meeting with Commissioner Ginn the previous day. It would say: "Land development in Indian River County will occur in an orderly and controlled manner which ensures balanced growth in order to optimize the potential for economic development, provides for the efficient use of facilities and services and ensures the protection of the county's rich and varied environmental resources". Director Keating pointed out one other policy change on Page 85, Policy 1.37, which goes along with the hospital node expansion and is location specific for that area north of the proposed expansion. It would allow some office use in an M-1 area and limit it to 20% of that area. Commissioner Tippin noted that on page 20, under Conservation, it said: 19 OCTOBER 29, 1997 SOUK 103 PAGE 263 r600K 103 PAGE( Conservation land use includes: wetlands, publicly owned lands, publicly managed lands, spoil islands, and land designated environmentally sensitive. Little development has occurred in these areas. Land in this classification totals 67,229 acres, about 22.6% of the unincorporated county total. Commissioner Tippin recalled that the regional planning council 2-3 years ago came up with figures that showed Indian River County over 29% of conservation lands compared to St. Lucie County less than 3% and Martin County slightly over 3%. This is publicly - owned, no tax -paying property. He then called attention to page 13, (in the Conservation Element) to the following figures. TABLE 8.2 WETLANDS AND DEEPWATER RESOURCES OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Freshwater Wetlands Estuarine Wetlands ESTIMATED TOTAL ACREAGE (rounded to nearest 100 acres) SOURCE: FDEP Bureau of Geology St. Johns Marsh 72,000 Blue Cypress Lake 6,500 Freshwater Marsh 6,300 Wet prairie/pine Flatwood wetlands 4,700 St. Sebastian River 500 Openwater Total Acreage 90,500 Indian River Lagoon 16,300 Mangrove scrub -shrub wetland 2,400 Salt Marsh 1,100 Mixed mangrovelsalt marsh 1.200 Total Acreage 21,000 111,500 Director Keating advised that it was a difficult task to pin down the actual acreage of the county or square mileage, for example whether or not to count open water. He thought that Blue Cypress Lake was in the Conservation Element for 6,500 acres. There is additional 20 OCTOBER 29, 1997 open water in the Saint Sebastian River. In the Land Use Element, the reference to the 67,000 acres is publicly -owned and it probably should be specified in there that all of it is publicly -owned. Environmental Planning & Code Enforcement Chief Roland M. DeBlois confirmed that publicly -owned is the distinction versus the total resource. He promised to look again at the figures to insure consistency. Commissioner Tippin suggested that it be compared with whatever formula the Regional Planning Council used in their figure of 29%. His point was the vast amount of the county which is conservation property. Mr. DeBlois thought part of it was the resource characteristics of any particular county. Commissioner Ginn referred to the top of page 74, regarding xeric scrub. All areas depicted as C-3 on the Future Land Use Map which have xeric scrub vegetation and Orsino fine or Electra sands will be deemed environmentally important, notwithstanding whether or not such areas meet the 5 acre minimum threshold for environmental importance established in Conservation Element Policy 6.11 for other districts in the county. Commissioner Ginn asked if that meant that people were not going to be able to develop their land, and Director Keating stated that the C-3 area is only located along the Saint Sebastian River on the east side. It affects a very small area. He pointed out on that Policy 6.11 is found on page 9 of the Conservation Element as follows: Policy 6.11: Undeveloped tracts of xeric scrub and coastal/tropical hammocks 5 acres or larger shall be deemed environmentally important, in recognition of their scarcity and natural values, and in recognition of the public interest in encouraging the conservation of plants and animals associated with these vegetation communities. The county shall encourage the conservation of xeric scrub and coastal/tropical vegetative communities by establishing density transfer and cluster development incentive land use regulations to apply to these environmentally important areas. Mr. DeBlois advised this is a carryover from the 1990 plan which is virtually unchanged. The intent is to provide a little more incentive for larger tracts of xeric scrub or tropical hammock to try to micro -site away from those areas. 21 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 PAGE "'5 r- GOOK 103 PAGE 2,,66 Commissioner Ginn then turned to page 92, Policy 7.2, concerning the transfer of development rights. Poligy 7.2: The County shall continue to provide for the transfer of development rights (TDR) from estuarine wetlands to approved uplands. All projects involving TDRs must be Planned Development projects. No density can be transferred to agriculturally designated land. Deed restrictions and/or easements shall be used to ensure that land from which density has been transferred is preserved and protected. The development rights transferred shall be up to 1 unit per acre of estuarine wetlands, provided, however, that the maximum density permitted on the upland project area receiving the density transfer shall not increase by more than: e twenty percent of the maximum density allowed by the receiving site's underlying comprehensive plan land use designation(s) where the receiving site is not adjacent to the area from which density is transferred; or • fifty percent of the maximum density allowed by the receiving site's underlying comprehensive plan land use designation(s) where the receiving site is adjacent to the area from which density is transferred. Commissioner Ginn pointed out that it did not address properties that are not adjacent and do not have with common ownership. She gave an example and inquired about the transfer of development rights, which could be sold. She was concerned about the number of development rights that would result. Director Keating advised the figure based on Commissioner Ginn's hypothetical case and she felt that the densities are really being increased by this rights' bonus. She thought it was not appropriate and should not be permitted. She believed that the transfer of density rights on adjacent property should be reduced to 25%, not 50%. She thought everyone would soon have an opportunity to see what this looks like when the development for seniors on Indian River Boulevard is completed. Chairman Eggert asked approximately how many acres of estuarine wetland are in the county, and Director Keating thought there were about 2 1, 000 acres total. Discussion ensued as to the exact total and Director Keating suggested staff would try to get that number narrowed down. The next concern of Commissioner Ginn was Objective 18, the traditional neighborhood design. She felt putting a little town on 40 acres was ludicrous, not large enough. She wished to see it expanded. Director Keating stated that on 40 acres, there would not be the new town effect such as Seaside or Celebration, but staff thought that 40 acres was the first phase of a Hammock Lakes and thought it could be developed better as a traditional neighborhood. He did not 22 OCTOBER 29, 1997 _ M M want to imply that it would not be a good development. Commissioner Macht thought 40 acres should be the minimum and asked if these were not handled like the Planned Developments, which can be changed. Chairman Eggert pointed out that this is allowing a little commercial district in the center of the development where the residents can walk to it. Discussion ensued about other infrastructure and neighborhood schools. Finally, Commissioner Ginn was opposed to 10% density bonuses in TND communities, she did not see the need for them. (Clerk's Note: Underlined words and struck words were corrections requested by Commissioner Ginn at the November 25, 1997 meeting when these Minutes were submitted for approval.) INFRASTRUCTURE ELEMENT A. SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT B. POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT Director Keating advised that concerning the sanitary sewer and potable water sub - elements, his office had recently received from the Utilities Department some updated capital improvements costs and staff would like the ability to make minor changes to all the elements. Chairman Eggert asked for copies of that information for the Commissioners. She then asked if there were any questions about these two sub -elements. Chairman Eggert had a question on page 38, Policy 1.5: POLICY 1.5: The Planning Division, on an as needed basis, shall provide summary reports containing capacity and demand information for each public wastewater treatment plant within the county service area. Chairman Eggert asked why the Planning Division was having to do this as opposed to the Utility Department, and Director Keating replied that it really is a joint effort. 23 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 PAGE 2. 7 BOOK 103 PAGE 268 C. SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT Director Keating requested the Commissioners look at the alternative policies from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the Utilities Advisory Committee. For Solid Waste Sub -Element policies 4.2, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9, staff received alternative recommendations from the Utilities Advisory Committee and the Planning and Zoning Commission. Staff is providing these alternatives to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration at the October 29th workshop. ALTERNATIVES FOR POLICY 4.2 I. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: POLICY 4.2: By 2000, the SWDD shall have a feasibility study done for establishing a mandatory door-to-door garbage collection system to increase volume of waste for recycling, to efficiently separate waste at the place of generation, and to solve the problem of illegal dumping along county roadways, private properties, and at transfer stations sites. Upon the establishment of mandatory door-to-door garbage collection, the existing transfer stations will be closed. H. UTILITIES ADVISORY COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION: POLICY 4.2: The SWDD shall continue to study mandatory door-to-door garbage collection as a means to increase the volume of waste for recycling, to efficiently separate waste at the place of generation, and to solve the problem of illegal dumping along county roadways, private properties, and at transfer station sites. Upon the establishment of mandatory door-to-door garbage collection, the existing transfer stations will be closed. III. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: POLICY 4.2: By 1999, the SWDD shall arrange for a completed study to determine the feasibility of establishing a mandatory separation and collection system for recyclables and residual garbage, to efficiently separate waste at the place of generatiorkN to solve the problem of illegal dumping along county roadways, private properties, and at transfer station sites. Upon the establishment of mandatory door-to-door garbage collection, the existing transfer stations will be closed. 24 OCTOBER 29, 1997 Director Keating referred to a hand-out which was being circulated, Commissioner Ginn's wording for Policy 4.7. By 1999, the SWDD shall arrange for completed studies to determine the feasibility of the maximum recovery of recyclables from our garbage stream and their conversion to useful products on site without public subsidization and a waste to energy facility. Chairman Eggert asked that they start with Policy 4.2, and Commissioner Ginn thought that Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation (Ill) was best. Chairman Eggert also liked the year to be 1999. Commissioner Tippin thought it was fine. Commissioner Adams had concern that the mandatory door-to-door garbage collection mentioned sounded like it had already been established. She recommended that they remove ", and" in the policy. CONSENSUS to remove ", and" from III. Chairman Eggert went on to Policy 4.7. There was a lively discussion on the language of III, the P & Z recommendation. CONSENSUS to remove "waste conversion" and add (after industrial park., mrd a waste to energy facility) "and other alternative disposal methods." Chairman Eggert then moved to Policy 4.8. CONSENSUS to delete Policy 4.8. Chairman Eggert then moved to Policy 4.9. CONSENSUS to use III., P & Z recommendation. D. NATURAL GROUNDWATER AQUIFER RECHARGE SUB -ELEMENT Commissioner Ginn had a question on page 33, Objective 5. She asked if the 100 acres referred to would be part of the 1,000 acres, and Director Keating assured her it would be. A brief discussion ensued during which Commissioner Tippin commented that the 25 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 Fa,G �9 r- BOOK 103 PAGE270 -1 worst surface water (full of tannic acid) that ever occurred in Indian River County was in the highest point of the sand ridge, which is now Hawk's Nest. No changes made. STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB -ELEMENT Director Keating advised that (in the earlier handout) there was a revision suggested for Policy 2.5. Policy 2.5: By 2002, the county will adopt a Stormwater Master Plan. In developing the Stormwater Master Plan the county will analyze each basin in the unincorporated county, identify existing conditions and problems in each basin and identify projected growth in each basin As a result of that analysis the county will identify a design storm parameter discharge rate land use allowance and structural improvement plan for each basin The county will coordinate with the City of Sebastian, and will prioritize analysis of the areas within and adjacent to the St Sebastian River basin. Director Keating explained that the expansion of this policy gives details about a study that needs to be done prior to adopting the stormwater master plan and relates to discussion with the City of Sebastian about their concerns of drainage impact from the county area. It helps to have these policies in the Comprehensive Plan to get the grants. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Director Keating advised that this is the only new element in this Plan. As part of the 1990 Plan, we had a Traffic Circulation Element, a Mass Transit Element, and a Ports Aviation and Related Facilities Element. State law changed and we now have to have a consolidated transportation element. This is also a work -in -progress. He advised that copies of revised tables 4.7 and 4.7a were handed out. They show the projected number of trips on each roadway in 2020 under two different conditions. Each of them shows 2020 volume, but one of them shows the existing network and there is a problem wherever the VC ratio exceeds 1. The other table shows the same loading of trips on the proposed expanded network and indicates the problem goes away with the proposed expanded/cost-feasible 26 OCTOBER 29, 1997 network. The transportation element is very much based on the MPO's long-range transportation plan and incorporates by reference that plan as well as congestion management plan, bicycle -pedestrian plan, and other MPO initiatives. (Clerk's Note: The following revised tables were handed out at the meeting.) TABLE 4.7 PROJECTED 2020 VOLUMES AND WC RATIOS FOR EXISTING AND COMMITTED NETWORK Link Roadway, From To _ 1010 S_R_A I A S. COUNTY_ L S. VB CITY L - 1020 SRA l A S. VB CITY L 17TH ST_ 1030 §G_1A 17TH ST _ SR 1030 SR A lA SR 6_0__ _60 N. VB CITY L 10_50 1060 SR A I A _ N. VB CITY L FRED TUERK RD 1355 SRA IA _ FRED TUERK RD OLD WINTER 1070 _1A OLD ATNTER BCH_RD _B_C_H_ _RD__ N. IRS L 1080 SR A --- N. IRS L _ CR 510 1090 RAI A CR 510 -- -- - N. COUNTY L ----- _ 1110 INDIAN RIVER BLVD 4TH ST C US I 12TH ST INDIAN RIVER BLVD 1120 _ _ _ 12TH ST S. VB CITY _L 1130 INDIAN RIVER BLVD _ _ _ S. VB CITY L _ 17TH ST - 1140 INDIAN RIVER BLVD _ 17TH ST 21ST ST 1150 INDIAN RIVER BLVD _ 21ST ST SR 60 1160_ INDIAN RIVER BLVD SR 60 W. VB CITY L 1170 INDIAN RIVER BLVD W. VB CITY L US I a' 53RD ST - 1210 1-95 -- -- -- N. COUNTY LFR 512__ 1220 1-95 - - CR 512 SR 60 -- ---- _ 1-95_ 12.30 1-95 1305 US 1 _ 1;10 US 1 --- - FJ 15 L'S 1 - - 1__0 - us � 4TH ST a_ IR BLVD us I - 1;,805 _ STH ST_ - l_TH ST ,,, 14.223 1340 US I 1345 US I 1350 US 1 1355 L'S I 1360 L'S 1 1365 US I 1370 US 1 1375 --1380 US 1 ----1385 L'S I -- - -- US 1 _ 1390 _-- US 1 - 1395 US I Volume 2020 8,954 12,036 6,574 1 1,060 8.5_73 _ 7,185_ 5,544 5,592 4,744 _ 15,094 16,277 16,277 13,838 20,058 13,238 8,604 11,551 -- -- --- - SR 60 _ - - _ - OSLO RD -- -- - 15.696_ - 16.460 OSLO RD S. COL'`TY L - - --- I 6.460 S. COUNTY L --- - - OSLO RD r J OSLO RD _ _ 4TH ST a- IR BLVD'3.693 _ .451 4TH ST a_ IR BLVD 8TH ST--------- -- - 1;,805 _ STH ST_ - l_TH ST ,,, 14.223 -- -- 12TH ST _ S. VB CITI' L -- - -- - - �� 16.7,_ S. VB CITY L- - - - --- - - - - - . _.--- - - i : TH ST -. 17?60 _ 17TH ST SR 60 ---- - -- _ 9,801 SR 60 ROYAL PALM PL 10 964 ROYAL PALM PL ATLANTIC BLVD 11,732 ATLANTIC BLVD _ N. VB CITY L 17,335 N. VB CITY L OLD DIXIE HWY 17,072 OLD DIXIE HVWY - 41ST ST 11 929 41 ST ST - _ _ _ 45TH ST _ _ 12.469 -- 45TH ST- 49TH ST --- 13.178 __ - -- 49TH ST --- - - 65TH ST - -- 17.389 --- 13,31 69TH ST _ - - -- O_LD DIXIE HW';F____ 13.025 - OLD DIXIE HNVY- SCHL"vlA''v D_R_ 14,873 - SCHUNL4N� DR CR 512 - ----- -- 17,487 -- 27 OCTOBER 29, 1997 Model VIC Ratio 2020 0.90 1.52 0.83 1.40 1.08 0.90 - 0.70 -- -�- 0.70 - -- 0.72 0.$7 1.03 0.87 1.27 0.83 0.54 0.32 0.43 - 0.36 0.46 1.38 _ 1.50 0.8- 0.90 1.0: 1.09 0.69 0.74 1.09 0.93 0.75 0.78 0.77 1.10 0.83 0.82 0.94 1.10 BOOK 103 �� PAGE 2 Boa 103 PAA 272 TABLE 4.7 PROJECTED 2020 VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR EXISTING AND COMMITTED NETWORK Link Roadway From To Model Model - -_-- --- -- ---- - -- - - -- Volume _ V/C Ratia --- - - - 2020 2020 1400 US 1 CR 512 N. SEB CITY L 16,573 1.04- 1405 US I N. SEB CITY L ROSELAND RD 13,908 0.99 1410 _ _ _ L'S 1 ROSELAND RD _ _ N. COLNTY L 14.081 0.89 _ _1610 ROSELAND RD CR 512 N. SEB CITY L_ 5.224 0.97 1620 _ _ _ ROSELAND RD N. SEB CITY L - _ US 1 - 5.961 _ _ 1.11 1710 ICR 512 SR 60 1-95 5,849 0.7' 1720 _1730_ 1740 1750 CR 512 CR 512 - _ CR 512 CR 512 1-95 ---- - - CR 510 _ _ W. SEB CITY L ROSELAND RD - - - CR 510 ----- - - W. SEB CITY L ROSELAND RD 10.887 - -- 11,854_ 12,136 13.146 1.63 --- ---- - 1.77 - 1.81 - - - 0.83 US 1 -- ---- _ 1_810 _ 1820 CR 510 _ CR 510_ CR 510 -- - CR 512 66TH AVE 58TH AVE _6.966 8.610 1.27 66TH AVE _ 1.29 1830 58TH AVE _ US 1 1.31 1840 JCR 510 US 1 SR AIA _8,769 7,987 1.19 1905 - SR 60 W. COUNTY L CR 512 7,096 0.53 1907 _ SR 60 - SR 60 CR 512 100TH AVE 7,607 17,830 0.57 1.35 1910 100TH AVE I-95 1915 SR 60 1-95 _ 82ND AVE 24,084 1.52 1920 SR 60 82ND AVE 66TH AVE 24,231 1.53 1925 SR 60 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 18,894 1.19 1930 SR 60 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 16,676 0.67 1935 SR 60 43RD AVE 27TH AVE 15,499 0.63 1940 SR 60 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 16,489 0.67 _ 1945 SR 60 - - 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 0.42 1950 _ 1955_ SR 60 -_- - SR 60 OLD DIXIE HAY _ _ IOTH AVE liS 1 - -- --- - _10.763 6.:58 0.'7 10TH AVE 5,525 0.23 - 1960 19_65 -- 1970 _ SR 60 - - -§R60 - - -_-_ SR 60 _ L'S 1 INDLAN RIVER BLVD.-- '_,685 0.21 INDIAN RIVER BLVD_ ICW�I' --- SR AIA -- - --- -- - 13,478 - 0.88 1CW IN, ` - 1-1.149 _- 0.76 202016TH 2030 _ - ST 16TH ST- ------- 48TH AVE 43RD AVE- ---__-_-_ 43RD AVE 27TH AVE -- ---- -,.4-,7 - 0.64 4.8'- -_ -- 0.90 '_040 _ 16TH ST_ - 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 0.76 - 2050 16TH ST _ 20TH AVE _ OLD DIXIE HWY _4.098 11.992 _ 1.00 2060 16TH, 17TH ST OLD DIXIE HWY _ US 1 17,391 1.10 2110 117TH ST US I INDIAN RIVER BLVD 7,976 0.50 2120 117TH ST INDIAN RIVER BLVD SR AIA 13,593 0.86 2220 12TH ST 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 3,265 0.48 2230 12TH ST 43RD AVE 27TH AVE 5,115 0.76 3240 12TH ST - 27TH AVE 20TH AVE _ 5,419 0.81 2250 12TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 5.416 0.34 2260 12TH ST OLD DIXIE HWY us 1 6.624 0.51 _'305 OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNTY L OSLO RD 9,544 1.43 2310 OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO RD 4TH ST 8.393 ].25 2315 _ OLD DIXIE HWY 4TH ST _ 8TH ST _ 4.904 _ 0.73 2320 OLD DIXIE HW% -Y 8TH ST _ 12TH ST 4,534 0.67 2325 OLD DIXIE HWY 12TH ST S. VI3 CITY L 4,938 0.74 2330 JOLD DIXIE HWY S. VB CITY L 16TH ST 5.241 0.78 2335 JOLD DIXIE HWY 16TH ST _ SR 60 4,785 0.71 -_2410 - _2420 27TH AVE _ S. COUNTY L OSLO RD ST - --- 9,905_ 1.48 _'7TH AVE OSLO RD 4TH 5,429 _ 0.81 2.130 27TH AVE 4TH ST 18TH ST -------- 7.181 _ 1.07 28 OCTOBER 29, 1997 TABLE 4.7 PROJECTED 2020 VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR EXISTING AND COMMITTED NETWORK Link 2440 '_450 :•360 2470 - :380- 2510 2530 _ 2550 -OSLO Roadway - 27TH AVE 27TH AVE - 27TH AVE 27TH AVE - _7TH AVE 27TH AVE OSLO RD ---- - From 8TH ST 12TH ST -- -- S. VB CITY L 16TH ST - --- --- - SR 60 ATLANTIC BLVD 82ND AVE_ To _ - 12TH ST _ S. VB CITY L 16TH ST SR 60 -- ATLANTIC BLVD AVIATION BLVD 58TH AVE Model Volume 2020 _7,002 7,419 7.419 2,485 _ _ _ 2.976 2,507 7,650 6,79 Model V/C Ratio 2020 1.04 1.11 0.37 _ ----0.44 0.37 ---- 1.73 OSLO RD RD - -- --- 58TH AVE --- 43RD AVE--- -- 43RD AVE - - 27TH AVE 7,46 7,426 _1.24 2560 2570 2580 2810 OSLO RD OSLO RD - - - OSLO RD 20TH AVE 27TH AVE _ _ 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY_--_--- US 1 4TH ST 442 8,601 14,019 6,487 0.96 0.88 20TH AVE --- - OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO RD. 0.97 2820 2830 20TH AVE 20TH AVE 4TH ST 8TH ST 8TH ST 12TH ST 7,465 7,394 7.317 1.39 1.37 0.46 '_840 20TH AVE 12TH ST S. VB CITY L 2850 20TH AVE S. VB CITY L 16TH ST__ 7.514 13.745 -0.47 0.87 1.19 2860 20TH AVE 16TH ST SR 60 - --- S. COUNTY L ---- SR 60 ATLANTIC BLVD OSLO RD 4TH ST -- - - -- _ - -- 8TH ST - - 12TH ST 16TH ST - -- --- - SR 60 26TH ST ---- - --- 41ST ST ------ --- 45TH ST 49TH ST _ 28770 ---2905 _ - _910 -- 2915 _- -- ---__ 20TH AVE 43RD AVE- 33RD AVE - - -OSLO 43RD AVE ----------4T-HST ----- 5.600 ---5.694 -5.•364 5.693 -- 4.9-1 ------ - -- 8.591 4 -6 6..4112 5,774 3,825 0.83 - -` 0.81 - -- `-- 0.35 ----- 0.38 - - -- 0.67 -- -- 0.97 ----0.96 0.86 0.57 RD -- ----- - --- - STH ST 12TH ST 16TH ST SR 60 - --- --- -- - --8T-HS '920 43RD AVE - - ---- ---------- -- - - _925 43RD AVE 2910 43,D A -- RVE -- 2935 43RD AVE - - - -- _-_9.30 43RD AVE --_26TH _ ST 41ST ST 2945 43RD AVE 2950 43RD AVE 45TH ST 3005 58TH AVE OSLO RD 4TH ST 4,586 7,720 0.68 1.15 3010 58TH AVE 4TH ST -- 8TH ST 12TH ST 16TH ST --- -- --__ SR 60 41ST ST ---- --- ----- 35TH ST 49TH -ST----- 65TH ST - ---- - - --- - ST 3015 58TH AVE 8TH ST 7.091 9.433 11.280 - 12.784 6.605 6,097_ - 7,371 5,958 1.06 0.59 0.71 _. _ 1.12 0.99 ---0.91 1.10 0.89 3020 _ 58TH AVE 12TH ST - 30 25 58TH AVE 16TH ST _ 3030 035 - :040 3045 58TH 3050 58TH 3055 58TH - 58TH AVE 58TH A VE - ---- - 41 58TH AVE 45TH AVE - - --_ 49TH AVE 65TH AVE 69TH SR 60 ---- ST ST _ ST ST _------- ST - - 69TH ST CR510 ST 0.93 3120 66TH 3130 66TH AVE SR AVE 26TH 60 _ 26TH ST 41ST 5,595 5,181 -- 0.96 1.32 -- 0.83 --- 0.86 - - 0.80 -- ST _ ST ST - --- ST - --�- - - -- - 7.092 4.502 - 646 4 291 1.30 66TH AVE 41ST - ST 45TH --= 15_0 66TH :160 66TH _ AVE - 45TH AVE - - 65TH _ ST 65TH _ ;- 69TH 29 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 PAGE 13 mor 100 PACE 274 TABLE 4.7 PROJECTED 2020 VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR Link Roadway From - -- -- EXISTING AND COMMITTED o T - _ _ CR 510 4TH ST --ST-- 12TH SR 60 - - - - -- - - - _ 65THST NETWORK Model Volume 2020 'Model V/C Ratio_ 2020 3170 3310 3320 3330 33.10 3350 -- 3710 _ 3720_ 3730 P-74i2_40 4250 _4320 33 30 43 30_--- 4350 4420 4430 _ 4.3.10 4350 - 4720 4730 4740 X04TH -- 4940 -- 4950 4960 4970 66TH AVE 82ND AVE 82ND AVE 82ND . 4VE - 82ND AVE 82ND AVE 69TH ST -_ __ 69TH ST 69TH ST -- -_ _ __ 69TH ST 65TH ST _ 65TH ST 65TH STOLD 49TH ST 49TH ST 49TH ST 49TH ST 45TH ST 45TH ST 45TH ST - - 45TH ST ---- 4 IST ST _ -31ST cT _ _ _ 31ST ST - _-___ -___ ___ 41ST ST 26TH ST 26TH ST _ _ _ 26TH ST _ 6TH ST TH ST STH ST TH ST TH ST - ---- _ TH ST H ST H ST ST - - -- _ 4TH ST - ---- 4TH ST 4TH ST 4TH ST 69TH S7 OSLO RD - 4TH ST - _ __ 12TH S7 - - SR 60 65TH ST - - - -- 82ND AVE _ 66TH AVE - - -- -� 58TH AVE __ OLD DIXIE HWY- 66TH AVE 58TH AVE DIXIE HWY 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 43RD AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 66TH AVE 6 - - - -8TH AVE - .33RD AVE - -OLD -- --- OLD DIXIE HAY 66TH AVE - 8TH AVE - - -- - - _ 43' RD AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 66TH AVE _ 58TH AVE _ 43RD AVE AVIATION BLVD 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 27TH AVE , 0TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY US 1 INDIAN 82ND AVE58TH ---- - 58TH AVE 43RD 43RD AVE - - -- 27TH 27TH AVE , 0TH AVE OLD OLD DIXIE HWY US 4,839 1.09 3,824 5,071 - --- - - 4.430 na na 0.79 0.94 -. 0.82_ ---na na 69TH ST - -- 66TH AVE 58TH AVE na 2,570 na 0.47 OLD DIXIE HWY_ _ US 1 983 9040.16 --0.18 58TH AVE _ 167 0.03 OLD DIXIE HWY 1,360 0.25 US 1 1,457 0,27 58TH AVE 525 0.09 43RD AVE 2,024 0.37 OLD DIXIE HWY 5,035 0.93 US 1 3,997 0.74 58TH AVE 144 0.02 -- 43RD AVE 1.-t42 -- p?6 0.82 0.82 DIXIE HVI'Y - -4,433 _ . _.- INDIAN R1V BD 4,435 58TH AVE 740 --------- 0.11) - --- -- 0.33 - - 43RD AVE -- ---- -- -- - - 1.816 OLD DIXIE Hkkl' 1,197 __ INDIAN R BD 809 58TH AVE 4,982 0.92 43RD AVE 4,539 0.84 AVIATION BLVD 2,993 0.55 27TH AVE 3,546 0.66 43RD AVE 3,380 0.63 27TH AVE 3,107 Q.57 20TH AVE 5,305 0.98 OLD DIXIE HWY 2,535 0.47 US I 3,583 RIVER BLVD 2,965 - 0.66 0.55 AVEH na na AVE 4,298 - --------- 0.64 AVE --- 5,631 0.84 0TH AVE 5,241 0 78 DIXIE HWY 4,324 1 1 6,009 0.64 0.38- 30 OCTOBER 29, 1997 � s � TABLE 4.7a PROJECTED VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR 2020 COST FEASIBLE NETWORK Link Roadway From To -T-2021 Dir. Peak me V/C Ratio 1010 SR A I A S. COUNTY LINE S. VB CITY_ L_954 ZOZO 1020 SR A I A S. VB CITY L 17TH ST .90 1030 SR AIA - _ - 17THST_ - - --1.52 SR 1040 SR AIA SR 60 - - _074 N. VB CITY L1050 Sq SR AlA N. �'B CITY L --- -- -- - -- --- -60 FRED TUERItR73 69 1060 SR AIA SR FRED TUERK RD OLD WINTER BCH RD 7,185 .89 .-1070-.- AIA - _ OLD ATNTER BCH RD N. (RSL -- .68 - 1080 SR A -A - --4444-- _--_-- -- --- N. IRS_L -- - CR 510 5,544 1090 SR AIA ---- - CR 510---- - -- - N. COUNTY L -- 5.592 ---- _.68 7; - - - 1110 _ INDIAN RIVER BLVD 44TH S_T rd US 1 _H20 12TH ST 4.744 .72 _ _ INDIAN RIVER BLVD_ 12TH ST� __ S. VB CITY L 15.094 -- 86 - - — 1130 INDIAN RIVER BLVD S. VB CITY L -- .___- 17TH ST , 16._77 .88 1140 INDIAN RIVER BLVD 17TH ST 21ST ST- 16,277 .88 1150 INDIAN RIVER BLVD 21ST ST SR 60 13,838 ,73 1160 INDIAN RIVER BLVD SR 60 W. VB CITY L 20,058 E]j 1170 INDIAN RIVER BLVD W. VB CITY L r, US 1 a 53RD ST 13,238 1210 I-95 _ N. COUNTY L CR 512 8,604 1 _'20 1-95 - - --- --- - -- 2 — --- CR 51 _ - - --- S_R 60 11,551 -----.32 121-110 1-45 SR 60 - - - --- --- - - --- - OSLO RD - 15.696 _ - .36 - 1210 I-95 OSLO RD - - CN --- - S. COL^VTY L --16.360 — .41 -- 1 0*1 L S I S. COUNTY L OSLO RD 1 16.360 .46 13,10 U'S 1 - - - - OSL_O_RD-- -- - --- - 3TH ST a IR BLVD �.4„ 1 �;.69� - .84 - L S j 3TH ST a IR BLVD S T H ST - - _- . . $9 - l"S 1 i -STH ST -_ r H ST , _ .SC'. h6 ;; - _12TH ST - - -- - -- - S. �'B CiTY L l y __ __ -_ !b.%:� .r 9U 13?; US 1 S. VB CITY L - -- --- --- - 17TH ST I_TH ST ------ -1'•260 --1340 US 1 ---- - _ _ SR 60 SR 60 - -- -- RO�'AL PALM PL 9.801 _1.03 76 1345 USI ROYAL PALM PL ATLANTIC BLVD 10,964 31 1350 US 1 ATLANTIC BLVD N. VB CITY L 11,732 .85 --135_5 USI N. VB CITE' L _ -- OLD DIXIE HVIY - 17,335 1360 US 1 - __ __-- OLD DIXIE HVbY .31ST ST 17,072 - .66 1=65_ US 1-- - _-- -- -- 41ST ST -----4�THST 11.9291 --- --- __68 13;0 U_S 1 - 45TH ST - --- __-- _ 12.469 .69 - 65TH ST_ -- -- - 178 - ,2 - - 1380 - -- - 65TH ST - -- - - _ 69TH ST -- - - 17.389 ---- - , � -- 88 1385- _1385 US 1 -"---- - 69TH ST - - - - - - - - - OLD DIXIE H'%- _ 13._, I _ - 62 1:90 US ] - - .- _ OLD DIXIE HV4Y - - SCHL'�LA'�':v DR 13.025 - 13.02�,873 - - -.6 .65 SCHl:hL4;�N DR _ CR 512 - --.80 1400 US 1 - _ CR 512 N. SEB CITY L 17,487 _ 1405 US 1 -- --- N. SEB CITY L ROSELAND- RD 16,573 62 1410 US 1 — --- ROSELAND RD - N. COLN'TY L -- - 13,908 - - .52 - 1510 SCHUMAN`\ DR - CR 510 ,a 66TH A�'E S. SEB CITY L 14,081 .7 1520 ScHL'vlA\N DR-- --- --- - - S. SEB CITY L - -- US 1 - - - 11.938 - - .7 5 -- 1610 ROSELAND RD CR 512 N. SEB CITY L 5,773 ;6 5.214 41 31 OCTOBER 29, 1997 !BOOK 103 FACE 275 BOOK 103 PAGE 276 TABLE 4.7a PROJECTED VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR 2020 COST FEASIBLE NETWORK Link 1620 1710 1720 173_0 175 1750 1810_ -1820 1830 1840 1905 1907 1910 1915 1920 1925 1930 1935 1940 -- 1945 1950 - - 19`5 1960 i 9�5 2O_0 _'030 2040 2050 2060 - 2110 2120 3210 _'220 2230 -2240 50 3360 12TH 2305 2310 2315 OLD 2320 OLD 3335 OLD 2330 OLD - -»5 OLD Roadway ROSELAND RD CR 512 CR 512 - -1-95 CR 512 _ _ CR 512 _ CR 512 CR 510 - - _ CR 510- - _ CR 510 ___ 22.22_ N. SEB CITY L SR 60 -- - CR 510 --_-- W. SEB CITY L ROSELAND RD CR 512 _-- To - ----Volume USI 1-95 CR 510 - - - -- W. SEB C1_TY_L - - -- ROSELAND RD US 1 - - - -- 66TH AVE Peak Dir. 2020 Peak V/C Ratio 2020 5.961 _ 5,849 - 10.887 -- 11.854 12,1;6 --- 13.146 .50 .75 .80 .68 71 .54 6,966 66TH AVE 58TH AVE US 1 SRAIA CR 512 100TH AVE 1-95 82ND AVE 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 8.610 8,769 .44 --- - .57 _.5 -----.73 .99 - -- 58TH AVE US 1 --- W. COUNTY L CR 512 A 100TH VE I-95 82ND AVE 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 43RD AVE -------,0TH CR510 7,987 SR 60 _ SR 60 SR 60 7,096 7,607 .53 - 57 17,830 1.36 SR 60 SR 60 - SR 60 SR 60 _ SR 60 SR 60 - --- - - --,7TH ---- - 60 _ - - ---_ SR 60 --- SR 60 - -- -- SR 60 16TH ST 16TH ST --- 16TH S -T - --- 16TH ST 16TH,17TH ST 17TH ST 17TH ST 12TH ST 12TH ST - 12TH ST 12TH ST 12TH ST _- ST OLD DIXIE HWY OLD DIXIE HWY DIXIE HWY 4TH DIXIE HWY 8TH DIXIE HVIY 12TH DIXIE �HA_yS. DIXIE RY 16TH 24,084 24,231 86 75 18,894 •62 16.676 .64 27TH AVE S 1 _ 499_ 65 AVE - - - 20TH AVE --_" - OLD DIXIE H% Y I OTH AVE ---- - - US 1 - - - - - - 1NDIAN 1I\:` _ _ c B\ 58TH AVE -- - - - 43RD AVE 27TH AVE ----- -- - 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HRY US 1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD 82ND AVE'�UE 58TH AVE 473RD AVE 27TH 27TH AVE -- - 20TH 20TH AVE - -- OLD DIXIE FI S. COUNTY L OSLO RD ST 4TH ST ---_ 8TH 12TH ST - - - - S. VB CITY L 16T_H __ _ AVE -- OLD DIXIE HUY - 16.89 10.'63 -- - --- 67 _ 62 -- -- --- .16 - - - 1. 83 -1 10TH AVE 6.:55 -- ::49 us 1 --- - - - - IKD A\ RI\ ER BLVD SR AIA 43RD A\ E -- - 27TH AVE ; ,;- -'' g-; --.0 4.098 ______-3 1 I -.62 - 1.06 BOTH AVE ------- OLD DIXIE HWY 11,992 62 US I 17.391 .74 INDIAN RIVER BLVD 7,97b q3 .90 _ na .49 .82 ----- 87 - 28 - .16 77 71 .70 .65 -- .58 �g .64 SR AIA 13,593 58TH AVE na 43RD AVE 3._'65 AVE 5,115 AVE -- - - - - OLD DIXIE HAY US 1 --- - - ;.419 5_.4_16 -- --6.624 - OSLO RD 0•- ST 8,;03 ST - 4.904 _ ST 4•;34 4 9'8 _ VB CITY L - - ST____5._41 60-- 4.'85 __ _ __ ST SR 32 OCTOBER 29, 1997 � � r Link TABLE 4.7a PROJECTED VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR 2020 COST FEASIBLE NETWORK Roadway From 2410 '7TH AVE 2420 127T.H AVE 2430 127TH AVE 2440 27TH AVE 2450 27TH AVE 2460 27TH AVE 2470 27TH AVE _ _'380 27TH AVE 2510 27TH AVE 3530 OSLO RD 2540 OSLO RD - 2550 OSLO RD 2560 OSLO RD 2570 OSLO RD 2580 OSLO RD 2610 OSLO RD _ 2620 OSLO RD 2710 OSLO RD '810 20TH .4VE 2820 -20TH AVE 25.0 20TH AVE 2540 _0TH AVE _SSU 20TH AVE H `•E =`-0 :--TH AVE 'RD AVE 2x10 4 R -DAVE '915 411RD AVE - - _1920 43RD AVE 2925 43RD AVE 2930 43RD AVE _2935 43 RD AVE - 2940 4 3RD AVE 29435 43RD VA E------- 2950 43RD AVE '005 58TH AVE _ 3010 58TH AVE_ 3015 -8TH AVE 3020 58TH AVE 3025 58TH AVE 3030 58TH AVE 3035 58TH AVE_ .040 -STH.4VE --- -- 3050 - SSTH AVE -- --- OCTOBER 29, 1997 S. COUNT_Y_L_ OSLO RD 4TH ST 8TH S_T 12T_H ST S. VB CIT_Y_L_ _ 16TH ST _ SR 60 ATLANTIC BLVD 82N'D __- --_- AVE - 58TH AVE ��- 43RD AVE 27TH AVE 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY _ 82ND AVE 82ND AVE 66TH AVE OSLO RD - 4TH ST STH ST - - .. -- 12TH ST _ . ' `uuB_CTI Tl' L SR 60 S. COLLA T1' L_ OSLO RD - --- 4TH ST ---- -- --- 8TH ST 12TH ST 16TH ST - _ SR 60 _ _ 26TH ST _ 41 ST ST 45TH ST OSLO RD 4TH ST STH ST — ----------�- 12TH ST -- 16TH ST SR 60 41 ST ST 45TH ST 4 49TH ST ----- --- - - 6 65TH ST - - - ---- 33 To OSLO RD 4TH ST 8TH ST 12TH ST S. VB CITY L 16TH sr AT--- S -R-60---* __ LANTIC BLVD A _ VIATION BLVD 58TH AV 3 E -- 4RD 27TH AVE 20TH AVE H OLD DIXIE WY US 1 I-95 66TH AVE 58TH AVE — 4TH ST _ 8TH ST 12 __ TH ST S. VB CITY L 16TH S?- JR 60 ATLANTIC BL -%'D OSLO RD 4TH ST 8TH S 12TH ST 16TH ST SR 60 - - 26TH ST 41 ST ST --- -- 45TH ST 49TH ST 4TH ST 8TH ST 3T - 1H ST - - SR 60 41ST ST_ 45TH ST -- - 9TH ST_-- - -- - STH ST _ 9TH ST Peak Dir Volume 2020 9,905 5,429_ -_7,181 _ 7,0_02 7,419 7,419 2,485 2,976 2.507 7,650 6,792 7,426 6 44 2 8,601 14,019 9,369 11,808 11,961 _6.487 7.4,65; --.394 ".9g 1 _ _:.600 _ x.699 5,464 5,694 4,971 -- 8.591 _ 6.507 _ 6,312 - 5,774 3,825 4.586 7.720 7,091 - - 9,433 11,280 12.784 _ 6.605 _ _ 6.097 %.371 Peak V/C Ratio 2020 .75 .54 .57 .49 56 .56 .21 .55 .45 _na 97 .54 .33 .45 71 90 24 70 65 .S4 --- 68 .90 .37 .55 .46 _ _.67 1.19 .54 .66 .81 .65 .77 _-.91 .;Cl BOOK 103 FACE 27i � 11 BOOK 103 PAGE278 TABLE 4.7a PROJECTED VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR 2020 COST FEASIBLE NETWORK LinkRoadway From _ To Peak Dir. Peak Volume I V/C Ratio 3055 3120 3130 3140 3150 3160_ 58TH AVE 66TH AVE 66TH AVE--- 66T H AVE 66TH AVE 66TH AVE 69TH ST SR 60 _ 26TH ST 41 ST ST 45TH ST 65TH ST-- - - - CR510 26TH ST_ - 4IST ST 45TH ST 65TH ST 69TH ST -_-_ - -- CR 510 4TH ST 202 2020 6.55 95 .60 5,181 7,092 4.502_ 4,646 - - 4,291 .3_7 6_8 .45 .45 - - .70 3170 3310 3320 3330 --- 3340 66TH AVE 82ND AVE_ -- _ i2—NDA VE _ 82ND AVE ---- 82ND AVE -- 69TH ST OSLO RD 4,839 .66 3,824 .50 4TH ST _ _ 12TH ST _ SR 60 _ 5,071 4.430 na _ .63 .27 na 12TH ST - -- ---- --- --- - SR 60 65TH ST 53RD ST SR 60 US 1 58TH AVE 66THAVE 87\�D AVE _ _ _ 65TH ST 69TH ST CR 510 53RD ST 58TH AVE 66TH AVE 82ND AVE 66TH AVE2p 3350 82ND AVE na na 3610 _ 82ND AVE___ 3,402 .51 3620 82ND AVE 4,874 73 3630 3640 r3650 10 53RD ST 53RD ST 53RD ST 69TH ST 69THST 69TH ST_OLD 69TH ST 2,381 .15 1,093 4,046 .06 .30 na na 66TH A�'E --- - - 53TH AVE30 DIXIE HVIY98340 L S 1 - - - - 58TH AVE -------- -- - - - OLD DIXIE HWY Us 1--- -- SSTN AVE_ 4�RD AVE - - - --- - 30 OLD DIXIE H«� 66TH AVE _-- - - -- - -8TH AVE OLD DIXIE HWY 66TH AVE 9U 3 =$,o_ _ 65TH ST - 8.0 65TH ST aSTH ST 167 -.22 :S - - - .1,, "--�' . -- 42:0 4240 4_50 -UTH ST --._ _ 49TH ST 49TH ST-. 49TH ST :=5 ---'.024 .16 __- 18 --- OLD DIXIE HWY- - 5.035 - 1 OLD DIXIE HWY 66TH AVE 58TH AVE _ 43RD AVE OLD DIXIE H%'Y 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 43RD AVE _ _ OLD DIXIE HVIY INDIAN 66TH AVE 58TH $TH AVE - - AVE AVIATION AVIATION BLVD 27TH AVE 43RD .4VE _ - 27TH — US I 58TH AVE 43RD AVE OLD DIXIE HNVY INDIAN RIV BD 58TH AVE_ 43RD AVE 3,997 .20 4320 4330 43430 43 50 4420 4430 1110 4450 -4720_ _4130 4740 26TH 4750 26TH 4830 8TH 45TH ST 45TH ST 45TH ST 45TH ST 41 ST ST 41ST ST 41ST ST 41ST ST 26TH ST _ 26TH ST _58TH ST 43RD ST ST 58TH ST -43RD_ ST - - - 17TH ST ` -- - - - ST OLD 144 23 1,442 .41 4,433 51 4.435 .29 740 1,816 27 .25 OLD DIXIE HI Y RIV BD AVE - - - AVE 1,197 21 809 — - - ;1 4,9g2 44 --- .3.2 4.539 BLVD - ,996 .61 AVENUE 3,546 .66 4 840 _ 8TH 4550 8TH 1860_ 8TH 48'0 8TH AVE AVE AVE -- - - - - -- DIXIE H�IY 3,380 3.107 --- 5.305 .72 -----.47 AVE 20TH -- - .63 0TH AVE OLD 2.535 - - -.33 ___ DIXIE HWY L'S 1 ---- -- 3.583 .66 34 OCTOBER 29, 1997 TABLE 4.7a PROJECTED VOLUMES AND V/C RATIOS FOR 2020 COST FEASIBLE NETWORK Link Road%,a%- From To o_ Peak Dir. Peak Volume V/C Ratio 2020 2020 4880 8TH ST US 1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD 2,965 .45 4910 4TH ST 852ND AVE 58TH AVE na na 4930 4TH ST _ 558TH AVE 43RD _AVE 4.298 _24 4940 4TH ST 433RD AVE 27TH AVE _ 5.631 .46 4950 4TH ST _ 27TH AVE _ 20TH AVE _ _ 5,241 ,55 4960 4TH ST 20TH AVE - - OLD DIXIE HVAY --- -- - - 4,324 ..;8 ST --- -- 4970 14TH OLD DIXIE HWY US 1 -- 6,009 1 .12 At the urging of Chairman Eggert, Director Keating advised, with respect to 6-laning US -1 in Sebastian, that many alternatives will be studied before pavement is put down. Commissioner Ginn had a question on Page 45, Policy 1. 1, regarding level of service. Traffic Circulation The county acknowledges that there are no existing roadway capacity deficiencies within the County. Through 2020, the county traffic circulation system will continue to operate at or above the minimum service levels specified in policy 1.1. POLICY 1.1: The county hereby adopts traffic circulation level of service standards. These standards are as follows: Level of service "C" shall be maintained for rural principal arterials and rural freeways during peak hour, peak season and peak direction conditions. During peak hour, peak season and peak direction conditions, level of service "D" or better shall be maintained on all other freeway, arterial and collector roadways. For Florida Intrastate Highway System roadways, level of service B is adopted for rural areas, and level of service C is adopted for urban areas. Commissioner Ginn asked when staff knows they have to act in grading down the LOS, and Director Keating explained that sophisticated transportation modeling is done and staff tries to project and plan ahead for the need when the budget is able factor in using Federal or State dollars is about 10 years into the future. 35 OCTOBER 29, 1997 The compounding BOOK 103 PAGE 279 1 1 1 w rn 00 Comprehensive Plan Transportation Element O � � � co 0 0 a m m I a a o CD w CD CD o o.�� Community Development Department Indian River County p. CD a.,, ti�. O �n CD CD O o C O b CD (DCD in a d o p- cu b C I !Jo A 0 a co OCD y 0 o c 0 C N co 0 0 a m m I p w n CD G� Community Development Department Indian River County p. CD o O N co 0 0 a m m I Public Works Director James Davis pointed out that some of the east -west roads are shown to be paved on this cost -feasible plan; others are to be paved similar to the paving of Cherry Lane, 26'h Street and 1" Street SW, by special assessment, because many of them are collector roads, not principal or minor arterials. We have different programs to fund the road paving; where special assessment is the appropriate program, they are not included on this cost -feasible plan. Staff reacts to the petitions of neighborhoods to do paving, or if a developer comes in to develop on the roadway, the developer is required to cost -share or solicit a petition in the neighborhood to fund a portion of the paving. Commissioner Ginn stated her concern was to get traffic off SR -60; some of the residents have requested another road to be paved to the west. Chairman Eggert asked that the CTC's dial -a -ride be added on page 54, Objective 9. Fred Addison thanked Administrator Chandler and staff for preparing this information. He called attention to page 8 and asked if staff would throw away that manual. He did not see any major improvements for our north -south highways. US -1 and I-95 stay jammed. Level of Service In order to determine if there are any existing roadway deficiencies in the county, the following procedure was followed. Traffic counts were done for each roadway on the county's network. These counts were then converted to peak hour\peak season\peak direction volumes for each roadway link using the FDOT default tables, established in the latest edition of Florida's Level of Service Standards & Guidelines Manual, 1995. Each roadway link and its corresponding capacity were then compared to determine the existing level of service for the roadway. Table 4.7.1 shows the existing level of service for each roadway on the network. As indicated in that table, there are no existing deficiencies on the county's traffic circulation system. Director Keating recounted that Kings Highway is going to be widened, which is under existing and committed improvement. The MPO's plan and this plan envisions the 6- laning of US -1 and the 4-laning of Citrus Highway and 66' Avenue. Mr. Addison asked about the bikeways, and Director Keating advised that the Transportation Element recommends adopting the MPO's new Bicycle -Pedestrian Plan that 37 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 FAGE� BOOK 103 PAGE was just recently approved by the MPO. The County and the State hopefully will be spending about $3,000,000 on sidewalks in the next few years. CONSERVATION ELEMENT Commissioner Ginn had a concern on page 95 saying she continued to dislike accepting fee -in -lieu payments (Policy 5.5) as a last alternative. Chairman Eggert thought situations have occurred where Policy 5.5 has been absolutely necessary. She thought it also appears in the regional plan. Director Keating stated this policy has proved really beneficial for us. The fees are used for a lot of management activities as well as additional acquisition. Sometimes it is not feasible to mitigate in any other way. Mr. DeBlois gave as an example that some of those funds have been funneled to the Environmental Learning Center which helped greatly. He felt it was still a viable policy. Commissioner Ginn then addressed Objective 12, Policy 12.4, on page 104, stating that MANWAC suggested it be changed to 1999 (not 2001). Director Keating advised that a change to this policy was included in the handout. Policy 12.4: By 266i, flie cott,ity will have adopted site spucificnmiagenient Plans foL all !mid For land tracts acquired through the Environmental Lands Program the county shall require a site specific management plan be adopted within one year of acquisition Commissioner Ginn agreed with the change. COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Director Keating called attention to the 2 pages from the handout which had to do with this element. OCTOBER 29, 1997 38 M M COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Policy 2.2: The county shall adopt the State designation of Class III suitable for "Recreational, propagation, and maintenance of a healthy, well-balanced population of fish and wildlife" as the water quality standard for the following portions of the IRL located within Indian River County: Sebastian Inlet extending south to C.R. 510, west of the ICW; southern City Limits of Vero Beach extending south to the Indian River -St. Lucie County line, west of the ICW (Ref. Figure 9.11). The county will strive to improve the surface water quality within the aforementioned sections of the IRL to State Class II water quality standards. Policy 3.4: County staff will review existing marina/boat facility definitions contained in the county's land development regulations. Until the County adopts a Manatee Protection and Boating Safety Comprehensive Management Plan, the county shall recognize and regulate the differences between "commercial marinas", "public/private multi -slip facilities", "commercial docks", "dry docks", and "private docks" based on the following definitions: Commercial marinas are defined as "a watercraft complex on and/or adjacent to a waterway used primarily for recreation purposes, including the refueling of watercraft and providing for minor repair services for such craft, not involving removal of watercraft from the water or removal of inboard or outboard engines from the watercraft"; Mutli-slip facilities are defined as "any docking facilities containing three (3) or more boatslips for the purpose of mooring or storing a watercraft"; Commercial docks are defined as "a fixed or floating structure, including moorings, used for the purpose of berthing buoyant vessels on a commercial basis. A commercial dock does not include a marina, boat livery, or boat yard. A commercial dock may exist independently or as an incidental part of a marina, boat livery, or boat yard"; Dry docks are defined as "an upland structure used for storing watercraft. A dry dock may be pan of a boat livery or boat yard but shall not be permitted as part of a marina'; and Private docks are defined as "a fixed or floating structure, including moorings used for the purpose of berthing buoyant vessels. and which d A dock may include a pier." COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Policy 7.3: PoliU 7.3: In the event of a natural disaster, principal structures and uses located eastward of the County Dune Stabilization Setback Line (DSSL) which sustain greater than 50 percent of MAI (Member of Appraisal Institute) assessed current market value damage from a naturally occurring storm shall be required to relocate upland of their location and, when possible, westward of the DSSL. Prior to reconstruction, principal structures east of the 1987 State Coastal Construction Control Line (CCCL) exhibiting damage from a naturally occurring storm event, greater than 50 percent of MAI assessed market value, shall be required to obtain all applicable permits and comply with all applicable building codes concerning coastal construction. 39 OCTOBER 29, 1997 BOOK 103 PAGE 283 BOOK 103 PAGE 284 Commissioner Ginn was pleased with the wording now on Policy 2.2. Commissioner Adams questioned the deletions concerning private docks, and Commissioner Ginn advised that suggested deletion came from MANWAC. A staff member advised it was based on Deputy County Attorney William G. Collins' advice, who pointed out that the whole purpose of having a dock is to increase the value of a property. Commissioner Adams felt this did not have anything to do with increasing the value of the property and recalled past problems with private docks being rented out for live- aboards. She felt that needed to be addressed in some manner. The staff member pointed out that this policy is being revised to say that we are going to look into changing these policies, that they are as they are currently stated in the LDR's. Changes will be looked at as part of the Manatee Protection Plan now being worked on. Chairman Eggert directed that the Board already struggled once on an issue and did not want it repeated. Commissioner Adams agreed, saying that a private dock should not be rented out for the purpose of living aboard a vessel. She will not be happy if that concern is. not prohibited from happening again. Mr. DeBlois suggested it could be kept as is reflected now in the LDR's. There was CONSENSUS to leave it in and County Attorney Vitunac will discuss the matter with Deputy County Attorney Collins. Chairman Eggert asked if there were any questions on the revised Policy 7.3. There were none. Commissioner Ginn had a question on Policy 8. 1, Page 98, and wanted to know what kind of participation we are looking for on the Indian River Lagoon `Blueway". Commissioner Adams advised that they had supported the effort and are sharing in some of the purchases along there to protect the area. Mr. DeBlois stated that it was worded to keep our options open to participate without being specific as to the level of participation. Chairman Eggert thought it had been decided not to participate in management in any way, and Mr. DeBlois stated that was correct. OCTOBER 29, 1997 M i M There were no other comments on this element and ChairmanEggert called for a recess at 9:34 p.m. The Chairman reconvened the meeting at 9:42 p.m. with all members present except Commissioner Adams who arrived a short time later. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Chairman Eggert reported that she could not find Sandridge included in this element and thought it would be nice if we listed every public private golf course, and Director Keating advised it would be inserted. Director Keating stated that one of the big changes with this element, which was addressed during the EAR process, was changing our whole level of service standard methodology to a county -wide 4 acre per 1,000 threshold. Another important thing is we really need to do a recreation needs analysis sometime soon and decide exactly how many and what kind of parks we need where. The big issue is how do we differentiate the parks in the cities from the County's. We have paid for capital improvements on some of them and on others we pay operating costs. There are a lot of issues that could not be resolved. Staff has been working on this and it is a major initiative. Commissioner Adams returned to the meeting at this point. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ELEMENT Chairman Eggert advised that there was one change on the handout concerning Policy 2.5, which is suggested to read as follows: Policy 2. : The county, through the solid waste disposal district, will provide land adjacent to the landfill for appropriate businesses sm to locate. There was no disagreement to the change. Commissioner Ginn suggested a change to Objective 2 (Page 38) which had come to her from Mr. Winne, as follows: 41 OCTOBER 29, 1997 ma 103 FnE 285 Fr - BOOK 103 PAGE 2®6 "By 200 1,in order to upgrade the duality of jobs and the average wage and salary scale- manufacturing jobs (SIC code 20 through 39) in Indian River County will increase by 767 to represent at least 8.00% of the county's average annual total employment." There was no disagreement to the suggested change. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT There were no changes other than those new numbers which staff will research. There were no questions or comments. HOUSING ELEMENT Director Keating advised that staff had no comments or changes. Chairman Eggert asked if there were any questions. Commissioner Ginn asked for clarification on page 18 in order to understand the SHIP program income categories. Chief of Long Range Planning Sasan Rohani responded to her questions by using Table 7.9 on page 14. The information is based on Census data. The information on Page 18 is based on Shimberg Center data. Next, Commissioner Ginn turned to Page 43, concerning density bonuses. She thought was a better plan but needed a little revision. She thought that they should get a density bonus only if they incorporate some of the options. She asked if the county is required to give a density bonus because it is affordable housing. Very Low Density Bonus Additional Density Bonus for Providing Range of Income (VLI) (Percent Additional Buffer and Landscaping Based on Possible Density and Low increase in one of the following options(Percent increase Bonus Income (LI) allowable in allowable units) Percentage Affordable units) (Percent increase Units as Percentage of in units) wale Option I Option II option III Project's Total units Material equal Material equal to a Material equal to a 10' wide 10' wide Type C to a 20' wide Type C buffer buffer with & Type B buffer with 4' opaque opaque feature with G opaque feature along along residential feature along project districts residential boundaries that boundaries and 4' district abut residential opaque feature boundaries and districts and along roadways 4' opaque roadways feature along roadways 30 to 50% 10% 3% or 6% or 10% 10-20% More than 50% 15% 3% or 6% or 10% 15-25% 42 OCTOBER 29, 1997 M M Director Keating stated that there is no State law which requires a density bonus, but to get the SHIP funds we had to do a Housing Incentive Plan and the State is looking at what the County is doing to promote more affordable housing and one of the few things that we are doing is providing a density bonus. It is one way to meet the needs of State Law Chapter 163 and Administrative Code Chapter 9J5 which say that we have to identify needs in the Comprehensive Plan and come up with policies how we will meet them. This is one of the ways. Commissioner Ginn asked if the density bonuses could be reduced, and Director Keating said they could. Planning Director Stan Boling advised that the three options are related to the pending ordinance doctrine. There was lengthy discussion and then CONSENSUS to eliminate Option I on page 43, change Option 11 to 5% and Option III remains at 10%. Commissioner Ginn next strongly objected to Objective 9, on Page 48. Director Keating explained this objective really helps the Town of Indian River Shores and the Town of Orchid because the property is so expensive there, there will not be any affordable housing over there. A philosophical discussion concerning housing for low income families ensued. INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Director Keating had no changes. Commissioner Ginn was happy to see on page 51 that we are supposed to have some kind of intergovernmental coordination and Objective 3 even mentions adjacent counties. On page 51, Policy 1. 1, Chairman Eggert requested the removal of the word "fully". She also suggested a change in Policy 1.5, as follows: "The county will, among others, use the mediation..." . She then suggested that in Policy 1. 10, Page 52, the year be changed to 1998. Commissioner Adams commented on Policy 1.11 and there was discussion about changing that year also, but no change was made. 43 OCTOBER 29, 1997 B03 103 PAGE 87 FF-- I BOOK 103 PAGE 288 INTRODUCTORY ELEMENT There were no changes to this element. In response to Commissioner Adams' inquiry, Director Keating advised that the population was 104,465 as of April 1, 1997, according to BEBR (Bureau of Economic and Business Research - University of Florida). There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded, and carried, the meeting adjourned at 10:15 p.m. ATTEST: Minutes approved //- Z 5"91 OCTOBER 29, 1997 Carolyn Aggert, Chaan