Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11/4/1997� MINUTESINITTACHED - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D A TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 4,1997 9:00 A.M. - COUNTY COMMISSION CHAMBER County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 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 BACKUP 2. ESVOCATION Betty Komarisky, Bahai Faith PAGES 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Fran B. Adams 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS 1. Add Item g.$ Tax Collector's Report for Fiscal Year Ended September 30, 1997. 2• Add Item 13.A2, approval for travel for Commissioner Ginn to attend the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting. 3. Add Item MAO, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Payment. 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation Designating Nov. 22nd as "The County Sweep Day" in Indian River County 1 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Regular Meeting of October 14, 1997 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Proclamation Honoring Fred R McNeal on his Retirement from Indian River County 2-3 B. Approval of Wan -ants (memorandum dated October 24, 1997) 4-14 C. Acceptance of Resignation of Dennis Hanisak from MANWAC (memorandum dated October 23, 1997) 15 D. Board Approval of Updated Confidentiality List by the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores Regarding State/County Acquisition of the Lost Tree Islands (memorandum dated October 29, 1997) 16-19 ,oj 103 r-nE 289 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd.):,_ BOOK 103 FAGS 290 BACKUP PAGES E. Request for Approval of Progress Report & Reim- bursement Invoice #3 for the 1997 Transportation Disadvantaged Planning Grant (memorandum dated October 23, 1997) 20-27 F. Day Travel to Orlando and County Travel Policy (memorandum dated October 29, 1997) 28 G. Cost for 18 County Tax Deed Applications (memorandum dated October 28, 1997) 29-47 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES Elections Office: Financial Report Forms & Check for $6,369.49 (letter dated October 9, 1997) 48-52 9:05 A.M. 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. Hullen v. Indian River County (memorandum dated October 28, 1997) 53-60 2. Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 18.7 Acres from M-2 to C/I (memorandum dated October 29, 1997) 61-94 3. Bessemer Trust Co., Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approx. 18.8 Acres from AG -1 to M-1 (memorandum dated October 27, 1997) 95-134 4. Consideration of EAR Based Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments (memorandum dated October 28, 1997) 135-187 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS Peter Jurgel Request to Challenge County to Parti- cipate in the County Sweep and Support Keep Indian River Beautiful (letter dated October 2, 1997) 188 C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS None 10. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development None B. Emergency Services Donation of Old Communications Equipment to Certain Organizations and Authorization to Surplus and Sell the Remaining Equipment (memorandum dated October 24, 1997) 189-205 11. -DEPARTMENTAL IPMERS (cont'd.): MCKUP PAGES C. General Services Properties North of County Administration Building (memorandum dated October 28, 1997) 206-211 D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None G. Public Works 1. Application for Local Agency Certi- fication with the Florida Department of Transportation (memorandum dated October 27,1997) 212-214 2. Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for River Park Place Phase I Planned Development (memorandum dated October 24, 1997) 215-217 H. Utilities None 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Annual Appointment of Council Members (letter dated October 22, 1997) 218 B. Vice Chairman John W Tiepin C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams D. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Appointment to MANWAC (memorandum dated October 13, 1997) (postponed from BCC Meeting of 10/28/97) 219-224 E. Commissioner Kenneth IL Macht BOOK 103 KE 291 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDSryry BACKUP Boa U3 FADE 292 PAGES A. Emergency Services District None B. Solid Waste Disposal District RFP #7041 (memorandum dated October 22, 1997) 225 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 various times throughout the week Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening INDEX TO MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS NOVEMBER 4, 1997 1. CALL TO ORDER .............................................. 1 2. INVOCATION ........................................ 1 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ............................ 1 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA ......................... 1 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS .............. 2 PROCLAMATION DESIGNATING NOVEMBER 22, 1997 AS "THE COUNTY SWEEP DAY" IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY ................. 2 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ............................. 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA ................................... 3 7.A. PROCLAMATIONHONORINGFREDR. MCNEAL ONHISRETIREMENT FROMINDIANRIVER COUNTY ......................... 3 7.B. LIST OF WARRANTS ................................. S 7.C. MARINE ADVISORY NARROWS WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE (MANW4Q - RESIGNATION OF DENNIS HANISAK ........ 13 7.D. STATEICOUNTYACQUISITION OF LOST TREE ISLANDS -UPDATED CONFIDENTIALITY LIST - CITY OF VERO BEACH AND TOWN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORES .............................. 14 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 1 BOOK 103 PAGE 293 BOOK 143 FACE 294 7.E. 1997 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT - FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED ................................................ 15 7.F. COUNTY TRAVEL POLICYAND APPROVAL OF TRA VEL TO ORLANDO ................................................ 16 7.G. COUNTY TAX DEED APPLICATIONS - COSTS FOR 18 APPLICATIONS ................................................ 17 8.A. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - ELECTIONS OFFICE REPORT FOR FY ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 ................................. 18 S.B. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - TAX COLLECTOR'S REPORT FOR FY ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 ................................. 21 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - HULLEN V. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT .................... 28 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - THOMAS S. HAMMOND - REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 18.7 ACRES FROM M-2 TO C/I .. 30 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - BESSEMER TRUST CO. - REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 18.8 ACRES FROM AG -1 TO M-1 ................................................ 49 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS ........................... 70 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 2 a � � 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - PETER JURGEL - CHALLENGE TO COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY SWEEP AND SUPPORT KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL ...... 89 11.11. OLD COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT - DONATION TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS AND SELL REMAINING EQUIPMENT ... 90 11.C. PROPERTIES NORTH OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - ESTATE OF MATTIE WRIGHT ....... 94 11.G.1. LOCAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION - APPLICATION - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION .. 96 11.G.2. FLOODPLAIN CUT AND FILL BALANCE WAIVER . 97 13.A.1. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - ANNUAL APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS .......... 98 13.A.2. TRAVEL FOR COMMISSIONER GINN TO ATTEND THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING ...................................... 99 13.A.3. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL PAYMENT...................................... 99 13.D. MARINE ADVISORY NARROWS WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE (MANWAC) - APPOINTMENT OF ED DAVIS - RESIGNATION OF GEORGE PHREANER (Postponed from Meeting of 10/28/97) .............................. 100 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 3 BOOK 103 FACE 295 BOOK 103 PAGE 296 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............. 101 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............. 101 14.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD ........... 101 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 4 November 4, 1997 REGULAR MEETING OF BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 2511 Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, November 4, 1997, at 9:00 a.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 "PJ" Jones, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order. 2. INVOCATION Betty Komarisky of Bahai Faith gave the Invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Adams led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. 4. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Chairman Eggert requested 3 additions to today's Agenda: 1. Item 8-B., Tax Collector's report for FY Ended September 30, 1997. 2. Item 13.A.2., approval for travel for Commissioner Ginn to attend the Metropolitan Planning Organization meeting. 3. Item 13.A.3., Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council payment. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously added the above items to the Agenda. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 1 BOOK 103 PAGE 297 L BOOK 103 PAGE 298 5. PROCLAMATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS PROCLAmATIONDESIGNATINGNOVEMBER 22 199 7A "THE COUNTYSWEEP DAY" IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Chairman Eggert presented the following Proclamation to Dane Roberts: PROCLAMATION WHEREAS, Keep America Beautiful was established in 1953 to develop more responsible behavior toward the environment, and the Florida Solid Waste Management Act of 1988 created Keep Florida Beautiful as an umbrella organization for volunteer based community programs; and WHEREAS, Keep Indian River Beautiful is one of over 500 national affiliates of Keep America Beautiful and one of 29 certified and 13 pre -certified State of Florida affiliates; and WHEREAS, Keep Indian River Beautiful is a working public/private partnership,1, dedicated to grassroots community projects which protect the natural beauty of Ihdian River County and enhance the area's quality of life; and WHEREAS, Keep Indian River Beautiful is a non-profit, environmental organization committed to helping local area governments solve community solid waste problems, and is governed by a volunteer Board of Directors representing government, business and industry, environmental, civic and professional organizations; and WHEREAS, Keep Indian River Beautiful is a county -wide system for educational and promotional support for litter abatement, recycling, beautification and other environmental programs; and ' WHEREAS, programs implemented by Keep Indian River Beautiful qualify for Department of Environmental Protection Grants and other federal and state grant programs; and WHEREAS, successful implementation of comprehensive solid waste programs require cooperation of the City of Vero Beach, City of Sebastian, Town of Indian River Shores, City of Fellsmere, Town of Orchid, Indian River County and the various other governmental agencies; and WHEREAS, implementation of successful, effective community enhancement pro3ects and educational programs require corporate, government and individual acnations and in-kind services; and WHEREAS, The County Sweep is the inaugural program of Keep Indian River Beautiful: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS that Saturday, November 22, 1997 be designated as "THE COUNTY SWEEP DAY" in Indian River County, and the Board urges all residents and business community members to endorse Keep Indian River Beautiful, support and participate in this clean-up program. Adopted thls_4 day of November, 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CAROLYN EGGERT, irman NOVEMBER 4, 1997 2 � � s Dane Roberts stated that all area schools will be given an opportunity to participate in a survey form which the children will fill out and teachers can discuss with them. Also, Harris Sanitation and Treasure Coast Refuse are sponsoring each Commissioner who participates in County Sweep Day in the sum of $100 each. Volunteers should meet at the comer of Indian River Boulevard and Royal Palm Boulevard on Saturday, November 22, 1997 at 8:00 a.m. If there any questions, call 388-9969 for a representative of Keep Indian River Beautiful. 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES The Chairman asked if there were any corrections or additions to the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 14, 1997. Chairman Eggert announced that on Page 64, the reference should be to "Chairman Eggert" and not to Commissioner Ginn. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Tippin, the Board unanimously approved the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of October 14, 1997, as corrected. 7. CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Eggert requested that Item 7.F. be pulled for discussion. 7.A. PROCLAMATIONHONORINGFREDR MCNEAL ONHISRETIREMENTFROM INDIANRIYER COUNTY NOVEMBER 4, 1997 3 BOOP 103 PAGE 299 BOOK 103 PACE 30 Chairman Eggert presented the following Proclamation and Retirement Award to Fred R. McNeal: PROCLAMATION HONORING FRED R. McNEAL ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMPLOYMENT ON NOVEMBER 10, 1997 WHEREAS, FRED R. McNEAL announces his retirement from the Indian River County Department of Emergency Services/Fire Division and Indian River County Board of County Commissioners effective November 10, 1997; and WHEREAS, FRED R McNEAL was born in Vero Beach in 1945 and graduated from Vero Beach High School on June 2, 1965; and WHEREAS, FRED R. McNEAL began his employment with the Fire Department on March 20, 1967 as a firefighter, and was promoted to Engineer on October 29, 1970; and WHEREAS, FRED R. McNEAL was drafted in March 1968 for a tour in Vietnam and returned to the department some twenty months later, and WHEREAS, FRED R. McNEAL was promoted to Lieutenant on February 29,1976, then to Captain on August 1, 1983 and to Battalion Chief on May 30, 1986, serving in that capacity for the last eleven years. He has earned the respect of many and will be missed by his co-workers: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the Board expresses its deep appreciation for the services FRED R. McNEAL has performed on behalf of Indian River County and extends heartfelt wishes for a happy retirement and success in future endeavors. Adopted this 4 day of November, 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Carolyn K. ggert, C NOVEMBER 4, 1997 4 ZR LIST OF WARRANTS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 24, 1997: TO: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: OCTOBER 24, 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 October 17 to October 24, 1997. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 5 BOOK 103 PAGE301 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 � � i BOOK 103 FACE 302 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the list of Warrants as issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period from October 17, 1997 through October 24, 1997, as recommended by staff. CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0018875 CHILBERG CONSTRUCTION CO INC 10/17/97 53,482.35 0018876 REAP, BRUCE 10/20/97 368.38 0018877 WILLIAMS, JENERVA 10/20/97 160.00 0228889 FDEP 9/11/97 0230990 A B C- C L I 0, INC 10/23/97 .00 86.78 0230991 AMERICAN WATER WORKS 10/23/97 100.00 0230992 ACTION PRINTERS 10/23/97 142.18 0230993 ACTION TRANSMISSION AND 10/23/97 1,377.04 0230994 AERO PRODUCTS CORPORATION 10/23/97 2,491.24 0230995 AIRBORNE EXPRESS 10/23/97 82.35 0230996 ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357 10/23/97 97.54 0230997 AMERICAN LEGION POST 0039 10/23/97 29.00 0230998 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 10/23/97 9.59 0230999 APPLE MACHINERY & SUPPLY 10/23/97 145.96 0231000 AMVETS POST FL-6 10/23/97 22.00 0231001 ATLANTIC REPORTING 10/23/97 219.45 0231002 AEROSPACE EXPRESS 10/23/97 78.75 0231003 A B S PUMPS, INC 10/23/97 1,584.42 0231004 ACTION DIESEL INJECTION 10/23/97 793.94 0231005 ALL POWER SERVICES, INC 10/23/97 747.00 0231006 AMERICAN BUSINESS INFORMATION 10/23/97 4,695.00 0231007 A T & T 10/23/97 48.12 0231008 ALL RITE WATER CONDITIONING 10/23/97 106.25 0231009 AMERITREND CORPORATION 10/23/97 395.00 0231010 ANESTHESIA OF INDIAN RIVER,INC 10/23/97 176.00 0231011 A T & T 10/23/97 13.61 0231012 A T & T LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 10/23/97 56.20 0231013 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 10/23/97 62.00 0231014 ASCET 10/23/97 40.00 0231015 ARCHTECTS & DESIGNERS 10/23/97 46.46 0231016 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 10/23/97 2,247.45 0231017 APPERSON C MICALS,INC 10/23/97 2,327.82 0231018 ACF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT 10/23/97 80.00 0231019 BAIRD, JOSEPH A 10/23/97 77.28 0231020 BAKER BROTHERS, INC 10/23/97 260.88 0231021 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10/23/97 2,531.22 0231022 BETTER BUSINESS FORMS, INC 10/23/97 102.02 0231023 BLACKHAWK QUARRY COMPANY 10/23/97 466.43 0231024 BREATHING AIR SYSTEMS DIVISION 10/23/97 1,400.00 0231025 BRESETT, DOROTHY JEANNE 10/23/97 45.00 0231026 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 10/23/97 61.47 0231027 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 10/23/97 2,405.00 0231028 BARNETT BAIL BONDS 10/23/97 369.00 0231029 BAKER & TAYLOR 10/23/97 2.20 0231030 BLAIS ELECTRIC, INC 10/23/97 105.92 0231031 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 10/23/97 75.00 0231032 B & B OFFICE EQUIPMENT, INC 10/23/97 129.48 0231033 B F I MEDICAL WASTE SYSTEMS 10/23/97 95.34 0231034 BUSINESS COMMUNICATIONS, INC 10/23/97 402.00 0231035 BRESSETT, WILLIAM 10/23/97 210.00 0231036 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 10/23/97 200.00 0231037 BEACHLAND ENTERPRISES, INC 10/23/97 500.00 0231038 0231039 BE-11 OUTH B P R 10/23/97 27,538.69 0231040 BELISOUTH 10/23/97 10/23/97 155.00 0231041 BOISE CASCADE OFFICE PRODUCTS 10/23/97 451.47 519.00 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 � � i CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0231042 BAKER & TAYLOR INC 10/23/97 493.03 0231043 BIEBER, KAREN 10/23/97 200.00 0231044 BMG 10/23/97 11.75 0231045 BRUCE, KELLY 10/23/97 36.05 0231046 BARNES BONDING AGENCY 10/23/97 4,997.00 0231047 BENJAMIN, JOHNNY MD 10/23/97 750.00 0231048 BRONZART FOUNDRY, INC 10/23/97 4,610.00 0231049 BAUMGARDNER, MELINDA 10/23/97 576.81 0231050 BROWN & CALDWE L 10/23/97 19,387.00 0231051 CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY 10/23/97 120.38 0231052 CHATAM, KENNETH 10/23/97 4.35 0231053 CLEMENTS PEST CONTROL 10/23/97 178.00 0231054 COMMUNICATIONS INT'L INC 10/23/97 611.45 0231055 COMPUTER SHOPPER 10/23/97 29.87 0231056 COASTAL FUELS MARKETING, INC 10/23/97 6,528.22 0231057 CLINIC PHARMACY 10/23/97 69.58 0231058 COPELAND, LINDA 10/23/97 101.50 0231059 CITGO PETROLEUM CORP 10/23/97 1,480.41 0231060 CLEANNET USA 10/23/97 19,691.94 0231061 CENTRAL FLORIDA LIBRARY 10/23/97 500.00 0231062 CULBERT, DANIEL F 10/23/97 90.00 0231063 C-4 IMAGING SYSTEMS INC 10/23/97 1,583.00 0231064 CONSTRUCTION SERVICES AND 10/23/97 500.00 0231065 CAMP DRESSER & MCKEE INC 10/23/97 28,928.00 0231066 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 10/23/97 228.00 0231067 COLUMBIA HOUSE 10/23/97 114.68 0231068 CUMMINS, CHERYL 10/23/97 120.00 0231069 CDBE INC 10/23/97 979.04 0231070 FLORIDA DEPT OF MANAGEMENT 10/23/97 3,320.30 0231071 DICKERSON FLORIDA, INC 10/23/97 192,119.34 0231072 DOCTOR'S CLINIC 10/23/97 2,419.71 0231073 DISABLED AMERICAN VETERAN 10/23/97 15.00 0231074 DEBLAKER, KARLEEN F 10/23/97 34.00 0231075 DAVIDSON TITLES, INC 10/23/97 52.27 0231076 DRUM, TERRY 10/23/97 6.00 0231077 DATA RESEARCH, INC 10/23/97 135.00 0231078 DILLARD, LASSIE 10/23/97 36.05 0231079 DEAR, NORMAN J 10/23/97 9.12 0231080 DAMES & MOORE 10/23/97 11,114.38 0231081 E-Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC 10/23/97 12.50 0231082 EBSCO SUBSCRIPTION SERVICES 10/23/97 37.01 0231083 EMERGENCY MEDICINE ASSOCIATES 10/23/97 41.00 0231084 EAST COAST SOD 10/23/97 575.00 0231085 ELPEX, INC 10/23/97 29.95 0231086 EMBASSY SUITES HOTEL 10/23/97 377.40 0231087 ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITIES COUNCIL 10/23/97 2,561.00 0231088 ECOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC 10/23/97 12,788.92 0231089 ENGLEHARDT, CHRISSY 10/23/97 38.63 0231090 FGFOA/FACC ANNUAL CONFERENCE 10/23/97 115.00 0231091 FEDERAL EXPRESS CORP 10/23/97 18.75 0231092 FISHER SCIENTIFIC COMPANY 10/23/97 120.70 0231093 F P & L 10/23/97 6,078.40 0231094 FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF CODE 10/23/97 120.00 0231095 FLORIDA TIRE RECYCLING, INC 10/23/97 577.20 0231096 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE 10/23/97 11.00 0231097 FLORIDA FIRE MARSHALL'S 10/23/97 130.00 0231098 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE OF 10/23/97 8,000.00 0231099 FLETCHER'S TV & APPLIANCE 10/23/97 1,350.00 0231100 FLORIDA MEDICAID COUNTY 10/23/97 52,239.60 0231101 FAE4-HA 10/23/97 70.00 0231102 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS 10/23/97 3,995.67 0231103 FALZONE, KATHY 10/23/97 190.00 0231104 FALZONE, MATTHEW 10/23/97 36.05 0231105 FLORIDA INSTITUTE OF GOVERNMNT 10/23/97 15.00 0231106 FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE 10/23/97 16.00 0231107 FLORIDA LEAGUE OF CITIES, INC 10/23/97 1,615.00 0231108 FOOT & ANKLE ASSOC OF FLORIDA 10/23/97 43.35 0231109 FLORIDIANS FOR BETTER 10/23/97 225.00 0231110 GRAYBAR ELECTRIC CO INC 10/23/97 401.28 0231111 GENERAL MEDICAL CORP 10/23/97 632.96 0231112 GALE RESEARCH, INC 10/23/97 645.32 0231113 GENEALOGICAL SOCIETY OF NEW 10/23/97 115.00 0231114 GANGER, CHARISE 10/23/97 38.63 0231115 GRAND CENTRAL 10/23/97 944.00 0231116 H W WILSON CO 10/23/97 134.00 0231117 HARRIS SANITATION, INC 10/23/97 56.62 0231118 HILL DONNELLY CORPORATION 10/23/97 185.30 0231119 HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC 10/23/97 1,500.00 0231120 HOTCHKISS, MICHAEL 10/23/97 76.40 0231121 HEALTHSOUTH CORP DBA 10/23/97 70:20 0231122 HEART TO HEART VIDEO 10/23/97 200.00 0231123 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 10/23/97 46,896.99 0231124 INSTRL14ENNTATION SERVICES, INC 10/23/97 810.40 0231125 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY 10/23/97 33.75 0231126 INDIAN RIVER BLUE PRINT, INC 10/23/97 57.96 0231127 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 10/23/97 81.98 0231128 INGRAM 10/23/97 515.99 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 7 BOOK 103 FAA03 BOOK 103 PACE304 7 SCK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AFOUNT 0231129 INDIAN RIVER MEMORIAL HOSPITAL 10/23/97 1,087.29 0231130 INSURANCE SERVICING & 10/23/97 2,730.00 0231131 IBM CORP-DVU 10/23/97 46.00 0231132 INTERNATIONAL GOLF MANAGEMENT 10/23/97 70,041.67 0231133 IKON OFFICE SOLUTIONS 10/23/97 716.88 0231134 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY SOLID 10/23/97 49.90 0231135 INDIAN RIVER HAND 10/23/97 1,251.30 0231136 JIFFY PHOTO CENTER 10/23/97 90.60 0231137 JIMMY'S TREE SERVICE, INC 10/23/97 1,349.00 0231138 JOINT LEGISL MCAT COMM 10/23/97 340.00 0231139 J P COMPUTERS, INC 10/23/97 90.00 0231140 JUNIOR LIBRARY GUILD 10/23/97 117.00 0231141 J A WEBSTER, INC 10/23/97 73.00 0231142 KNIGHT & MATHIS, INC 10/23/97 625.48 0231143 KIRBY AUTO SUPPLY 10/23/97 70.03 0231144 KREBS, JILL A 10/23/97 13.57 0231145 KLINK, RICHARD 10/23/97 880.00 0231146 LENGEMANN OF FLORIDA, INC 10/23/97 139.68 0231147 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 10/23/97 173.00 0231148 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 10/23/97 1,020.24 0231149 LOGISTIC SYSTEMS, INC 10/23/97 28,350.87 0231150 LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY 10/23/97 44.50 0231151 MAX DAVIS ASSOCIATES 10/23/97 242.08 0231152 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 10/23/97 220.62 0231153 MAXWELL & SON, INC 10/23/97 205.56 0231154 MCCANN, C VINCENT 10/23/97 481.80 0231155 MCCORKLE RADIOLOGY 10/23/97 32.00 0231156 MIKES GARAGE 10/23/97 35.00 0231157 MILNER DOCUMENT PRODUCTS 10/23/97 263.31 0231158 MARKS AIR, INC 10/23/97 247.33 0231159 MEDICAL RECORD SERVICES, INC 10/23/97 12.78 0231160 M G B CONSTRUCTION 10/23/97 1,000.00 0231161 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 10/23/97 430.20 0231162 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET 10/23/97 76.12 0231163 MOORE MEDICAL CORP 10/23/97 235.00 0231164 MEDCHECK 10/23/97 257.13 0231165 MAYO CLINIC 10/23/97 400.00 0231166 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE 10/23/97 4,549.91 0231167 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION COUNTY 10/23/97 20.00 0231168 NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF 10/23/97 595.00 0231169 NATIONAL RECREATION AND PARK 10/23/97 350.00 0231170 NATIONAL PROPANE CORP 10/23/97 10.50 0231171 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 10/23/97 806.28 0231172 OMNIGRAPHICS, INC 10/23/97 137.20 0231173 OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS 10/23/97 126.76 0231174 OFFICE DEPOT, INC 10/23/97 3,023.32 0231175 OSCEOLA PHARMACY 10/23/97 593.50 0231176 O'HARA, BARBARA 10/23/97 446.10 0231177 OAK POINT DEVELOPMENT GROUP 10/23/97 7,029.37 0231178 O'SULLIVAN, SHEILA 10/23/97 13.51 0231179 PAGENET 10/23/97 141.35 0231180 PARKS RENTAL INC 10/23/97 77.00 0231181 PAT'S PUMP & BLOWER, INC 10/23/97 1,850.00 0231182 PERKINS DRUG, INC 10/23/97 55.05 0231183 PITNEY BOWES, INC 10/23/97 225.00 0231184 PRIMA 10/23/97 220.00 0231185 PERCONTI DATA SYSTEMS, INC 10/23/97 6,250.00 0231186 PROGRESSIVE DATA MGMT, INC 10/23/97 124.00 0231187 PRESS JOURNAL 10/23/97 204.91 0231188 PELICAN POINTE 10/23/97 7,540.66 0231189 PINEWOODS ANIMAL HOSPITAL 10/23/97 15.00 0231190 PIERONE, GERALD JR, MD 10/23/97 126.00 0231191 PRINESSTAR BY TCI CABLE 10/23/97 39.95 0231192 PANCBURN, TERRI 10/23/97 40.00 0231193 PRESS JOURNAL - SUBSCRIPTION 10/23/97 224.00 0231194 PRESS JOURNAL/STUART NEWS 10/23/97 1,807.21 0231195 PRAXAIR DISTRIBUTION SOUTHEAST 10/23/97 283.26 0231196 RADIO SHACK ACCT RECEIVABLE 10/23/97 104.98 0231197 ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 10/23/97 10.00 0231198 RUSSELL CONCRETE, INC 10/23/97 160.00 0231199 RUSSO PRINTING, INC 10/23/97 170.80 0231200 ROBINSON EQUIPMENT COMPANY,INC 10/23/97 187.93 0231201 ROBERTS & REYNOLDS PA 10/23/97 1,772.17 0231202 RECYCLE FLORIDA TODAY INC 10/23/97 75.00 0231203 REDSTONE, MICHAEL 10/23/97 125.63 0231204 R & G SOD FARMS 10/23/97 200.00 0231205 RELIABLE TRANSMISSION SERVICE 10/23/97 200.00 0231206 RISSMAN, WEISBERG, BARRETT, 10/23/97 62.98 0231207 RYAN, KEVIN P 10/23/97 59.74 0231208 SCOTT'S SPORTING GOODS 10/23/97 149.50 0231209 SCOTTY'S, INC 10/23/97 4,828.31 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 SCK NAME CHECK CHECK JhIDER DATE AMOTT -- 0231210 SCOTTY'S, INC 10/23/97 8.97 0231211 SEBASTIAN VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPT 10/23/97 71.00 0231212 SOUTHERN ELECTRIC SUPPLY 10/23/97 112.69 0231213 SOUTHSIDE ANIMAL HOSPITAL 10/23/97 167.00 0231214 SAFESPACE, INC 10/23/97 3,750.00 0231215 ST LUCIE BATTERY & TIRE, INC 10/23/97 29.95 0231216 STANDARD & POOR'S 10/23/97 3,134.95 0231217 STATE OF FLORIDA 10/23/97 4,217.65 0231218 SUN COAST CLEANING SUPPLIES, 10/23/97 37.52 0231219 SUNRISE FORD TRACTOR CO 10/23/97 25.56 0231220 SUNSHINE PHYSICAL ZHERAPY10/23/97 605.00 0231221 ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING, INC 10/23/97 520.18 0231222 SIMON & SCHUSTER 10/23/97 268.69 0231223 J A SEXAUER, INC 10/23/97 513.32 0231224 SKAGGS, PAUL MD 10/23/97 28.00 0231225 SOUTHERN SEWER EQUIPMENT SALES 10/23/97 199.00 0231226 SOIL & WATER CON SOCIETY 10/23/97 12.00 0231227 SWANA 10/23/97 791.00 0231228 SIMPLEX TIME RECORDER CO 10/23/97 263.40 0231229 SOLAR SCREENING 10/23/97 95.00 0231230 SEBASTIAN RIVER MEDICAL CENTER 10/23/97 350.00 0231231 SOUTHEAST LIBRARY BINDERY,INC 10/23/97 193.00 0231232 SHELLY TRACTOR & EQUIPMENT CO 10/23/97 1,140.14 0231233 SUDDEN IMAGES 10/23/97 40.50 0231234 SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF 10/23/97 100.00 0231235 STAGE & SCREEN 10/23/97 23.28 0231236 STEWART, BARBARA 10/23/97 72.00 0231237 SEBASTIAN EMERGENCY PHYSICIANS 10/23/97 53.40 0231238 SOUTHARD, JACK 10/23/97 500.00 0231239 SEAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC 10/23/97 632.75 0231240 SEIFER, RONALD MD 10/23/97 335.00 0231241 SLP INVESTMENTS 10/23/97 66.95 0231242 TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC 10/23/97 6,129.75 0231243 THOMAS, DEBBY L 10/23/97 147.00 0231244 TITLEIST DRAWER 10/23/97 3,417.24 0231245 TURNER INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 10/23/97 31.72 0231246 TEXACO CREDIT CARD CENTER 10/23/97 409.44 0231247 TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS 10/23/97 300.00 0231248 TESNOW, RONALD L 10/23/97 486.44 0231249 TERMINIX IMTERNATIONAL 10/23/97 95.00 0231250 TEM SYSTEMS INC 10/23/97 90.75 0231251 TRUGREEN CHEMIANN 10/23/97 655.00 0231252 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 10/23/97 77.92 0231253 UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 10/23/97 3,750.00 0231254 UNIVERSITY PRODUCTS, INC 10/23/97 16.15 0231255 U S ARMY ENGINEER WATERWAYS 10/23/97 27,000.00 0231256 US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP 10/23/97 5,984.36 0231257 VERO BEACH HIGH SCHOOL 10/23/97 500.00 0231258 VELDE FORD, INC 10/23/97 18,440.50 0231259 VERO BEACH VOLUNTEER FIRE 10/23/97 19.00 0231260 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 10/23/97 89.87 0231261 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 10/23/97 3,782.88 0231262 VERO BEACH, CITY OF 10/23/97 25.56 0231263 VERO CHEMICAL DISTRIBUTORS, INC 10/23/97 58.30 0231264 VERO LAWNMOWER CENTER, INC 10/23/97 83.95 0231265 VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS 10/23/97 120.00 0231266 VERO LAKE ESTATES VOLUNTEER 10/23/97 14.00 0231267 VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT 10/23/97 50.00 0231268 VERO BEARING & BOLT 10/23/97 208.50 0231269 VERO BEACH POWERTRAIN 10/23/97 532.47 0231270 VANTAGE EQUIPMENT CO 10/23/97 7,134.02 0231271 VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS 10/23/97 20.00 0231272 VETERANS INFORMATION SERVICE 10/23/97 60.00 STORES,0231273 WAL-MART INC 10/23/97 240.03 0231274 WEST PUBLISHINGPAYMENT CTR 10/23/97 137.39 0231275 WRIGHT, DOUGLAS M 10/23/97 102.00 0231276 WW GRAINGER, INC 10/23/97 71.74 0231277 WAL-MART STORES, INC 10/23/97 30.00 0231278 WQOL FM 10/23/97 2,390.00 0231279 WAXE/WAVW RADIO 10/23/97 875.00 0231280 WILLHOFF, PATSY 10/23/97 104.00 0231281 0231282 WHEELER, GARY SHERIFF WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC 10/23/97 12,637.18 0231283 WPAW RADIO 10/23/97 10/23/97 2,214.00 0231284 WOLFE, MEGAN 10/23/97 300.00 20.60 0231285 WSCF-FM 10/23/97 300.00 0231286 WALGREENS PHARMACY 10/23/97 99.28 0231287 WRAP N' SHIP 10/23/97 23.00 0231288 WBBE-FM 10/23/97 400.00 0231289 WOSN-FM RADIO STATION 10/23/97 560.00 0231290 WG MILLS INC OF 10/23/97 500.00 0231291 WAREFORCE INC 10/23/97 17.76 0231292 WOLFE, ERIN 10/23/97 33.48 0231293 WHITEHURST, GEORGE 10/23/97 6.00 0231294 XEROX CORPORATION 10/23/97 489.94 0231295 YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC 10/23/97 268.39 0231296 ZIMMER, DR MICHAEL, 10/23/97 200.00 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 9 BOOK 103 Fp- I B0®K 103 FADE 306 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0231297 CANTLON, PAULA 10/23/97 296.60 0231298 THOMAS, CHRIS 10/23/97 403.29 0231299 JOANS HALLMARK SHOP 10/23/97 15.28 0231300 COUNTRYSIDE N MHP 10/23/97 110.92 0231301 CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES, INC 10/23/97 61.40 0231302 PAN AMERICAN ENINEERING CO 10/23/97 11.87 0231303 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS, INC 10/23/97 11.87 0231304 SANDY PINES, LTD 10/23/97 1.25 0231305 SUNQUEST, INC 10/23/97 50.62 0231306 LEKANIDES,GEORGE 10/23/97 44.63 0231307 WALTON, A HOWARD 10/23/97 6.70 0231308 PAN AMERICAN ENGINEERING CO 10/23/97 291.39 0231309 KELLOGG, HOWARD C 10/23/97 63.72 0231310 KENTNER, JAMES E 10/23/97 59.30 0231311 BRANDON CAPI7AL CORP 10/23/97 46.61 0231312 GILLESPIE, ELVA 10/23/97 26.92 0231313 GRAND HARBOR 10/23/97 80.08 0231314 MESSICK, JOHN W 10/23/97 67.91 0231315 BELL, THOMAS H 10/23/97 39.31 0231316 PROCTOR CONSTRUCTION CO, INC 10/23/97 353.32 0231317 HOLIDAY BUILDERS 10/23/97 122.31 0231318 DONLEY, HOLMAN 10/23/97 42.20 0231319 TRUNBLE, MARJORIE 10/23/97 11.67 0231320 FORD, VENITA 10/23/97 19.75 0231321 BROWN, TOMMY H 10/23/97 17.21 0231322 WILLIAMS, BARBARA A 10/23/97 29.80 0231323 ROLAND, GORDAN & SUSAN 10/23/97 45.58 0231324 BEINDORF JR, JAMES L 10/23/97 10.16 0231325 SEESE, ELIZABETH 10/23/97 50.63 0231326 DI ROCCO, FRED 10/23/97 37.14 0231327 DESENA, DEBORAH S 10/23/97 25.68 0231328 ALLETSEE, GEORGE T 10/23/97 33.12 0231329 BASS, NINA 10/23/97 31.60 0231330 HUGHES, DANIEL & DIANE 10/23/97 27.82 0231331 ZWEMER, JOEL 10/23/97 19.93 0231332 CAMPBELL, M/M KEITH 10/23/97 107.62 0231333 WEINBRECHT, SCOTT 10/23/97 5.83 0231334 WATKINS, DON D 10/23/97 36.78 0231335 ORCHID ISLAND PROPERTIES, INC 10/23/97 42.85 0231336 GHO VERO BEACH INC 10/23/97 76.51 0231337 ARWAY, CHRISTINE 10/23/97 19.13 0231338 NATOLLY, JOHN & LYNN 10/23/97 38.71 0231339 ROSKE, MICHAEL D 10/23/97 44.99 0231340 C & T INC 10/23/97 55.86 0231341 JUSTICE, WILLIAM R 10/23/97 41.26 0231342 CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC 10/23/97 68.38 0231343 RADTKE, WILLIAM N 10/23/97 30.98 0231344 HENDERSON SR, SYLVESTER P 10/23/97 3.31 0231345 NOLEN, DARTLENE 10/23/97 52.53 0231346 BETTON, CLIFFORD 10/23/97 25.32 0231347 FINGER, KEITH 10/23/97 58.76 0231348 ROBINSON, IRWIN S 10/23/97 60.82 0231349 GLASS, BARBARA A 10/23/97 68.28 0231350 MILLER, ROSS & JULIE 10/23/97 13.88 0231351 GAYNOR, MITZI 10/23/97 1.94 0231352 FROST, ANN 10/23/97 65.40 0231353 EMRICK MGM SERVICES, INC 10/23/97 50.00 0231354 PLYLER, ELSIE H 10/23/97 11.73 0231355 SARDUY, RAFAEL 10/23/97 23.81 0231356 SZTYLERMAN, MOISES 10/23/97 11.24 0231357 LEWIS MR & MRS JOSEPH 10/23/97 37.53 0231358 AR PATS DRY CLEANERS 10/23/97 15.29 0231359 HOLYCROSS, SHEILA 10/23/97 17.00 0231360 SAMPLE, PETER B 10/23/97 41.05 0231361 ALVAREZ, JOHN M 10/23/97 20.58 0231362 MC CULLERS, BRUCE T 10/23/97 42.15 0231363 FITZPATRICK SR, DONALD R 10/23/97 46.57 0231364 CROCKETT, JAMES K 10/23/97 33.38 0231365 JONES, JONATHAN E 10/23/97 50.95 0231366 CONDO, WENDY 10/23/97 27.30 0231367 WILSON, NATALIE 10/23/97 65.97 0231368 NOLAN, ZACH & DENISE 10/23/97 28.28 0231369 HAHN, WILLIAM H 10/23/97 65.68 0231370 MERX, LARRY & KAY 10/23/97 60.31 0231371 FOSTER, DAVID E 10/23/97 24.63 0231372 DIXIE EQUIPMENT 10/23/97 28.03 0231373 PAYNE, AQUILA E 10/23/97 41.82 0231374 WEST, LORENZA 10/23/97 45.49 0231375 HARBOR FEDERAL SAVINGS BANK 10/23/97 54.41 0231376 KELLY, CHAD 10/23/97 50.00 0231377 JOHNSON, MICHELL 10/23/97 56.23 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 10 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0231378 EIDE, JANNA M 10/23/97 29.08 0231379 ARIS, TRACIE L 10/23/97 27.65 0231380 GUARINE, JOSEPH & JUDITH 10/23/97 19.81 0231381 FEY, JEFFREY T 10/23/97 15.43 0231382 NALLE', MELISSA 10/23/97 34.24 0231383 SANTOS, ALEXANDER •10/23/97 39.01 0231384 BUYER, LAVONNE 10/23/97 34.08 0231385 COURT, SUSAN M 10/23/97 73.92 0231386 MC DANIEL, KIMBERLY D 10/23/97 56.22 0231387 GARONE, AMBER 10/23/97 15.58 0231388 STEVENS, STEPHANIE A 10/23/97 22.71 0231389 FITCH, LUTHER LEE 10/23/97 23.47 0231390 ANDERSON, FRED 10/24/97 123.00 0231391 ATKINSON, RICHARD F 10/24/97 309.00 0231392 ADESHILE, ADONAI & F P & L 10/24/97 39.00 0231393 ADAMS, DONALD S AND EDITH B 10/24/97 255.00 0231394 BECHT, TONIA AND CITY OF VERO 10/24/97 70.00 0231395 BROXTON, LYDIA 10/24/97 206.00 0231396 BE[TTTTELL, PETER M 10/24/97 276.00 0231397 BILKEN GROUP 10/24/97 1,244.00 0231398 BEANS, ROBERT 10/24/97 288.00 0231399 BELL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT 10/24/97 1,790.00 0231400 BOUYSSOU, STEPHANE H 10/24/97 284.00 0231401 BLAHNIK, CHRIS OR MILDRED 10/24/97 199.00 0231402 BROOKHAVEN, TOWN OF 10/24/97 558.61 0231403 BREVARD COUNTY HOUSING AUTHRTY 10/24/97 1,236.83 0231404 BROWN, HUBERT OR KOLA 10/24/97 406.00 0231405 BROOKS, HAROLD L JR 10/24/97 349.00 0231406 BEAUREGARD, KELLY AND CITY OF 10/24/97 59.00 0231407 RAYLESS, DENNIS 10/24/97 303.00 0231408 CARTWRIGHT, WILLIAM AND/ 10/24/97 168.00 0231409 CORR, RHODA L 10/24/97 308.00 0231410 COLLINS, THOMAS H 10/24/97 603.00 0231411 CAIRNS, DAVID A 10/24/97 145.00 0231412 COSCO, KEN 10/24/97 475.00 0231413 CROZZOLI, ANTONIO OR PAMELA 10/24/97 214.00 0231414 CARLTON, ALLAN R 10/24/97 259.00 0231415 C P E ASSOCIATES 10/24/97 1,461.00 0231416 CAPAK, GERALD T 10/24/97 335.00 0231417 CUMMINGS, JERRY 10/24/97 405.00 0231418 CALMES, JOHN W 10/24/97 392.00 0231419 CARLUCCI, LEONARD A 10/24/97 391.00 0231420 DOOLITTLE AND ASSOCIATES 10/24/97 2,067.00 0231421 D'HAESELEER, GAYLE OR RONALD 10/24/97 1,025.00 0231422 DEAN, JAMES 10/24/97 247.00 0231423 DENNISON, WANDA 10/24/97 831.00 0231424 DOVE, E WILSON 10/24/97 299.00 0231425 ELWELL, JOAN A 10/24/97 190.00 0231426 EDGEWOOD PLACE (305-113) 10/24/97 215.00 0231427 FOGERTY, GEORGE A 10/24/97 331.00 0231428 FRESH, DANIEL J 10/24/97 195.00 0231429 FT PIERCE, CITY OF 10/24/97 1,936.44 0231430 FOURNIER, CATHY & FP&L 10/24/97 45.00 0231431 FOGARTY INTERPRISES, INC 10/24/97 424.00 0231432 GILLESPIE, JOHN AND/OR GWEN 10/24/97 825.00 0231433 GASKILL, ROBERT 10/24/97 343.00 0231434 GRIMM, FLOYD OR HELEN 10/24/97 151.00 0231435 GIFFORD GROVES, LTD 10/24/97 8,840.00 0231436 GEORGE, MARY KIM 10/24/97 575.00 0231437 GATCHELL, JOSEPHINE AND CITY 10/24/97 78.00 0231438 HICKMAN, CARLA & F P & L 10/24/97 57.00 0231439 HILL, C J 10/24/97 930.00 0231440 HAWKINS, WANDA 10/24/97 327.00 0231441 RERAN, SHAUNA 10/24/97 309.00 0231442 HUNT, MARY 10/24/97 35.00 0231443 INCITCO REALTY, INC 10/24/97 310.00 0231444 INDIAN RIVER INVESTMENT 10/24/97 497.00 0231445 IMBRIANI, VINCENT 10/24/97 396.00 0231446 JAMES A DOOLITTLE & ASSOCIATES 10/24/97 9,682.00 0231447 JENSEN, PETER C 10/24/97 536.00 0231448 JONES, MARCUS 10/24/97 188.00 0231449 JONES, DOROTHY 10/24/97 4.00 0231450 JORDAN, WILLIAM 0 10/24/97 334.00 0231451 JENNINGS, LESSIE 10/24/97 411.00 0231452 JEFFERSON, RUTH 10/24/97 165.00 0231453 JULIN, PAUL 10/24/97 220.00 0231454 JONES, CECILIA AND CITY OF 10/24/97 40.00 0231455 JONES, ALPHONSO 10/24/97 222.00 0231456 KAHLE, ESTHER 10/24/97 263.00 0231457 LAW, BEULAH 10/24/97 202.00 0231458 LAWRENCE, TERRY A 10/24/97 200.00 0231459 r.LEREN , E D 10/24/97 582.00 0231460 LANGLEY, PHILIP G 10/24/97 791.00 0231461 LABELLA, ARTHUR 10/24/97 300.00 0231462 LEISSING, CHARLES 10/24/97 500.00 0231463 LANDERS, VIVIEN BONELLI 10/24/97 80.00 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 11 BOOK 103 PAGE 307 r � 80GK 103 PAGE 00 8 CHECK WIMBER NAME CHECK CHECK DATE AMOUNT 0231464 L & S MANAGEMENT 10/24/97 475.00 0231465 MIXELL, LLONALD AND/OR 10/24/97 838.00 0231466 0231467 M 0 D INVESTMENTS MONTGOMERY, WILLIAM 10/24/97 10/24/97 1,249.00 0231468 MANN, ROBERT OR WANDA ARMA 10/24/97 213.00 268.00 0231469 MINNIS, WILLIAM C JR 10/24/97 122.00 0231470 MID FLORIDA RENTALS 10/24/97 475.00 0231471 MALGERIA, PRISCILLA 10/24/97 419.00 0231472 MORRILL, TINA AND CITY OF 10/24/97 34.00 0231473 MILLER, ALVIN L 10/24/97 375.00 0231474 MCINTOSH, SYLVESTER B JR 10/24/97 505.00 0231475 MCLEOD, WILLEZTE & FP&L 10/24/97 27.00 0231476 MACDONALD, MELANIE & FPL 10/24/97 53.00 0231477 NELSON, DONALD J & VALENTINE R 10/24/97 500.00 0231478 0231479 NICOTRA, ALFIO O'CONNOR, DANIEL T & DEIDRA E 10/24/97 10/24/97 207.00 0231480 PARKER, RALPH & CITY OF VERO 10/24/97 408.00 77.00 0231481 PIUMELLI, DOMENICA 10/24/97 713.00 0231482 PALMER TRAILER PARK 10/24/97 415.00 0231483 PIERSON, JOHN H DBA 10/24/97 324.00 0231484 0231485 POSADO, LORI PINKNEY, RACHEL J 10/24/97 10/24/97 322.00 0231486 PALUMBO, LOUIS 10/24/97 166.00 309.00 0231487 QUINCY, EUGENE 10/24/97 556.00 0231488 0231489 REAGAN, WILLIE C REMICK, RONALD 10/24/97 808.00 10/24/97 271.00 0231490 RAUDENBUSH, ERNEST 10/24/97 125.00 0231491 REALTY CONNECTIONS OF VERO,INC 10/24/97 995.00 0231492 ROBERTS, DAVID E 10/24/97 200.00 0231493 REDDING, TERESA & CITY OF VERO 10/24/97 66.00 0231494 REARDANZ, MARVIN 10/24/97 439.00 0231495 RICHARDS, WILLIAM A 10/24/97 646.00 0231496 SALTER, CHRISTINE 10/24/97 383.00 0231497 SCHORNER, JAMES A 10/24/97 115.00 0231498 ST FRANCIS MANOR 10/24/97 3,114.00 0231499 SCROGGS, BETTY DAVIS 10/24/97 327.00 0231500 S B M RENTALS, INC 10/24/97 312.00 0231501 SABONJOHN, JAMES E 10/24/97 457.00 0231502 SACCO, JACQUELINE AVID/OR 10/24/97 461.00 0231503 SORIANO, RAFAEL 10/24/97 483.00 0231504 SABONJOHN, FLORENCE 10/24/97 914.00 0231505 STINSON, GRACE & FLORIDA POWER 10/24/97 2.00 0231506 SANFORD HOUSING AUTHORITY 10/24/97 558.61 0231507 SMOAK, JEANETTE AND CITY 10/24/97 34.00 0231508 SANDY PINES 10/24/97 2,877.00 0231509 SHELTON, ROBERT L 10/24/97 392.00 0231510 STARCK, MICHAEL R 10/24/97 369.00 0231511 SQUIRES, STEPHANIE A 10/24/97 317.00 0231512 SPEARS, PRISCILLA AND CITY OF 10/24/97 40.00 0231513 SARTAIN, CHARLES S & TELECIA 10/24/97 375.00 0231514 SANDERS, NATALIE 10/24/97 123.00 0231515 TROPICAL SHORELAND, INC OR 10/24/97 243.00 0231516 0231517 TROW, FSI ULISKY, WILLIAM B OR MARLENE 10/24/97 10/24/97 551.00 0231518 VERO MOBILE HOME PARK 10/24/97 140.00 213.00 0231519 VOLF VILCEK, JULIANNA 10/24/97 293.00 0231520 VERO FIRST CORPORATION 10/24/97 1,663.00 0231521 WILLIAMS, AUDREY AND CITY OF •10/24/97 25.00 0231522 BLAKE, SALLIE (WYNN) 10/24/97 288.00 0231523 WILLIAMS, TOBIAS M 10/24/97 82.00 0231524 0231525 WOOD, BOB YORK LILLY B 10/24/97 10/24/97 425.00 0231526 YORK, DAVID 10/24/97 202.00 464.00 0231527 0231528 ZANCA, LEONARD ZORC, RICHARD J 10/24/97 1,092.00 10/24/97 232.00 920,342.60 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 12 7_C. MARINE ADVISORY NARROWS WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE WANWAQ - RESIGNATION OF DENNIS HAM SAK The Board reviewed a letter of October 23, 1997: HARBOR BRANCH OCEANOGRAPHIC /N$TIYUTION, INC. Division of Marine Science BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION (M) 46624M 55W U.S. 1 NOR7H FAX Mr) 46 -=7 FORTP6?= FLORMA34W 0=ber23,1M Ms. Caroline D. Ginn Chairman, MANWAC Board of County Comroissianers 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 FAX: (561) 770-5334 Dear Ms. Gixm, Over the last three years, my professional abligadons have rapidly accelerated, and I have taken on considerable adminisIzative responsWitieL Increasingly, I have not been able to attend the MANWAC (Marine Advisory Natrows Watershed Action Committee) meeting because of conflicts with my travel or with other meetings. Thus, I ask that you accept my resigation, effective immediately, from the Commiti I think this Committee has effectively provided a foram to address issues of can=al concern to Indian River County, and will continue to do so. Good luck with ft completion of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. Thank you. DISTRIBUTION LIST Commissioners Administrator Attorney -- Personnel Public Works community Dev. Utilities Finance OMB Emerg. Serv. Risk Mg_t, Other '11' Sincerely, M. Dennis Hanisak Senior Scientist ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted, with regret, the resignation of Dennis Hanisak from the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 13 BOOK 103 FADE 309 r- BOOK 103 PACE310 7.D. STATE/COUNTY ACOUISITION OF LOST TREE ISLANDS UPDATED CONFIDENTIALITY L IS T - CITY OF VERO BEACH AND TONIN OF INDIAN RIVER SHORE The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County A,4ministra Robert M. Keating, AICD Community Development Di ei FROM: Roland M. DeBlos, ATCP Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: October 29, 1997 RE: Board Approval of Updated Confidentiality List by the City of Vero Beach and the Town of Indian River Shores Regarding State/County Acquisition of the Lost Tree Islands It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 4, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached "Addendum to [the] Confidentiality Agreement" for the Lost Tree Islands (FCT Project #93-001-P3A). The Confidentiality Agreement is required by the Florida Communities Trust as part of its cost -share grant agreement with the County. The Confidentiality Agreement allows individuals on a confidentiality fist to review appraisals and be privy to negotiations prior to the seller's execution of an option agreement, but only to the extent that such information can be disclosed to other individuals on the confidentiality list. Since 1993, when the Confidentiality Agreement was originally executed, the City has had a change- over in staff. Specifically, the City has a different city manager and city attorney. Moreover, as negotiations have evolved, it has become apparent that there is a need, from a standpoint of interagency coordination, to include on the confidentiality list the current managers and attorneys for both the City and the Town. In the case of the City of Vero Beach, it is also appropriate to add the City Planning Director, which is proposed. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached Addendum to the Confidentiality Agreement relating to the Lost Tree Islands. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 14 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Addendum to the Confidentiality Agreement relating to the Lost Tree Islands, and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended by staff. ADDENDUM TO CONFIDENTIALITY AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD Z.E. 1997 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT - FLORIDA COMMISSION FOR TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED - PROGRESS REPORT AND REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE #3 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 23, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE r Robert M. Keating, AIC Community Development D' r FROM: Sasan Rohan, AICP s Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 23, 1997 RE: REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF PROGRESS REPORT & REIMBURSEMENT INVOICE #3 FOR THE 1997 TRANSPORTATION DISADVANTAGED PLANNING GRANT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of November 4, 1997. It is required, as part of the Transportation Disadvantaged (TD) Planning Grant contract between the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners (BCC) as the Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA) and the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), that periodic progress reports and reimbursement invoices be submitted. To comply with the CTD's requirements, staff has prepared a progress report and invoice for the period from July 1, 1997 to September 30, 1997. For the 1997 planning grant period, the invoice and progress report represent the third submittal. This progress report and applicable finished products, such as the Local Coordinating Board (LCB) meeting agenda items, CTC reports, etc., are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 15 BOOK 10.3 PAGE -31i BOOK 103 PAGE 312 On October 23, 1997, the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board (TDLCB) reviewed and approved the attached progress report and invoice. At that time, the TDLCB recommended that the Board of County Commissioners, in its capacity as the Transportation Disadvantaged program Designated Official Planning Agency (DOPA), approve the attached progress report and invoice and forward these to the CTD. Attached is a copy of the progress report and invoice for the July 1, 1997 to September 30. 1997 period. Finished products such as TDLCB meeting agenda items, CTC reports, and other pertinent reports are required to accompany all reimbursement invoices. These materials will be submitted to the state along with the reimbursement invoice and the progress report. The BCC/DOPA's alternatives are either to approve the transmittal of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice as submitted, to approve transmittal of the Progress Report and invoice with revisions, or to deny the transmittal of the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice to the state. Choosing the last alternative could affect the county's reimbursement of staff time expended for transportation disadvantaged planning related services. The TDLCB and the staff recommend that the Board of County Commissioners/DOPA approve Progress Report and reimbursement invoice #3, and direct staff to t<ansmit the report and the invoice to the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD). ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the Progress Report and reimbursement invoice #3 and directed staff to transmit the report and the invoice to the State of Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged (CTD), as recommended by staff. 7. F. COUNTY TRAVEL POLICYAND APPROVAL OF TRAVEL TO ORLANDO The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 1997: TO: Board of CountyCommissioners FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney DATE: October 29, 1997 RE: Day Travel to Orlando and County Travel Policy Terry Smith and I have been invited to attend a one -day meeting in Orlando regarding telecommunications ordinances. Although we will travel over in the morning and return in the afternoon, the trip qualifies as travel and therefore requires agency head permission (Chapter 112, Florida Statutes). Since getting advance approval from the full Board of County Commissioners for every occasion that the County Administrator, County Attorney, and Executive Aide to the Board leave the County boundaries for the day is sometimes not possible and could result in these staff members being unable to attend the meetings, Chairman Eggert and 1 discussed the matter and would recommend to the Board that for day trips only, i.e., no overnight trips, the Chairman be authorized to approve this travel for the County Administrator, County Attorney, and the Executive Aide to the Board. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 16 Recommendation: Request that the Board approve the County Attorney attending the upcoming telecommunications meeting in Orlando for the day and establish a policy that the Chairman can approve day -only travel in the future for the County Administrator, County Attorney, and Executive Aide to the Board. Chairman Eggert had no problem with approving travel out -of -county in the State but felt more information should be required; such as the costs involved, what is left in the department's travel budget, less any events known at that time. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the County Attorney attending the upcoming telecommunications meeting in Orlando for the day and established a policy that the Chairman can approve out - of -county day -only travel in the future for the County Administrator, County Attorney, and Executive Aide to the Board with the stipulation that when the request is presented for signature, expended funds, committed funds and itemized funds be considered. 7.G. COUNTY TAX DEED APPLICATIONS -COSTS FOR 18 APPLICATIONS The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 28, 1997: TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 28, 1997 FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA Legal Assistant County Attorney's Office RE: Costs for 18 County Tax Deed Applications On June 17, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners approved the County paying certain costs to the Tax Collector in connection with the sale of certain tax certificates that were eligible for tax deed applications. We were recently advised by the Clerk of the Court that, as part of the process of transferring the title to the County, the sum of $4,856.02 is due (as shown on the attached itemizations). Revuested Action: Board approve the County paying the requested amount to the Clerk of the Circuit Court. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the payment of the sum of $4,856.02 to the Clerk of Court, as recommended by staff. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 17 BOOK 103 PAGE 313 L r- BOOK 103 FAGE 31 8.A. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - ELECTIONS OFFICE REPORT FOR FY ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 The Board reviewed a letter of October 9, 1997, with attachments: Say Clem Supervisor of Elections Indian River County. Florida October 9, 1997 Honorable Carolyn Eggert, Chairman Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25'e Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 -Dear Chairman Eggert: Attached are the financial report forms I am required to file with the Board of County Commissioners by October 31, 1997. Included is a check for $6,369.49 which includes income in the amount of $4,216.59 derived from lists, labels, etc., and interest income in the amount of $2,149.91. Please let me know if you have any questions or need further information. K 'ely, �7v� cc: Honorable Jeff Barton, Clerk of the Court Mr. Joe Baird, Indian River County Budget Director NOVEMBER 4, 1997 18 mom IfNtA 66UNW, PL61adA sUPERVISoIt OF.kLb&hoNb STATEMENT OF REVENUES, ftu tf� AND CHANGES IN FUND 9ALANCE8 E"r AND AC'T'UAL ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNOs FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 90,1997 GENERAL FUND -- — — VARIANCE FAVORABLE REVENUES ACCOUNT NUMBER fiUbM& ACTUAL (U LE) CHARGES FOR SERVICES: SUPERVISOR OF ELECTIONS FEES W.M 24,411 28,628 4,217 MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: . INTEREST 31 AO 2,150 2,150 OTHER MISCELLANEOUS REVENUE 389.90 OTHER REVENUES OTHER REVENUES TOTAL REVENUE 24,411 30,778 6,367 EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES: OTHER GENERAL GOVERNMENT: PERSONAL SERVICES OPERATING EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY TOTAL EXPENDITURES EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER(UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) TRANSFERSIN TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES(USES) $19.10 326,699 326,698 1 519.3d 138,803 138,802 1 519.80 26,699 26,699 492,111 492,109 2 467,700 467,700 (6.3691 (6,369) 467,700 461,331 (6,369) EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES FUND BALANCES 10/01/98 FUND BALANCES 9130197 CERTIFICATION I do solemnly swear that the information reported herein is a true, correct and complete report of all revenues and expenditures of my office for the year ending September 30, 1997. (S'9nature) Office of Supervisor of Elections Indian River County STATE OF FLORIDAj. MarQeA•TNmbk COUNTY OF IRIDIAN RIVER •= W coununsslarl r ao19 oo<PIIRE3 June 14, 2000 '%�.>�v`O ilYtl17110Y iNN pISI�,�L' Sworn to and subscribed before me this 9th day of September, 1997, by Kay Clem. Signa of Notary Public -State of Flor_ Personally Known X NOVEMBER 4, 1997 19 BOOK ® PAGE',15, I BOOK 103 PACE 316 INDIAN RIVER WUNMI'LORIDA SUPERVISOR OF ;SLEECTIONS BALANCE 01#tt ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30,1997 GENERALLbNG ASSETS ACCOUNt NUM131ER TERM bEeT QUITY IN POOLED CASH id4 IVESTMENTS 151 THER ASSETS THER ASSETS MOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER LIABILTIES ibg 1.640 TOTAL ASSETS 1.640 LMILITIes AND FUNb MU" (ABILITIES: 4ccoUNTs PAYABLE zo2 DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 208 DEPOSITS 22b OTHER LIABILITIES OTHER LIABILITIES ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES 2$g 1,640 TOTAL LIABILITIES 1,640 :UND EQUITY: ACCOUNT' NUMBER FUND BALANCE 271.20 TOTAL FUND EQUITY 104- TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY 1,640 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,FLoRIbA SUPERVISOR OF:I=LECTIONS BALANct 9FIEEt ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER $0,1997 AsSEts ACCOUNT' NUMBER GJENERAL ftUND AGENCY FUND DEFERRED COMPENSATION EQUITY IN POOLED CASH 104- 18,590 INVESTMENTS. ibi 171,184 OTHER ASSETS OTHER ASSETS AMOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER LIABILTIES 189 TOTAL ASSetb 1 R, sgn LIABILITIES ANb FLING EQUITY LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE 20Q 2,665 DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 20d 6,369 DEPOSITS 226 58 171,184 oACCER D PAYROLL 9,498 ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCE§ 22g TOTAL LIABILITIES 18,590 171,184 FUND EQUITY: FUND BALANCE Vila TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY 18,590 171,184 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 20 SUPERVISOR OF ELEMONS ludrm AWWCOM& VAM88W 6.AWWff 2WW ACCOUNT INVOICE P/O AMOUNT List, labels, Petitions & Etc. 4216. 59 Interest Earni d on Money Market 2149 91 Due to Hoard c f County 0 amuw== i 2. End 01 96/97 Fie m3l Year CE=Igo. 32° ACCOUNT IIdVOICE P� AMOU: TOTu- 6369.49 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted the Fiscal Year 1997 Report of the Supervisor of Elections. S.B. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS AND GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - TAX COLLECTOR'S REPORT FOR FY ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 31, 1997, with attachments: October 31, 1997 To: Board of County Comm' si rs From: Karl Zimmerman Subject: Annual Financial Re for Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 1997 As required under Section 218.36 of the Florida Statutes, attached is my report for the subject fiscal year. Also enclosed is the distribution of unused fees for the same period. If you have any questions, please contact me. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 21 Bcox, X03 FnE 31 7 0 N iy 16CD_D mm§i�m .11 COX MZ O0O mo Cy it N x omZ Om m Om c D w zm x z z m N 4 1 T A 2 _> �z m z Z�yz r" -n c orm0 mZpO4M-n Nm r = A_ ym O M ZZy V g m W z 0 r D LD m V1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TAX COLLECTOR BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30.1997 ASSETS -_. ........ ...... CASH -UNRESTRICTED PETTY CASH EQUITY IN POOLED CASH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SUPPLIES INVENTORY INVESTMENTS OTHER ASSETS OTHER ASSETS OTHER ASSETS AMOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER LIABILITIES TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DUE TO STATE OF FLORIDA DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS DEPOSITS OTHER LIABILITIES OTHER LIABILITIES OTHER LIABILITIES - LONG TERM ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND EQUITY: FUND BALANCE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY AGENCYFUNDS O 0 AGENCYFUNDS GENERAL p DELINQUENT REFUND TAG DEFERRED GENERALLONG ACCOUNTNUMBER �Q TAX- TAX TAX ACCOUNT AGENCY COMPENSATION TERM DEBT 0 _....-...... $1,097.509 - ....._............... ....................... ....,._ N u sS m log mp 104 $639,584 $735.620 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,887 115 0 W g N g N Ma u N a0 00 Z 0 n 51.773 V y° O $z 151 $140,978 N m q p� dap p� N o H p W m CI W d 0 0 NNp (Nyp a m Z E E gWg mffi m SEVi W 1585 0 1 T A 2 _> �z m z Z�yz r" -n c orm0 mZpO4M-n Nm r = A_ ym O M ZZy V g m W z 0 r D LD m V1 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TAX COLLECTOR BALANCE SHEET ALL FUND TYPES AND ACCOUNT GROUPS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30.1997 ASSETS -_. ........ ...... CASH -UNRESTRICTED PETTY CASH EQUITY IN POOLED CASH ACCOUNTS RECEIVABLE SUPPLIES INVENTORY INVESTMENTS OTHER ASSETS OTHER ASSETS OTHER ASSETS AMOUNT TO PROVIDE -OTHER LIABILITIES TOTAL ASSETS LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY LIABILITIES: ACCOUNTS PAYABLE DUE TO BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DUE TO STATE OF FLORIDA DUE TO OTHER GOVERNMENTS DEPOSITS OTHER LIABILITIES OTHER LIABILITIES OTHER LIABILITIES - LONG TERM ACCRUED COMPENSATED ABSENCES TOTAL LIABILITIES FUND EQUITY: FUND BALANCE TOTAL FUND EQUITY TOTAL LIABILITIES AND FUND EQUITY 189 202 208 208 208 220 239 239 271.20 _ y $257,514 $1,791,872 $737,627 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,887 $140,978 $257,514 $13,707 $147,065 $2,718 $1,778,165 $737,627 .5185,487 $85,322 $0 $219,887 $140,978 $238,414 Y $18,100 $1,781,872 ��$737.627 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,867 $140,978 $257,514 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 $0 $0 $0 51,791,872 $737,627 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,887 $140,978 $257.514 acea.amesvvm .a.mamasemam cmaa.na.om.nn Qoocna.aaevvm en.ms.mone veecevena aaeacaancoeaaa mamvevaaaauaaa 0'4 AGENCYFUNDS AGENCYFUNDS AGENCYFUNDS GENERAL CURRENT REGULAR DELINQUENT REFUND TAG DEFERRED GENERALLONG ACCOUNTNUMBER FUND TAX- TAX TAX ACCOUNT AGENCY COMPENSATION TERM DEBT 101 _....-...... $1,097.509 - ....._............... ....................... ....,._ 102 $5.500 104 $639,584 $735.620 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,887 115 $47.506 $2,007 141 51.773 151 $140,978 189 202 208 208 208 220 239 239 271.20 _ y $257,514 $1,791,872 $737,627 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,887 $140,978 $257,514 $13,707 $147,065 $2,718 $1,778,165 $737,627 .5185,487 $85,322 $0 $219,887 $140,978 $238,414 Y $18,100 $1,781,872 ��$737.627 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,867 $140,978 $257,514 $0 $0 $0 $0 30 $0 $0 $0 51,791,872 $737,627 $185,487 $212,387 $2,718 $219,887 $140,978 $257.514 acea.amesvvm .a.mamasemam cmaa.na.om.nn Qoocna.aaevvm en.ms.mone veecevena aaeacaancoeaaa mamvevaaaauaaa 0'4 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA TAX COLLECTOR STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES -BUDGET AND ACTUAL ALL GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED SEPTEMBER 30, 1897 REVENUES CHARGES FOR SERVICES: COUNTY OFFICERS COMMISSIONS MISCELLANEOUS REVENUES: INTEREST OTHER REVENUES OTHER REVENUES TOTALREVENUE EXPENDITURES GENERAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES: FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE: PERSONAL SERVICES OPERATING EXPENDITURES CAPITAL OUTLAY DEBT SERVICE: PRINCIPAL RETIREMENT INTEREST OTHER DEBT SERVICE TOTAL EXPENDITURES GENERAL FUND VARIANCE FAVORABLE ACCOUNT NUMBER BUDGET ACTUAL (UNFAVORABLE) 341.80 $3,428,241 $3,433,818 $5,578 361.10 $3,428,241 63,433.819 $5,578 EXCESS OF REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) TRANSFERSIN LEASE PURCHASE PROCEEDS TRANSFERS OUT TOTAL OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES) EXCESS OF REVENUES AND OTHER SOURCES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES AND OTHER USES FUND BALANCES 10101/86 FUND BALANCES 8130187 513.10 $1,183,728 $1,130,627 $53,101 513.30 $050,545 $424.964 $25,581 513.60 $28209 $23,256 $5.951 513.71 $46,576 $62,628 ($18,052) 513.72 $11,045 $14,177 ($3,132) $1,721.103 61.655,654 365,449 $1.707.138 $1.778.185 $71.027 ($1,707,138) ($1,778,165) ($71,027) ($1,707.136) ($1,778.185) ($71,027) $o $0 $0 $0 I do solemny swear OW the foregoing Is a true, eorred and complete report d all revenues and the Year w6W Ors 30th day of September, 1887. ' nature) (Office of Tax Col ctor. Indian Rhor County z z. R11)1 KARL- ,ZIMMERMANN, C.F.C.- Tay Collector CERTIFIED FLORIDA COLLECTOR Honorable Carolyn Eggert Chairman, Board of County Commissioners October 31, 1997 Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Ms. Eggert I am enclosing the 1997 (Unused) Fee Report of the Indian River County Tax Collector's Office. Total income for fees from all sources for 1997 was $3,433,819.34, total expenditures were $1,655,654.37; and the unused fees were $1,778,164.97. Comparable figures for 1996 were, total income for fees from all sources $3,378,839.61; total expenditures were $1,593,701.06; producing unused fees of $1,785,138.55. If you have any questions, please contact me. Sincerel Karl Zimme nn Tax Collect NOVEMBER 4, 1997 23 BOCK 103 FnE 319 L EXCESS97 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TAX COLLECTOR KARL ZIMMERMANN, TAX COLLECTOR EXCESS FEE DISTRIBUTION YEAR ENDING SEPTEMBER 30, 1997 COMMISSIONS W97 COLLECTED EXCESS FEES AGENCY 96-97 % 1,778,184.97 GENERAL FUND 1,668,557.57 EMS SERV DIST 219,016.70 ROCKRIDGE SLD 95.47 LAURELWOOD SLD 87.35 GIFFORD SLD 928.74 LAUREL CT SLD 17,38 VERO LAKES MSTU 1,228.86 VB HIGH SLD 874.97 IXORA PK SLD 111.25 PORPOISE PT SLD 11.58 VERO SHORES SLD 95.35 POINCIANA SLD 209.51 ROSELAND RD SLD 33.24 GLENDALE LK SLD 52.69 WALKERS GLEN SLD 47.22 FLORALTON SLD 31.95 TIERRA LINDA SLD 37.64 WHISPERING PINES 30.58 MOORINGS SLD 149.98 MOORINGS SLD -CON 335.40 LAND ACO BOND 33,490.58 LIBRARY BOND 10.72 LANDFILL 116,239.98 BEACH BOND 11.99 FIND 4,398.30 SCHOOL DISTRICT 139,768.11 ST JOHNS WMD 55,669.74 SEB INLET DIST 2,679.16 MOSQUITO CONT 30,794.71 HOSPITAL 99,948.36 FELLSMERE WCD 1,500.00 IR FARMS WCD 1,500.00 ST JOHNS WCD 1,500.00 SEB RIVER WCD 1,500.00 VERO LAKES WCD 300.25 DELTA FARMS WCD 1,500.00 70.026% 9.192% 0.004% 0.004% 0.039% 0.001% 0.052% 0.037% 0.005% 0.000% 0.004% 0.009% 0.001% 0.002% 0.002% 0.001% 0.002% 0.001% 0.008% 0.014% 1.406% 0.000% 4.878% 0.001% 0.185% 5.866% 2.336% 0.112% 1.292% 4.195% 0.063% 0.063% 0.063% 0.063% 0.013% 0.063% TOTAL 2,382,765.29 100.000% Z ? F� �R111� KARL ZIMMERMANN, C.FC.' Tar Collector October 31, 1997 c ERTIFIED FLORIDA i of I I l 10R To: Sylvia Matthews, Budget Analyst Florida Department of Revenue From: Kari Zimmermann, Tax Collector Indian River County Subject: Budget/Amendment #1 - 1996/1997 Fiscal Year 1,245,179.97 163,444.00 71.00 65.00 693.00 13.00 917.00 653.00 83.00 9.00 71.00 156.00 25.00 39.00 35.00 24.00 28.00 23.00 112.00 250.00 24,993.00 8.00 86,745.00 9.00 3,282.00 104,306.00 41,544.00 1,999.00 22,981.00 74,588.00 1,119.00 1,119.00 1,119.00 1,119.00 224.00 1,119.00 1,778,164.97 BOOK A3 PACE -320 Attached is Budget /Amendment request #1 for the Tax Collector's Office realigning our budgeted funds. If you have any questions please contact me. j ce lyri mme ann Colle r NOVEMBER 4, 1997 24 KARL ZIMMERMANN, C.F.C.' Tax Collector t LRTIFILD FLORIDA t t i I l l ]OR October 31, 1997 To: Sylvia Matthews, Budget Analyst Florida Department of Revenue From: Kari Zimmermann, Tax Collector Indian River County Subject Budget/Amendment #1 -1996/1997 Fiscal Year Attached is Budget /Amendment request #1 for the Tax Collector's Office realigning our budgeted funds. If you have any questions please contact me. Since ly arl mme ann T Colle r KARL ZIMMERMANN, C.F.C.' Tax Collector October 31, 1997 CERTIFIED FLORIDA COLLECTOR Honorable Carolyn Eggert Chairman, Board of County Commissioners Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Ms. Eggert Enclosed is our check No. 19992 in the amount of $1,523,645.97 representing your taxing districts proportionate share of 1996/1997 unused fees as of September 30, 1997. The total amount of unused fees collected by our department and available for distribution is $1,778,164.97. If you have any questions, please call me. Sincere , rl Zimm rmann Tax Coll dor NOVEMBER 4, 1997 25 q BOOK 10PAGE 321 L J Fr- -I BOOK 103 PAGE 322 GR -404 Tc N. 02/69 Request Number TAX COLLECTOR WA #1 BUDGET TRANSFER/AMENDMENT ON 1 County Indian River OFFICIAL Karl Zimmermann, Tax Collector DATE 10/31/97 Year ending September 30,19 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 26 (Department of Revenue Gate KARL ZIMMERMANN, C.F.C., Tax Collector P.O. Box 1509 VERO BEACH. FLORIDA 32961 NS 019992 ________________________PLEABE DETACH BEFORE --DEPOSITING 1J23.k45-97--_ KARL ZMEW RMAM, C.FC., Tax Collector N° 019992 P.O. Box 1509 VEAo BBAcH. FLoRmA 32961 fr,.e union M/aEiond Ent a/fAonve Vere BNd % Fimlda =W0 Vold a1Nr 60 days DATE 10/31/97 TO TWBOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDMOF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1840 25TH STREET VERO BEACH, FL 32960 CHECK NUMBER AMOUNT 19992 $1,523,645.97 t 9'OL99920 1:06700643242L585O?8293209' Tax Collector Karl Zimmermann stated he was pleased to turn over the sum of $1,523,645.97 to the Board. He wanted his constituents to know these are fees that operate the Tax Collector's Office and unused fees total $1,778,164.97. The difference goes to the other agencies for which taxes are collected. He felt it is important for the constituents to know that those monies go toward the operation of the County before any ad valorem taxes are collected. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously accepted the Fiscal Year 1997 Report of the Tax Collector. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 27 BOOK 103 PAGE 323 L BOOK 103 PACE324 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - HULLEN V. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY - SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the urdersoed authority ply appeared Darryl K. Hicks who an oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a daffy newspaper pubffsF�d at Vero Beach M Irmdian River Courmty, Florida; that the attached copy of advertlsernent, being Y 1 in the ?( In the ed In said newspaper In the Issues 7D5 Court. was pub- lish Afflent further says that the said Press%loumal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has Theretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, each daffy and has been entered as second Gera map matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Flaw, fa a perbd of she year next preceding rec the first pub�aton of the attaG�d copy of advertlaenment; end affiant further says that fe has neither paid nor promised any person, firm tfa�pubffcdiscount, rion a refund for the purpose of securing this ..., iArsubsaibed before me �L�.�-�^// day Of D MYCGNMSSMN EXPIRES * ' IANUAr 01, 2001 ' r z CCU N0. C(611092 �•, 1 v pQ°� ';9Y ••. •: ic�• (SEAL). pE°°. Notary Public, State ofFlorida My Commission Exp. Jan. 01, 2001 °yiOrjB�/C: STK Comm. No.•CC 611092 Personally Known C] or Produced ID Type of ID Produced The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 28, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator THRU: Joseph Baird, OMB Director FROM: Beth Jordan, Risk Managed _b/ DATE: 28 October 1997 )IW-\ PUBLIC NOTICE Pursuant to Section 69.081(9), Florida Statutes, notice is hereby given that the claim- of Daniel Hullen against Indian River County Board of County Commissioners, Indian River County, Florida has been settled for an amount in excess of 15,000.00. Oct. 25,1997 1186672r SUBJECT. Request for Agenda; Public Hearing; Hullen v. Indian River County Please wider this public hearing item at the Board of County Commissioners' November 4, 1997 meeting. Background On August 11, 1994, Daniel Hullen, then 26 years old, was injured in a two -vehicle accident at the intersection of Lundberg Road and 58th Avenue. A copy of the Florida Highway Patrol's Florida Traffic Crash Report and photographs are attached. Mr. Hullen suffered a broken clavicle which, although healed, left him with a residual 'bump" on his clavicle which he claims causes pain and prevents Firm from enjoying softball and golf, two of his previous recreational activities. The County ambulance rear-ended Mr. Hullen's Firebird, destroying the car while the ambulance sustained relatively minor damage. The County vehicle was not on an emergency call. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 28 � � r Analysis On October 14, 1997, staff and Lyman Reynolds, defense counsel, mediated this suit with John Rooney, mediator, and Beth Broker, attorney for Mr. Hullen. For purposes of mediation, the County did not contest liability. Following an initial demand for $100,000.00, we negotiated this claim to $15,000.00 including attorney's fees, costs and medical costs. This mediated settlement was unanimously approved by the staff Claims Review Committee consisting of the County Administrator, County Attorney, Budget Director, Emergency Services Director and Risk Manager on October 21, 1997. Recommendation This mediated settlement is within the settlement authority of the Staff Claims Review Committee. In keeping with the Board's desire that all such settlements appear as public items, it has been publicly noticed and is being placed on this agenda. County Defense Attorney Lyman Reynolds advised that the Memorandum sums up the request for approval of the $15,000 settlement arising from an automobile accident injury with additional surgery anticipated. 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 Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the recommended settlement in the amount of $15,000 including attorney's fees, costs and medical costs. BALANCE OF THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 29 BOOK 103 WE 325 BOOK 103 PAGE 326 9.A.2.PUBLIC HEARING — THOMAS S. HAMMOND — REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 18.7 ACRES FROM M-2 TO CI P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 . 562-2315 Fell Preps 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 was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of 119-, 277 1997 nu Sworn to and subscribed before me this y Q ..� . tD tea.L•�Et •�•.......... _.....___.. ._ .. �President ••'•°• ER1'Y ANNA°�'°ev'-o * AIT (Odl6 SIONaMS ;N • KIMBERLYANNE IRIS u0W"01.2001 Notary Public, State of Florida 0 i (OEIb, NO• (f611092 : a My Commission Exp►.lan• 01, 2001 °.99:- c : Comm. No. CC 611092 o� Personaily Known 0 or Produced ID �'•�e!%"""" 0��•'�a 0110 Produood-- (SIrA��,� STATE.°. Type NOVEMBER 4, 1997 30 NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS I --v---- � rue S rA t on 3M ST Ropwtm on L-4 I The Board of Courcy Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider severai proposals to amantl ills Comprehensive Pian to change the use of land within the unincorpo- rated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will he hold on Tuesday, November 4. 1997 et 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambero% the County Adminiatration Building, located at 1840 25th Street. Varo Beach, Florida. At this public hear- ing the Board o1 County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs for their review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR: 1. +/-18.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 56th AVENUE AND 9th STREET, SW. (OSLO ROAD), FROM AGA TO M-1; 2. +/-18.7 ACRES. LOCATED APPROXIMATELY '/. MILE EAST OF 43rd AVENUE. ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41st STREET. FROM M-2 TO C/I; 3. THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL RE- PORT BASED LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS: 3a. +/-67 ACRES OF THE 82 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 53RD STREET AND US 1, FROM CA TO M-1. 3b. +/•182.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 41st STREET, FROM M-1 TO C/I; 3c. +/-37.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 613th AVE- NUE AND 33rd STREET (CHERRY LANE), FROM L-1 TO L-2: 3d. +/-39.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 58th AVENUE, AP- PROXIMATELY 630 FEET SOUTH OF 4th STREET. FROM R TO L-1; 3e. +/-1.075 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN CR 510 AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, AND BETWEEN 66th AVENUE AND 90th AVE- NUE, FROM R TO L-1; 3f. +/-9.687 ACRES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT LAND THAT HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY PUSUC AGENCIES FROM AG -1, AG -2, AG - 3. L-1, L-2. AND CA TO C-1; AND AMENDING POLICY 1.14 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: REVISING THE 15 ELEMENTS AND SUB -ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT; AND PRO- VIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of these propaeed Comprehensive Plan Amendmerlta. The plan amandmem apDliaationa may De inspected by the �bl ic at the Community De- velopment Department located on the second floor dl the Administration Buiding Io- calledt125thSheet,Vr.lrida,betweene houa1:md 5:00pmon weekdays. For morinformatin, contact Jon Wmlt7000exteniThepoposedordinancemaybensbythe public beten 8:30 a.m. andtheMice heCltothe BorfCounty Commiaeioro, 1840 26N Street. Vero Beach. Floritla. NO FINAL ACTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. 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 testi- many and evidence upon which the appeal is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the county's Americana with Disabilities (ADA) Coordinator at 587.8000, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Indian River County Board of county comm "loners ys2�rg ft s• Carolyn K. Eggert, Chairman The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 29, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator CONCURRENCE THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP • %� Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachtel Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 29, 1997 RE: Thomas S. Hammond's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 18.7 acres from M-2 to CA PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 97-07-0166 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 4, 1997. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 18.7 acres, located approximately '/< mile east of 43'd Avenue, on the south side of 411 Street. The request involves changing the land use designation from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/l, CommerciaLgndustrial. On October 9, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the proposed land use amendment to the State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. Although a majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the subject amendment request, Section 103.02.12 of the County Code states that any matter or application considered by a board or commission with more than five members must receive four or more votes for passage. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission has seven members and the subject application received only three affirmative votes, the favorable recommendation technically failed. Despite the failed motion, all comprehensive plan amendment requests are forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for consideration. Therefore, the Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to transmit this land use designation amendment request to DCA for their review. Although not to be formally considered at this time, a request to rezone the subject property from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, to the CG, General Commercial, District, is associated with this request. In contrast to plan amendment requests, which are always forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners regardless of the Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation, rezoning requests are forwarded to the Board only when the request receives a favorable recommendation from the Planning and Zoning Commission or when the applicant files an appeal within 15 days. In this case, the applicant filed the rezoning appeal within the necessary time period. If the Board transmits the subject land use designation amendment to DCA for their review, the Board will consider the rezoning request together with the land use designation amendment at the final adoption public hearing. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 31 BOOK 103 PAGE327 FF- I BOOK 103 PAGE 328 The main building currently on the site has been illegally converted from a barn to a packinghouse. Use of the building as a barn, a legally established non -conforming use on this site, was "grandfathered in" and would have been allowed to continue if it had not been converted. Use of the building as a packinghouse, however, is not permitted within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation and the residential zoning district. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary land use designation and zoning to establish the packinghouse as a legal and conforming use. Not wishing to discontinue the packinghouse use, the applicant is working with planning staff to legalize the use. In so doing, staff and the applicant identified two methods to correct the problem. The first method is to amend the comprehensive plan policy governing permitted uses within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation to allow agricultural uses within those areas. The other method is to change the land use designation of the site to C/I, a designation which permits packinghouses. In this case, the applicant originally chose both methods. He applied for a comprehensive plan text amendment to allow agricultural uses within the Medium -Density Residential land use designation, and he submitted the subject land use amendment request. At the October 9, 1997 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, however, a text amendment related concern was raised. That concern was that the proposed change would greatly increase incompatibilities by allowing agricultural businesses and packinghouses to operate in any M-1 or M-2 designated area of the county. Based on that concern, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 3 to 1 to deny the text amendment request. Subsequently, the applicant withdrew the text amendment request. Issues raised at the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing also influenced planning staffs recommendation. At that hearing, planning staff recommended approval of the text amendment and denial of the land use designation amendment. Staff now recommends approval of the subject land use designation amendment. While staffs position has always been that the site is appropriate for commercial/industrial uses, the preferred residential to C/I land use designation amendment method, however, is a "swap -out." That method involves removing a separate 18.7 acre tract from the node while simultaneously adding the subject property (18.7 acres) to the node. Unable to find C/I designated land that could be swapped in a financially feasible manner, the applicant submitted the subject request. Although staff considered that the preferred swap -out method was not the only acceptable method, staff nevertheless recommended that the request be denied. At the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, however, several issues, including the noise impact zone, the potential future uses of adjacent land within the City of Vero Beach city limits, and the feasibility of residential development on the site, were discussed in detail. The Planning and Zoning Commission expressed much concern about those issues. Based on the Planning and Zoning Commission's concern about those issues, staffs position is that a "swap -out" is not necessary to approve the subject request. CommerciaUmdustcial nodes are intended to be contiguous areas. The Gifford Node in the area of the subject property, however, consists of several non-contiguous tracts. That node, located along 41' Street, is depicted on attachments 5 and 6. The land use designation history of the area indicates why the node is not contiguous. Prior to the 1990 adoption of the current comprehensive plan, the county's comprehensive plan included a Mixed land use designation. That land use designation was given to several areas of the county where the existing land use pattern consisted of a mix of residential, commercial, industrial. and other uses. The Mixed land use designation allowed residential, commercial, and industrial zoning districts. In 1990, the Board of County Commissioners determined that the mix of land uses in those areas resulted in many compatibility problems. To avoid further compatibility problems, the Mixed land use designation was eliminated when the current plan was adopted. In the Gifford area, new land use designations were assigned to areas previously designated Mixed, based on the existing zoning districts. Residentially zoned land was designated M-2, while commercially or industrially zoned land was designated C/I. Because of the historically mixed zoning and land uses in that area of the county, designation of a contiguous node was not feasible at that time. Since the subject property was zoned for residential uses, it was given a residential land use designation. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 32 y T roF,_,..sa1I In addition to citrus groves on most of the site, the RS -6 zoned subject property contains a packinghouse and several accessory buildings. To the north, across 411 Street, land is zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre) and consists of one or two single-family houses on wooded lots. To the west, land is zoned RS -6 and contains approximately 10 acres of citrus groves. West of that is the Indian River County Sheriffs Administration Complex and the County Jail. Land to the south of the subject property is zoned II, and contains a wooded area and the Gateway Center Industrial Subdivision. Land to the east of the site is within the City of Vero Beach. That land, zoned ALI-A2, Airport Light Industrial -A2, consists of large wooded areas. Portions of the ALI-A2 district east of the site, although not adjacent to the site, contain environmentally important xeric scrub and prime aquifer recharge areas. For that reason, the City is studying what, if any, uses should be allowed within that district. i ,1 The subject property, the 10 acre tract abutting the subject property on the west, and properties to the north are designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential densities up to 10 unitstacre. Properties to the south of the subject property are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, a designation which permits commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the east, within the City of Vero Beach, is designated CV, Conservation. W� _ • TN The subject property is currently used for agricultural purposes, being a citrus grove with a packinghouse. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. The subject property is not within a 100 year floodplain. To the east of the site, within the City of Vero Beach, is undeveloped wooded property. Utilities and Services The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site from the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Centralized potable water service is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Abutting the site on the north is 411 Street. Classified as an urban minor arterial on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, 411 Street is a two lane road with approximately 40 feet of public road right-of-way. This segment of 41st Street is programmed for the addition of a left turn lane during Fiscal Year 1998-99 and for expansion to 80 feet of public road right-of-way by 2010. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the application will be presented. The analysis will address: • concurrency of public facilities; • compatibility with the surrounding area; • consistency with the comprehensive plan; and • potential impact on environmental quality. 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, NOVEMBER 4, 1997 33 Boa 103 FAGS e.) r BOOK 103 PAGE J30 7 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: Proposed Land Use Designation: 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: - Transportation *18.7 acres M-2, Medium -Density Residential - 2 (up to 10 units/acre) C/I, Commercial/Industrial 187 Dwelling Units 187,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5th Edition ITE Manual). 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 41st Street and other impacted roads would not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is as follows: 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): 53% ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 35% i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47% ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53% 3. Peak Direction of 41 st Street, from 43rd Avenue to Old Dixie Highway: Eastbound 4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated: Number of Units X P.M. Peak Hour Rate X Inbound P.M. Percentage X Inbound -Eastbound Percentage (187 X 1.01 X.65 X.53 = 65) 5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Number of Units X Average Weekday Rate (187 X 10.1=1,889) 1. Retail Commercial use Identified in 5th Edition ITE Manual: Shopping Center 2. For 187,000 sq.8. Shopping Centers in 5th Edition ITE Manual: a. Average Weekday Trip Ends: 56/1,000 square feet b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends: 5.23/1,000 square feet C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50% i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53% ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 50% i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 47% ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour): 53% Peak Direction of 41 st Street, from 43nd Avenue to Old Dixie Highway: Eastbound NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Kill 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 -Southbound Percentage (187,000 X 5.23/1,000 X.5 X.53 = 259) (trip distribution based on a Modified Gravity Model) 5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: Total Square Footage X Average Weekday Rate (187,000 X 56/1,000 sq.ft. =10,472) 6. Traffic Capacity on this segment of 41st Street, at a Level of Service "D": 880 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 7. Total Segment Demand (existing volume + vested volume) on this segment of 41 st Street: 206 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 1,889. This was determined by multiplying the 187 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 10,472. This was determined by multiplying the 187,000 square feet of shopping center use (most intense use) by ITE's shopping center fitted curve factor of 56 Average Daily Trip Ends/1,000 square feet. Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak seasonipeak 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 am. 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 411 Street 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 65. This was detemtined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (187) under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour tripstunit, to determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% (123) will be inbound and 35% (64) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 53% or 65 will be eastbound 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 (187,000) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 5.23 pm. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips generated (978). Of these trips, 50% (489) will be inbound and 501/6 (489) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 53% or 259 will be eastbound. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 194 (259 - 65 =194) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 65 that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation. Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips, whichever is less. Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of 41 st Street adjacent to this site is 880 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 41st Street is 227 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 259 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 41s' Street to approximately 486. Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 411 Street and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 35 ROOK 103 FACE 331 BOOK 103 PAGE 332 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) NOVEMBER 4, 1997 36 Segment Roadway Seament Road From To Capacity LOS "D" 1330N U.S. 1 S. VB City Limit 17th Street 2,270 13305 U.S. 1 S. VB City Limit 17th Street 2,270 1335N U.S. 1 17th Street S.R. 60 2,270 1335S U.S. 1 17th Street S.R. 60 2,270 1340N U.S. 1 S.R. 60 Royal Palm 2,300 1340S U.S. 1 S.R. 60 Royal Palm 2,300 1345N U.S. 1 Royal Palm Place Atlantic Blvd. 2,300 13455 U.S. 1 Royal Palm Place Atlantic Blvd. 2,300 135ON U.S. 1 Atlantic Blvd. N.VB City Limit 2,300 13505 U.S. 1 Atlantic Blvd. N.VB City Limit 2,300 1355N U.S. 1 N.VB City Limit Old Dixie Hwy 2,300 13555 U.S. 1 N.VB City Limit Old Dixie Hwy 2,300 1360N U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy 41st Street 2,300 1360S U.S. 1 Old Dixie Hwy 41st Street 2,300 1365N U.S. 1 41st Street 45th Street 2,650 13655 U.S. 1 41st Street 45th Street 2,650 1370N U.S. 1 45th Street 49th Street 2,650 13705 U.S. 1 45th Street 49th Street 2,650 1915E S.R. 60 I-95 82 Ave. 1,890 1915W S.R. 60 I-95 82 Ave. 1,890 1920E S.R. 60 82 Ave. 66th Ave. 2,270 1920W S.R. 60 82 Ave. 66th Ave. 2,270 1925E S.R. 60 66th Ave. 58th Ave. 2,840 1925W S.R. 60 66th Ave. 58th Ave. 2,840 1930E S.R. 60 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 2,840 1930W S.R. 60 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 2,840 2345N Old Dix. Hwy 41st Street 45th Street 880 23455 Old Dix. Hwy 1st Street 45th Street 880 2350N Old Dix. Hwy 45th Street 49th Street 880 2350S Old Dix. Hwy 45th Street 49th Street 880 2355N Old Dix. Hwy 49th Street 65th Street 880 23555 Old Dix. Hwy 49th Street 65th Street 880 2360N Old Dix. Hwy 65th Street 69th Street 880 2360S Old Dix. Hwy 65th Street 69th Street 880 2365N Old Dix. Hwy 69th Street C.R. 510 880 23655 Old Dix. Hwy 69th Street C.R. 510 880 2930N 43rd Ave. 16th St. S.R. 60 880 2930S 43rd Ave. 16th St. S.A. 60 880 2935N 43rd Ave. S.R. 60 26th Street 880 2935S 43rd Ave. S.R. 60 26th Street 880 Roadway SegmentCapacity Seament Road From To Tns D 2940N 43rd Ave. 26th Street 41st Street 680 29905 43rd Ave. 26th Street 41st Street 880 303ON 58th Ave. S.R. 60 41st Street 1,890 3030S 58th Ave. S.R. 60 41st Street 1,890 3035N 58th Ave. 41st Street 45th Street 760 3035S 58th Ave. 41st Street 45th Street 760 304ON 58th Ave. 45th Street 49th Street 760 30405 58th Ave. 45th Street 49th Street 760 4430E 41st Street 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 880 4430W 41st Street 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 880 4440E 41st Street 43rd Ave. Old Dixie Hwy 880 4440W 41st Street 43rd Ave. Old Dixie Hwy 880 4450E 41st Street Old Dixie Hwy In. River Blvd 880 4450W 41st Street Old Dixie Hwy In. River Blvd 880 4730E 26th Street 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 880 4730W 26th Street 58th Ave. 43rd Ave. 880 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 36 Existina Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Seament Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 4450F: 77 8 4450W 70 8 4730E 108 52 4730W 140 46 - Water 85 795 41 78 802 41 160 720 19 186 694 19 A retail commercial use of 187,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 56 Equivalent Residential units (ERU), or 14,000 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 1,900,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. - Wastewater The subject property is serviced by the Central 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 56 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 14,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 370,000 gallonstday and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 37 Boca 103 PnE 333 Existina Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Seament Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand- Determination 1330N 1216 249 1465 805 16 y 13305 1312 257 1569 701 16 y 1335N 1442 296 1738 532 31 y 13355 1315 318 1633 637 31 y 1340N 643 185 828 1472 47 y 1340S 680 211 891 1409 47 y 1345N 849 121 970 1330 62 y 1345S 1221 138 1359 941 62 y 1350N 1102 111 1213 1807 78 y 13505 1124 138 1262 1090 78 y 1355N 1102 69 1171 1129 78 y 1355S 1124 86 1210 1090 78 y 1360N 988 107 1095 1205 25 y 13605 779 102 881 1419 25 y 1365N 976 81 1057 1593 16 y 1365S 751 79 830 1820 16 y 1370N 831 102 933 1717 16 y 1370S 694 132 826 1824 16 y 1915E 925 672 1597 293 16 y 1915W 1039 582 1621 269 16 y 1920E 1;,09 849 1858 412 31 y 1920W 1028 713 1741 349 31 y 1925E 1170 1350 2520 320 19 y 1925W 1288 1290 2578 262 19 y 1930E 1116 1374 2490 350 16 y 1930W 1209 1365 2574 266 16 y 2345N 175 28 203 677 72 y 2345S 170 30 200 680 72 y 235ON 43 29 72 808 31 y 2350S 84 31 115 765 31 y 2355N 69 14 83 797 16 y 23555 67 14 81 799 16 y 236ON 72 6 78 802 16 y 2360S 92 6 98 782 16 y 2365N 79 10 89 791 16 y 23655 57 10 67 813 16 y 2930N 498 171 669 211 34 y 2930S 673 168 841 39 34 y 2935N 380 109 489 391 62 y 2935S 504 108 612 268 62 y 2940N 342 38 380 500 90 y 2940S 280 42 322 558 90 y 303ON 461 405 866 1024 25 y 3030S 495 413 908 982 25 y 3035N 420 132 552 208 19 y 3035S 322 133 455 305 19 y 304ON 379 114 493 267 19 y 3040S 331 117 448 312 19 y 4430E 105 101 206 674 56 y 4430W 134 100 234 646 56 y 4440E 188 39 227 653 155 y 4440W 170 39 209 671 155 y Existina Demand Total Available Positive Roadway Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Concurrency Seament Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand Determination 4450F: 77 8 4450W 70 8 4730E 108 52 4730W 140 46 - Water 85 795 41 78 802 41 160 720 19 186 694 19 A retail commercial use of 187,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 56 Equivalent Residential units (ERU), or 14,000 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 1,900,000 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. - Wastewater The subject property is serviced by the Central 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 56 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 14,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. The Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 370,000 gallonstday and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 37 Boca 103 PnE 333 BOOK 103 FACE334 - Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 187,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 956 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, the 187,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 1,594 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 840,000 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 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 692,386 square feet, or 15.9 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 591,617 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 456,160 cubic feet of runoff on-site. Based upon staffs 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 456,160 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 usu- designation. Consistency with Com=hensive 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. While all Comprehensive Plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability are the following objective and policies: NOVEMBER 4, 1997 38 � o r - 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 Fume 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 13.3s third criteria. When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned commercial/industrial zoned properties to commercial nodes. These nodes were designated various sizes to reflect commercial demand and were established in certain areas to incorporate lands deemed suitable for commercial development. The subject property was considered for inclusion in the node at that time. When the comprehensive plan was adopted, the subject property was not included in the node for the following reasons: • There was already sufficient land designated commercial/industrial to accommodate projected demand; and • Given the size and shape of the subject property, residential development was determined to be feasible. For these reasons, staffs position is that there was no mistake nor oversight in the Comprehensive Plan. There has been, however, a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. That change relates to the county's airport zoning regulations (Section 911.17) which were adopted, pursuant to Chapters 163 and 333 of the Florida Statutes, on March 18, 1993. Those regulations establish a noise impact overlay zone. Prior to building permit issuance, developers of proposed residences within noise impact zones must show that those impacts will be mitigated through one of the following means: • Vcdf3ing in writing that M=sed buildings are designed to achieve an outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 decibels. Normal residential construction can be expected to provide a noise reduction level of 20 to 25 decibels; or • Executing and recording an aviation easement An aviation easement is a legal document that grants to the owner/operator of a nearby airport a right to continue to operate the airport under the current conditions, despite potential nuisance effects upon uses that are being established in close proximity to the airport. Because the subject property is located within a noise impact zone, these regulations apply to the site. Staffs position is that due to unique circumstances of the subject property, these regulations adversely impact the site to the extent that the site is not feasible for residential development. Those circumstances are related to the residential development potential of the site. The most feasible residential development scenario for the subject property involves lower cost or affordable housing. That is due to the following factors: • The site is designated for up to 10 units/acre, the county's most dense residential land use designation; • The site is located in an area of the county with a high proportion of low and very low income households; and • The site is located near several employment centers that generate a demand for nearby affordable housing. Those employment centers include The Vero Beach Municipal Airport, The Sheriff s Administration/County Jail Complex, Dodgertown, Indian River Memorial Hospital, the Gifford Commercial/Industrial Node, and the SR 60/58th Avenue Commercial/Industrial Node. Even though the added cost associated with development within noise impact zones is not significant, that cost may be enough to impact the feasibility of an affordable housing project. Therefore, the adoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones constitutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. For that reason, the subject request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 13.3. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 39 03 BOOK Ur �I Fait - 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% of the land area (less rights-of-way) is developed, or approved for development, with non-agricultural and non-residential uses, unless otherwise warranted. 'he intent of Future Land Use Element Policy 1.23 is to establish specific criteria for node tpansion. Without such criteria, decisions are often arbitrary and inconsistent. The 70% standard, en, is a measure of whether a node needs to be expanded According to the County's ►mmerciaUlndustrial Data Source, the subject node is 32% developed. stated in the policy, however, a node that is less than 70% developed may be considered for anion if otherwise warranted Policy 1.23 states that otherwise warranted may include but not mited to changes in circumstances affecting property adjacent to a node. As described above, idoption of noise impact overlay zones and regulations for development within those zones titutes a change in circumstances affecting the subject property. y 1.23 also states that otherwise warranted may include but not be limited to instances where ision of a node is necessary to include existing adjacent non -conforming commercial or trial uses, and a finding is made by the Board of County Commissioners that the non- miing uses cannot be otherwise eliminated. The packinghouse on the site constitutes an tg adjacent non -conforming use. Based on the analysis, staffs position is that the proposed se amendment is the best method to eliminate that non -conformity. For those reasons, the t request is consistent with Future Land Use Policy 1.23. Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17 Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17 state that the commercial/industrial land use tion should be within the urban service area and is intended for a wide range of commercial istrial uses. Fronting a major road, adjacent to C/I designated land, and with urban services e, the subject property is appropriate for commercial/industrial uses. The proposed tent would allow commercial/industrial development on the site. Therefore, the proposed .ent is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.17. ,re Land Use Policy 1.21 .is policy states that node boundaries are designed to eliminate strip commercial development and rban sprawl, and to provide for maximum use of transportation and public facilities. Given the land use designation pattern along 4111 Street, between 58* Avenue and US 1, the proposed amendment will not result in strip commercial development. Presently, non-residemial/non-agricultural uses extend on the south side of 411 Street from US 1 nearly to 58'" venue, a distance of more than two miles. The exception is the M-2 designated subject property and adjacent land on the west. That land abuts 41u Street for only 981feet, constituting a residential enclave in a non-residential/non-agricultural 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 41' Street. For that reason, the request is consistent with Future Land Use 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. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 40 Staffs position is that commercial/industrial development on the subject property would result in fewer incompatibilities than residential development on the site. Because the site is bordered on the south by C/I designated land, the request is for the continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. In fact, the subject property is a 18.7 acre residential enclave within a 351 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. Residential development on the subject property would be particularly impacted by noise and traffic generated by adjacent and nearby uses such as the airport, the jail, and industrial uses to the south. Although designated for conservation uses in the City of Vero Beach's comprehensive plan, the wooded area east of the site continues to be zoned for industrial uses. In contrast to residential development on the site, the industrial and institutional uses surrounding the subject property would have little impact on commercial development on the site. Although site design features such as additional buffering may partially mitigate impacts on residential projects, the added costs of those features may render a project unfeasible. This is especially relevant to affordable and lower cost housing projects which are most feasible for the subject property. The primary impacts of commercial development on the subject site would be on the residentially designated citrus grove along the subject property's west boundary. That land consists of one 10 - acre parcel that is ±330 feet wide. Since that site shares many of the same circumstances as the subject property (including location within the noise impact zone), the feasibility of residential development on that site is questionable. For these reasons, staff feels that commercial development on the subject property would be compatible with surrounding uses. 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 the environmental quality of the site. Compared to residential development, however, commercial/industrial development on the site may have a greater impact on the wooded areas abutting the site on the east. Those impacts can be at least partially mitigated through site design. For this reason, only minimal adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated. C•Z�1►L�=rli�.��3� Situated within a noise impact zone, and adjacent to a municipal airport and industrially zoned land, the subject property is located along the south side of 41s` Street, an area dominated by industrial, heavy commercial, and institutional uses. The subject property is an appropriate site for commercial industrial uses. The proposed amendment is the best alternative to eliminate the existing non -conforming use on the site. 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. For these reasons, staff supports the request. RECOM WMATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions: 1. approve the requested land use designation amendment for transmittal to DCA for their review, and 2. announce its intention to hold and advertise a final public heating at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 41 BOOK 103 PnE 337 Y CZ) co iL �2 n0 PAL M VERO BE %11 40 IM A'M MIMIC tea' I TRACT 10 1 � � N s I I i I TIIACT to I I 1 1 1 1 1 0 Z Z 0 N I M Itr CD O O CC i I BOOK 103 PAGE 340 <1 WESTERN PORTION GIFFORD COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE 22-32-3f 27-32-3' CA NODE o 400 800 ' NOVEMBER 4, 1997 44 O m EASTERN PORTION GIFFORD COMMERCIAL /INDUSTRIAL NODE I •EWSi►�. I Y � i I I t f apa n•ua —•sw,T .. II i N W N ff a•f1' a , ♦ Q RS—6 , vu. a N M 1=14 t 1 "CL 21-32-39 2-32 2l-32-39 27-32- ,.-, ■ RS -6 RM -10 49th ST w �J NOVEMBER 4, 1997 45 BOOK 103 PnE 341 I 11, I I I I , u , ♦ , vu. a N II 1 \Wf■ � I . b aK. rtvy .r.ti.r I 0 4�oo�-1 —C/1 NODE I A711aU,W 6 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 45 BOOK 103 PnE 341 BOOK 103 PAGE 342 Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating continued that there are 2 amendment requests by individuals and 1 County -initiated. Should the Board agree to transmit these amendments to the DCA for review, the DCA will review and file a recommendations and comments report. Subsequently all 3 amendments would be considered at a public hearing sometime in March or April, 1998. Director Keating then reviewed the Hammond amendment request and stated that staff has worked with the applicants for several months regarding this illegal packing house. The problem is that the subject property is designated M-1 and currently zoned RS -6. The County's Comp Plan does not allow M-1 to be zoned for agricultural use. There are 2 possible remedies; either amend the text of the Comp Plan which would allow rezoning to A-1 or amend the land use designation from M-1 to C/I. The Planning & Zoning Commission has recommended, by a 3-1 vote, a land use map amendment and staff concurs with that recommendation. The Gifford Node is not typical in that the property is within the airport noise zone and the City of Vero Beach Airport property is designated CV (conservation) and zoned light industrial. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Attorney Bruce Barkett, as applicant and as attorney, emphasized that this particular property will never be developed as residential property due to its location within the airport noise impact zone. Attorney Barkett felt that when the node was originally created, everything south of 41' Street was designated non-residential which makes this part of a continuing pattern of development. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 46 Commissioner Adams questioned whether building permits were issued for this non- conforming use, and Director Keating advised that no permits were issued; the work was being done without permits and a " stop work" order was issued. Attorney Barkett explained that the original building was a barn used to store agricultural equipment and the purchaser assumed that the zoning designation was agricultural. He applied to the Department of Environmental Protection for a packing house permit and was not aware that he needed to apply to the County for permits. Deputy County Attorney Will Collins addressed Commissioner Adams' concern and stated that the main problem with a text amendment is that a lot of uses are allowed in agricultural zoning which would not be compatible with residential zoning; such as sand mines. He believed a text amendment would open a Pandora's box. 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 Tippin, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 97-140 approving the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for its review (Thomas S. Hammond - Amendment #LUDA 97-07-0166). RESOLUTION NO. 97- 140 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR ITS REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1997 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on this comprehensive plan amendment request on October 9, 1997 after due public notice, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 3 to 1 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below; and NOVEMBER 4, 1997 47 c � BOOK 103 PAGUE 343 L Fr- 'I BOOK 103 PAGE 34 RESOLUTION 97-140 WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 4, 1997, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1), and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial for+18.7 acres located approximately ''/e 43'd Avenue, on the south side of 411 Street. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Ginn and seconded by Commissioner Ti ppi n 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 dye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht —&yE The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 4s' day of November 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Carol Eggert, man ATTEST: Jeffrey K. B", Clerk / / . NOVEMBER 4, 1997 48 L� 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - BESSEMER TRUST CO. - REQUEST TO AMEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO REDESIGNATE APPROXIMATELY 18.8 ACRES FROM AG -1 TO M-1 P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 -Preto Journal COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Daryl 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 NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS . .� 1.2 y w _� -"•r- - on was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of 7��_1997 aN Ari' A Swom to and subscribed before: me this �Y o r 2 r -t -D rrrrr■rrrrr•••• -�-- President ••'••• EP�Y ANNE •�' � � �r�'.LF.s� * Air (ftwumBUfWS :V' ° KIMBERLY AN NE IRIS i ' '"WN'01.2001 Notary Public, State of Florida s Z ' •� COUND CC611092 : Q ; My Commission EXpiJen. 01, 2001 : : Q • Comm. No. CC 611092 ^.9s pQ personally KRtnvn ❑ or Produced ID ••'••GB(% •""" OEC+'� -r a of 10 Prodtt4od �---- (SEA���. STAB YP NOVEMBER 4, 1997 49 The Board of County Commiaiit rs of Indian River County, Florida, will consider several Proposals to arr .its Camprahensnre Plen to change the u9e of land within the unincorpo- rated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday. No 4, 1997 at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambere'ot the County Ad mletration Builtlmg, located at 1840 25th Street aro Beach, Florida. At this public hear- ing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the State Department of Community Affairs for their rpview. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR: 1. +/-18.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 86th AVENUE AND 9th STREET, SW, (OSLO ROAD), FROM AG -1 TO M-1; 2. +/-18.7 ACRES. LOCATED APPROXIMATELY % MILE EAST OF 43rd AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41st STREET, FROM M-2 TO CA; 3. THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL RE- PORT BASED LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS: 3a. +/-67 ACRES OF THE 82 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 53RD STREET AND US 1. FROM C/1 To M-1. 3b. +/-182.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 41st STREET. FROM M-1 TO CA: 3c. +/-37.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 88th AVE- NUE AND 33rd STREET (CHERRY LANE), FROM L-1 TO L-2: 3d. +/-39.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIOE OF 56th AVENUE, AP- PROXIMATELY 830 FEET SOUTH OF 4th STREET, FROM R TO L-1; 3e. +/-1.075 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN CR 510 AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, AND BETWEEN 88th AVENUE AND 90th AVE- NUE. FROM R TO L-1; 31. +/-9.887 ACRES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT LAND THAT NAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES FROM AG -1, AG -2. AG - AMENDING POLICY 1.14 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT; REVISING THE 15 ELEMENTS AND SUB -ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT; AND PRO- VIDING 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 Community De- velopment Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building Io- cated at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on e pro The Yi. For more information, Contact John Wachtel at 587-8000, extension 247. e propit ad ordinance may be inspected by the public between8:30 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. at the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners. 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. NO FINAL ACTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. 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 testi- mony 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 (ADA) Coordinator at 58748000, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Indian River County �of �tyivChaBa Carolyn K. n BOOK 103 PAGE345 BOOK 10J FAu 346 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 27, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DEP TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE V Robert M. Keating, AI THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP Chien Long -Range Planning FROM: Peter J. Radke. Economic Development Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 27, 1997 RE: Bessemer Trust Co., Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 18.8 acres from AG -1 to M-1. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 97-07-0170 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 4, 1997. This request is to amend the Comprehensive Plan and redesignate approximately 18.8 acres from AG -1, Agricultural - 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to M-1, Medium Density Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Located at the southeast comer of 66* Avenue and Oslo Road, the subject property extends south from Oslo Road along the east side of 661i Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary nd use designation to develop the site with residential uses. On October 9, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request to amend the comprehensive plan to redesignate the subject property to M-1 and to direct staff not to transmit this request to the state Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for their review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not this request is to be transmitted to the DCA for their review. The subject property consists of a citrus grove and a two-story farm house, and it is zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres). All surrounding properties are also zoned A-1 and, except for property to the northwest of the subject property, are being used for citrus groves. An agricultural business exists to the northwest of the subject property at the comer of 661 Avenue and Oslo Road. The subject property and all surrounding properties are designated AG -1, (up to 1 unit/5 acres). The AG -1 designation permits agricultural uses and residential uses with densities up to 1 unit/five acres. The subject property is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands nor native upland plant communities exist on site. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, a portion the subject property does contain an AE (22') flood hazard area. The site is outside the Urban Service Area of the county. Potable water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater lines do not extend to the site. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 50 The site is bounded on the west by 661 Avenue. Classified as an urban minor arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 66' Avenue is a two-lane unpaved road with approximately 50 feet of public road right-of-way. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of 66t° Avenue between Oslo Road and SW 131 Street. The site is bounded on the north by Oslo Road Classified as an urban principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of Oslo Road is a two-lane road with approximately 60 feet of public road right-of-way. The Indian River County MPO 1997 List of Priority Projects indicates that the segment of Oslo Road between 2r Avenue and 82nd Avenue will be expanded by two lanes in the time period between 2001-2005. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented Specifically, this analysis will address: • concurrency of public facilities; • consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • compatibility with the surrounding area; and • potential impact on environmental quality. This site is located outside of the county Urban Service Area; therefore, the property is not suited for urban scale development. Regardless, the Comprehensive Plan establishes minimum development 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) 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 EIement. For Comprehensive Plan amendment 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 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. For residential Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. 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: *18.8 acres AG -1, Agricultural -1(up to 1 unit/5 acres) M-1, Medium Density Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre) 3 Single -Family Units 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Land Use Designation: 150 Single -Family Units 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 Oslo Road and other impacted roads would not be lowered The site information used for determining traffic impacts is shown in table 1. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 51 BOOK 103 PAGE 347 L BOOK 103 FAGE-348 Table 1: Site Information Existing Land Use Designation Existing Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Designation 1. Residential Use Identified in 5's Edition ITE Manuel Single -Family Single -Family 2. For Single -Family Uints in Ste Edition ITE Manuel: a. Average Weekday Trip Ends 10.1/unit 10.1/unit b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends 1.01/unit 1.01/unit C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 65°/* 65% i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 56% 56% ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 44% 44% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 35% 35% i. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 44°/* 440/0 ii. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 56% 56% 3. Peak Direction of Oslo Rd. from 58i° Ave. to 82ed Ave. Eastbound Eastbound 4. Formula for Determining Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated. (# of Untis * P.1VI, Peak Hour Rate * Inbound P.IVL Percentage * Inbound -Eastbound Percentage) (3 • 1.01 *.65 *.56) =1.10 (150 1.01 * .65 ' .56) =55.15 5. Formula for Determining Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: (# of Units * Average Weekday Rate) (3 * 10.1) =30.3 (150 * 10.1) =1,515 The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation is 30.3. This was determined by multiplying the 3 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 1,515. This was determined by multiplying the 150 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 am. 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 Oslo Road 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 1.10. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (3) under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour tripslunit, to determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% will be inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 56% or 1 will be eastbound. 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 (150) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips generated (152). Of these trips, 65% will be inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 56% or 55 will be eastbound. Therefore. the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 54 (55 - 1 = 54) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the I that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 52 Existing Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Designation 6. Traffic Capacity on This Segment of Oslo Rd, at a LOS 600 peak hour/peak 600 peak hour/peak -D- season/peak direction season/peak direction trips trips 7. Total Segment Demand (Existing Volume+ Vested 270 peak/hour/peak 270 peak/hour/peak Volume) on This Segment of Oslo Road seasontpeak direction season/peak direction I trip trip The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation is 30.3. This was determined by multiplying the 3 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 1,515. This was determined by multiplying the 150 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 am. 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 Oslo Road 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 1.10. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (3) under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour tripslunit, to determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% will be inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 56% or 1 will be eastbound. 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 (150) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips generated (152). Of these trips, 65% will be inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 56% or 55 will be eastbound. Therefore. the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 54 (55 - 1 = 54) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the I that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 52 Using a modified gravity model and a hand assignment, the peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips generated by the proposed use were then assigned to impacted roads on the network. Impacted roads are defined in section 910.09(4)(b)3 of the county's LDRs as roadway segments which receive five percent (5%) or more of the project traffic or fifty (50) or more of the project trips, whichever is less. Capacities for all roadway segments in Indian River County are calculated and updated annually, utilizing the latest and best available peak season traffic characteristics and applying Appendix G methodology as set forth in the Florida Department of Transportation Level of Service Manual. Available capacity is the total capacity less existing and committed (vested) traffic volumes; this is updated daily based upon vesting associated with project approvals. The traffic capacity for the segment of Oslo Road adjacent to this site is 600 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 Oslo Road is 270 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 55 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 Oslo Road to approximately 325. Based on the above analysis, staff determined that Oslo Road and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service. Table 2 identifies each of the impacted roadway segments associated with the proposed land use designation. As indicated in table 2, sufficient capacity is available in all of the segments to accommodate the projected traffic associated with the request. Table 2: Traffic Concurrency Determination Impacted Road Segments (peak hour/peak season/peak direction) Demand Positive SegmentExisting Total Available Concurrency Cly Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Deter- Link Road From To LOS'D' Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand mination S. County I305N U.S.I Litre Oslo Rd 2.300 998 105 1 1.103 1,197 1 y 46 St 0 13105 U.S.I Oslo Rd IR Blvd 2.220 2.015 107 2,122 98 7 Y 4m SL Qo 13155 U.S. I IR Blvd 81 St 2.270 1.204 159 1363 907 5 Y 13205 U.S. 1 8'" St 12'° St 2.270 1,269 160 1.429 841 5 Y S. VB City 1325S U.S. 1 12'" St Limits 2,370 1,312 180 1,492 878 5 Y 1920E S.R. 60 82ad Ave 66t° Ave 2,270 1,009 849 1,858 412 7 y 1925E S.R. 60 661 Ave 58m Ave 2,840 1,170 1,350 1 2.520 320 9 Y 1925W S.R. 60 661" Ave 58° Ave 2,840 1,288 1,290 2,578 262 3 Y 1930E S.R. 60 58" Ave 431' Ave 2.840 1.116 1,374 2,490 350 9 y 1930W SIL60 581 Ave 43"' Ave 2.840 1,209 1.365 2,574 266 13 Y 1935W S.R. 60 431 Ave 271" Ave 2,840 1,202 894 240% 744 14 Y 194OW S.R. 60 27'° Ave 200 Ave 2.510 859 646 1,505 1,005 7 Y 2020E 1611 St 5841 Ave 43� Ave 880 114 260 374 506 4 Y 202OW 161 St 58m Ave 431" Ave 880 203 253 456 424 7 Y 203OW 16" St 4r Ave 27'" Ave 880 409 174 583 297 2 Y Old S. Dixie County 2305S Hwy Line Oslo Rd 880 168 107 275 605 1 Y Old Dixie 23105 Hwy Oslo Rd 4" St 880 470 88 558 322 3 Y S. County 2410N 27'" Ave Line Oslo Rd 880 321 67 388 492 2 Y NOVEMBER 4, 1997 53 BOOK 103 FADE 849 bog 103 FACE 350 Link Road From To Segment Capacity LOS •D' Existing Demand Total Segment Demand Available Segment Capacity Ptoleet Demand Positive Concurrency Deter - mination Existing Volume Vested Volume 24105 271 Ave S. County Lae Oslo Rd 880 276 47 323 557 1 Y 242ON 271 Ave Oslo Rd 4- St 880 291 120 411 469 7 Y 2420S 271 Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 880 410 94 504 376 13 Y 24305 2A0 Ave 4- St a- St 880 487 19 506 374 12 Y 2440S 2T0 Ave 8- St 12- St 880 514 37 551 329 7 Y 2530E Oslo Rd 820° Ave 581 Ave 600 213 57 270 330 48 Y 2530W Oslo Rd 820' Ave 58- Ave 600 170 57 227 373 89 Y 2540E Oslo Rd 58- Ave 430' Ave 880 347 35 382 498 26 Y 254OW Oslo Rd 58- Ave 430' Ave 880 235 33 268 612 49 Y 2550E Oslo Rd 431 Ave 271 Ave 880 334 48 382 498 19 Y 255OW Oslo Rd 431 Ave 27- Ave 880 255 47 302 578 34 Y 2560E Oslo Rd 2T° Ave 201 Ave 880 314 40 354 526 19 Y 256OW Oslo Rd 271 Ave 201 Ave 880 368 37 405 475 j 19 Y 2570E Oslo Rd 201 Ave Old Dixie Hwy 880 390 89 479 401 12 Y 2570W Oslo Rd 201 Ave Old Dixie Hwy 880 414 83 497 383 6 Y 2580W Oslo Rd Old Dixie Hwy U.S. 1 1,890 382 34 416 1,474 8 Y 2810N 201 Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 760 190 66 256 504 4 Y 2910S 201 Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 760 189 65 254 506 7 Y 2910N 43' Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 880 225 60 285 595 8 Y 2910S 43"' Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 880 269 55 324 556 is Y 291 SN 43"' Ave 41 St 86 St 880 327 27 354 526 7 Y 2915S 43i0 Ave 41 St 81St 880 390 26 1 416 464 13 Y 2920S 43' Ave 81St I21 St 880 457 76 533 347 12 Y 2925S 43"' Ave 12- St 161 St 880 549 90 639 241 12 Y 2930S 43"' Ave 161 St S.R. 60 880 673 168 841 39 10 Y 2935S 431 Ave S.R. 60 26- St 880 504 108 612 268 3 Y 3005N 581 Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 600 225 75 300 300 22 Y 30055 581 Ave Oslo Rd 41 St 600 186 72 258 342 40 Y 3010N 581 Ave 41 St 81 St 760 288 133 421 339 20 Y 30105 581 Ave 41 St 81St 760 336 132 468 292 36 Y 3015N 581 Ave 81St 121 St 760 418 246 664 % 19 Y 3015S 581 Ave 81 St 12- St 760 364 242 606 154 32 Y 302ON 581 Ave 121 St 161 St 880 460 307 767 113 18 Y 3020S 581 Ave 621 St 161 St 880 440 305 745 135 32 Y 3025N 581 Ave 161 St S.R. 60 1,890 510 611 1,121 769 14 Y 3025S 581 Ave l6- St S.R. 60 1,890 564 608 1,172 718 25 Y NOVEMBER 4, 1997 54 Ludt Road From To Segment Capacity LOS •D, Existing Demand Total Segment Demand Available Segment Capacity project Demand Positive Concuffency Dem_ mination Existing Vested Volume Volume 303ON 580 Ave S.R. 60 41• St 1,890 461 405 866 1,024 4 y 30305 5P Ave S.R. 60 41• St 1,890 495 413 908 982 3 y 3310S 82- Ave Oslo Rd 4`" St 820 84 27 11 I 709 9 Y 3320S 82' Ave 4i° St Ir St 760 100 49 149 611 9 y 3330S W Ave 121, st S.R. 60 760 238 107 345 415 7 y 4830E 8° st SO* Ave 43i4 Ave 880 141 49 190 690 1 j y 483OW 8° St 58° Ave 431 Ave 880 122 105 227 653 3 y 494OW r St 43id Ave 2T" Ave 880 262 48 310 570 6 y 495OW P St 2r Ave 20° Ave 880 373 66 439 441 5 Y 4930E 411 St 58m Ave 43"' Ave 880 127 98 225 655 2 y 493OW 4" St 58 ° Ave 43"' Ave 880 135 83 218 662 4 y 494OW 41° St 43" Ave 2r Ave 880 221 33 254 626 6 y 495OW 4'" St 27° Ave 20m Ave 880 313 69 382 498 1 Y Water With the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, the subject property could accommodate 150 single-family residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 150 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 37,500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property would be served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1,901,915 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment. Wastewater Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 150 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 37,500 gallons/day. This is based upon the level -of -service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has a remaining capacity of 158,925 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 residential development of 150 units would be anticipated to house approximately 345 people (2.3 X 150). 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 818 (345 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 841,785 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a two 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 land use designation. 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 standard applies, since a portion of 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 part of the subject property lies within Flood Zone AE, which is a special flood hazard area located within the 100 -year floodplain, any development on that portion of the property must have a minimum finished floor elevation of no less than 22.5 feet above mean sea level. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 55 BOOK 103 PAGE 511 BOOK 103 FADE 35 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 7.52 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 496,569 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level -of -service, the applicant will be required to retain approximately 360,328 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, the estimated pre -development runoff rate is 129.55 cubic feet/second. Based upon staffs 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 360,328 cubic feet of runoff for the most intense use of the property, and requiring that for portions of the property in the AE flood zone, 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 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 Comprehensive Plan amendment indicates that the adopted levels -of -service would be maintained Table 3 illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage by park type. Table 3: Park Information Park Type LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population) Project Demand (Acres) Surplus Acreage Urban District 5.0 1.73 160.923 Community (south) 1.25 0.43 4.598 Beach 1.5 0.52 58.677 River 1.5 0.52 19.673 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 land use designation. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. While all services and facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property" under the proposed land use designation, this positive concurrency test is not an indication that the subject property is suited for residential development at a density of 8 units/acre. In fact, the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, which would be 150 single-family residential units, would pass the concurrency test regardless of where the project is located in the county. Indian River County has gone to great lengths to have facilities and infrastructure with sufficient capacity in place to serve existing residents as well as future residents that are within the Urban Service Area. Passing the concurrency test justifies the proposed land use designation only if the proposed land use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with surrounding areas. Available capacity for services does not dictate development patterns in Indian River County. Rather, development dictates the location of services in Indian River County. Consistency with Comprehensive Plan Comprehensive Plan amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the Comprehensive Plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the County Code, the "Comprehensive Plan may 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 that identify the actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development decisions. While all comprehensive plan policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies: NOVEMBER 4, 1997 56 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 does not meet any of the three criteria as stated above. When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned an agricultural land use designation to the subject property. Due to the location of the subject property and due to development trends in the county, the agricultural land use designation was appropriate for the property. Over the last seven years, no substantial change in circumstances uniquely affecting the subject property has occurred At the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, on October 9, 1 5197, the applicant suggested that there have been a number of substantial changes that warrant amending the land use designation of the subject property. As explained in the following paragraphs, those substantial changes that the applicant highlighted do not uniquely affect the subject property. Rather, those changes, including the Indian River Mall and the current economic trends in the citrus industry, have affected many thousands of acres throughout Indian River County. Recent projects along the State Road 60 corridor, including the Indian River Mall, do not represent a substantial change in circumstances that are unique to the subject property. The 3.5 mile distance and the amount of land between the subject property and the State Road 60 corridor add to staffs position that development within the State Road 60 corridor does not represent a substantial change in circumstances regarding the appropriate land use designation for the subject property. Similarly, development projects such as the Indian River Club, located in the southeastern portion of the county, do not represent a substantial change in circumstances in relation to the land use designation of the subject property. Being 4.5 miles from Indian River Club, the subject property is not affected by that development or any other development in that area of the county. Economic trends in the citrus industry also do not represent a substantial change in circumstances to support the applicant's request to redesignate the subject property from AG -1 to M-1. Among other factors, increased competition has recently led to lower profit yields for citrus growers then in previous years, which the applicant contends lowers the value of the land being used for citrus production and, therefore, constitutes a substantial change in circumstances that supports the proposed land use designation. However, these economic trends in the citrus industry affect more than 81,000 acres which are currently being used for citrus production in Indian River County. If declining value for citrus land is justification to increase density, then most land outside of the urban service area would qualify for redesignation. Future Land Use Objective 1 Objective 1 states that Indian River County will have an efficient and compact land use pattern which reduces urban sprawl. Urban sprawl refers to scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades land important for environmental protection, natural resource protection, and agricultural production. The unchecked spread of residential and related land uses into previously undeveloped land can have serious consequences in a rapidly growing community such as Indian River County. These consequences include the increased cost of public services and facilities, loss of valuable agricultural and open natural land and the possibility of negative environmental impacts. A pattern of dispersed development on large tracts of inexpensive land compounds the effort to provide public services in an efficient and economic manner. Such development provides for an increased demand for services. This can result in the building of expensive new facilities rather than the expansion of existing ones. A system of small dispersed facilities is generally more expensive and less efficient. In addition, renovation, rehabilitation, and extension of certain public facilities can reduce per capita expenditures. Dispersed or leap -frog development also increases the demand for various soft services such as police, fire, and education in areas of the county in which the respective departments had not planned to expand those services. This unexpected demand will increase the cost of providing those services and force the respective departments to provide those services in an inefficient manner. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 57 BOOK 103 FAG 53' L Fr- -I BOOK 103 PAGE354 This Comprehensive Plan amendment request will lead to the type of development described in the previous paragraphs. An M-1 land use designation would permit up to 150 single-family residential units on the subject property. Indian River County has not planned for intense development of that nature in the part of the county where the subject property is located. Further, development of that nature would be an invasion into an area dominated by agricultural uses, which is a major industry in the county. Future Land Use Policy 1.1 Policy 1.1 requires Indian River County to adopt the Future Land Use Map. This trap illustrates the land use designation pattern for the entire county. Approximately 33,720 acres of Indian River County are designated for residential land uses according to the Future Land Use Map. A residential allocation ratio (RAR) compares the number of residential units allowed by the Future Land Use Map during a certain time period to the number of residential units needed daring that time period. Along with historic land use patterns and other factors, an RAR can be a useful tool to determine the county's residential land use needs. Comparing the expected need with the existing acreage of residentially designated land, Indian River County has an RAR of 4.48. A 4.48 RAR indicates that the county currently has more than four times the amount of residentially designated land needed to accommodate the county's population in 2010. Based on existing conditions, as well as existing population growth patterns, designating the subject property M-1 would be premature. Indian River County's RAR indicates that a need does not exist to redesignate the subject property to M-1. Future Land Use Policy 1.13 This policy states that "the Medium -Density Residential Land Use Designations are intended for areas which are suitable for urban scale development and intensities." Policy 1.13 Rather states that "these districts shall be located within the Urban Service Area." Staffs position is that, currently, the subject property is not suitable for urban scale development and intensity. As mentioned in the Descriptions and Conditions section, wastewater service is currently not available to the subject property. Also mentioned in the Descriptions and Conditions section is that the subject property is not in the Urban Service Area of Indian River County, nor is the subject property contiguous to the Urban Service Area. In fact, the nearest Urban Service Area boundary is more than a half mile from the subject property: Medium -Density Residential Use Designations shall only be located within the Urban Service Area of the county. Future Land Use Objective 2 and Policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5 Objective 2, as well as policies 2.1, 2.2, and 2.5, relate to the Urban Service Area of Indian River County. Objective 2 states that all new residential development greater than 2 umts/acre shall occur within the Urban Service Area, which contains the infrastructure and services needed to accommodate such development. Policy 2.1 references the map that Indian River County has adopted to depict the Urban Service Area. Policy 2.2 describes the type of areas that are included in the Urban Service Area Finally, Policy 2.5 indicates that Indian River County will encourage and direct growth into the Urban Service Area through various regulations. The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would permit densities of up to 8 units per acre on the subject property. Density levels of up to 8 units per acre are not permitted outside the Urban Service Area as indicated in Objective 2 of the Future Land Use Element and, as the Future Land Use Map illustrates, the subject property is outside the Urban Service Area The subject property is not contiguous to the existing Urban Service Area and cannot be included in the Urban Service Area. These areas do not contain the services deemed necessary to support development in an urban or suburban setting at levels identified in the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, having an M-1 land use designation on the subject property would not be appropriate. In June 1993, the county initiated a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the Urban Service Area to include land along both sides of Oslo Road from 58th Avenue to 74th Avenue, which incorporates the northern portion of the Bessemer property, and to change the land use from AG -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to R, Rural (up to 1 unit/acre). The request was submitted based upon the results of a staff study. That study, mandated by Future Land Use Policy 1.37, addressed the issue of utility lines located in road rights-of-way, where the subject roads serve as Urban Service Area boundaries. Through that study, staff determined that the Urban Service Area boundary could be expanded to include a half mile wide strip (a quarter mile on each side) along the segment of Oslo Road, between 58th Avenue and 74th Avenue. The request was denied by the Board of County Commissioners. The basis of the Board of County Commissioners' decision was that the county did not need any additional residentially designated lands and that expansion of the Urban Service Area NOVEMBER 4, 1997 58 M M was premature. In their decision, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to revise the appropriate policies of the Comprehensive Plan to allow properties adjacent to and up to 500 feet from the Urban Service Area to connect to county potable water and sanitary sewer services. While the referenced objectives and policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is not consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staffs position is that granting the request to redesignate the subject property to M-1 will result in development that will be incompatible with surrounding areas. All lands surrounding the subject property are designated AG -1. In fact, the AG -1 designation is contiguous for at least a half mile in all directions from the subject property. For that reason, development under the proposed land use designation will be incompatible with the surrounding area. Agriculture is one of the major industries in the county. Based on the amount of land designated for agriculture, the revenue generated and the number of employees, one of the most important resources of the county to be preserved is agricultural land. This Comprehensive Plan amendment request is an encroachment into an area dominated by agricultural production. Active agricultural operations involve noise, odors, and spraying, all of which have major adverse impacts on residential development. As a result, grove owners may need to eliminate aerial spraying, limit the hours of ground spraying, relocate pumps, and reduce other impacts. Also, residential development adversely impacts agriculture by increasing incidences of trespassing, vandalism, and carribbean fruit fly host plants. Buffer regulations have been established to mitigate these impacts in areas where residential development is adjacent to active agricultural uses. These buffer requirements would not be as effective for residential development on the subject property. In this case, the subject property is surrounded by active agricultural operations in all directions. Therefore, it is more likely that pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizer will drift over the subject property and that offensive odors and noises will be more intense. For these reasons, residential development of the subject property would be incompatible with surrounding areas. Being a citrus grove, the site has been cleared Since it contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands, 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 Under the current land use designation, the subject property can be developed for residential uses while protecting agricultural uses of the area Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan allows for planned development (PD) projects in agriculturally designated areas of the county. Agricultural PDs permit the normally allowable residential density on agriculturally designated land to be clustered into a small area of the project, on building lots no greater than 1 acre in size. The remainder of the project area is preserved as agricuultural, conservation, and/or recreational open space. In that way, agricultural lands and open spaces are preserved in large. contiguous areas in a manner that preserves agricultural character and functionality. Agricultural PDs are encouraged by the county, since these developments preserve open space, agricultural uses, and the rural character of certain areas of the county such as the area in which the subject property is located. Another alternative, the mixed use land use designation, could be applied to the subject property. Policy 1.34 defines a mixed use land use designation as a PD project which clusters residential and non-residential uses in a manner which protects agricultural and open space areas, protects natural resources, creates a self-sufficient community, minimizes off-site traffic, and does not increase urban sprawl. Policy 1.33 of the Future Land Use Element references certain requirements that are to be met in order to apply a mixed use land use designation on a property. One such requirement to establish a mixed use designation is that if the subject property is one mile or less from the Urban NOVEMBER 4, 1997 59 BOOK 103 PAGE 33 L r I BOOK PAGE,356 Service Area then that property must be at least 1,200 acres. In this case, the subject property, which is approximately one mile from the Urban Service Boundary, is only 18.8 acres. Therefore, consolidating the subject property with other lands would be necessary to consider establishing a mixed use land use designation on the subject property. Both alternatives, the agricultural PD and the mixed use district, illustrate the ability of the Comprehensive Plan to accommodate land owners of agriculturally designated land. These alternatives provide another option, in addition to agricultural operations, for land owners to use to obtain an acceptable rate of return on their land. Additionally, broth alternatives while providing for development of agricultural designated lands, do not create urban sprawl. Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested Comprehensive Plan amendment conflicts with the comprehensive plan; specifically, the request conflicts with Future Land Use Objectives 1 and 2 as well as Future Land Use Policies 1.1, 1.13, 2.1, 2.2, 2.5, and 13.3. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area that is not suited for medium -density single- family residential uses. For these reasons, staff does not support the request to change the subject property's current land use designation. Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny this request to change the land use designation of the subject property and direct staff not to transmit this Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the state Department of Community Affairs. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 60 TR.9 TR.4I TR 3� � I Subject Property I i � I I � �I ----4--__�____�I TR.51 i TR.6 7r I � I i I I � I ' I � I I , I I I 13TH ST SWI TR.12i TR 11 I I 1 I NOVEMBER 4, 1997 61 BOOK 103 PAGE 57 L BOOK 103 PACE 58 Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating continued that the Planning & Zoning Commission unanimously recommended denial of this request. This property consists of 18.8 acres at the southeast comer of Oslo and 66°i Avenue and is now zoned AG -1. All of this property is outside of the urban service area and all the property surrounding it is groves. There has been no oversight and this development would be considered "leap frog" development. The applicant does have some alternatives in that he (1) could develop a residential PD project or (2) consolidate with other properties which would allow properties outside of the urban service area to develop as a new town. The lessening of the value of the property due to circumstances in the citrus industry does not warrant a change to the land use plan. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. Terry Torres 1550 Club Drive, Vero Beach, read from the following Memorandum of October 28, 1997: M E To: From: Subject Date: M O R A N D U M The Honorable Members of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Terry T. Torres Bessemer Trust Co., Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate 18.8 Acres from AG- I to M- I October 28, 1997 Please consider the data contained herein as a response and rebuttal to the report and recommendations made by the Indian River County Planning Department on October 27, 1997. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 62 ANALYSIS According to the report, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, "including drainage, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intensive use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation.", thereby satisfying the concurrency test for the subject property. The report further states the property "is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan." The proposed land use amendment satisfies Future land Use Policy 3.1 ("...maintain levels of service established in this and other elements of the Comprehensive Plan.") and Future Land Use Policy 3.2 ("No development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system..."). CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Future Land Use Policy 13.3 requires that one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. a mistake in the approved plan an oversight in the approved plan a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property This land use amendment request meets all three of these criteria. The subject property is uniquely located in a manner in which the Urban Service Area (USA) Boundary "leapfrogs" north, east, and west of the subject property. It is the only occurrence of this implausible phenomenon in Indian River County. This "leapfrogging" of the USA Boundary has created an island or pocket of land which is bounded on the east of the subject property by 58' Avenue, on the west by 74"' Avenue, on the north by 4h Street where a finger of development (Pine Tree Park Subdivision) juts into this island, and on the south by the St. Lucie County Line. The property is bounded on the north by Oslo Road, classified as an urban principal arterial roadway, and designated on the "Indian River County MPO 1997 List of Priority Projects" indicating that the segment of Oslo Road from 27"h Avenue to 82"d Avenue will be expanded to four lanes between 2001-2005. Oslo Road, both east and west of the property has pockets of more intensive land uses ranging from L- I Residential to perhaps the most intensive land uses to the west which include the County Land Fill and the State Corrections Facility At the heart of the matter is the question of what constitutes an Urban Service Area (USA) and whether or not the area which encompasses the subject property should be included within the USA Boundary? The Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan provides the definition of Urban Services and Urban Service Areas together with the criteria that needs to be satisfied in order to be included within an Urban Service Area. The Plan staters and I quote: "Man-made features have been developed to increase the natural capacity of the land to accommodate more intense uses at higher densities. These public services, facilities and infrastructure not only increase the natural development capacity but also encourage development in some areas while limiting it in others. The public and community based features and facilities have become essential aspects of urban development .... As a group, these public improvements and infrastructure have become known as "urban services". Urban services include but are not limited to public water and sewer; solid waste and garbage collection and disposal, road, bridge and transportation facilities; public safety; education: and utilities such as gas. electric and phone .... Those areas in which these services have been made available and deliverable are designated as Urban Service Areas (USA's). The delimitation of urban service areas has historically been based on arbitrary boundaries of proposed or existing services, political boundaries or the extent of existing development .... The major issue in defining a service area is not merely the availability of a particular service or services but also the ability to deliver the service within a reasonable standard." The area in question explicitly satisfies this definition which is taken verbatim from the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. Having clearly met the standard for inclusion in the Urban Service Area, what mistake or oversight occurred in the plan which resulted in leap -frogging the USA boundary to arbitrarily exclude the subject property from the Urban Service Area? NOVEMBER 4, 1997 63 B 103 PAGE 3DJ BOOK 103 PACE 360 This mistake or oversight in the plan occurred because some of this land has been designated on the FEMA maps as lying within Flood Zone AE, the 100- year flood plain. Much of developed Indian River County and coastal Florida lie within FEMA designated flood zones. This generally presents a drainage problem which can be readily addressed with sound engineering that meets the parameters of, in this case, the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD) of retention of the first two inches of rainfall in a 25 year/24 hour storm event and the consideration of minimum floor elevations as determined by FEMA These regulations which provide for a higher quality of storm water and reduce the pollutants entering the Indian River Lagoon are routinely satisfied and should propose no bar to development within the Flood Zone AE. This should not have been a consideration in excluding this area from the USA Boundary, which appears to have been done. Substantial changes have occurred within the area since the adoption of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan on February 13, 1990. According to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan, the southern portion of the eastern mainland, which contains the subject property, is the most highly developed area of the County containing the highest concentration of commercial and residential land uses. This development pattern extends south from Route 60 to the St Lucie County line and west from U.S. Highway I to 1-95. Immediately north of the subject property on 66"' Avenue Gorge Lambeth has developed a multi-million dollar citrus packing facility, Golden River Fruit Packers. As part of this large project the portion of 66"' Avenue from Golden River Packers to Oslo Road has been paved. 66"' Avenue, bordering the west side of the subject property is classified as an urban minor arterial roadway. Since the adoption of the Plan potable water lines have also been extended to the sight from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant The county has additionally acquired over two -hundred acres of land on Oslo Road for expansion of the county land fill and possible incorporation into a proposed recycling industrial park. If this project is built it will accelerate the construction of what is certain to be the next 1-95 interchange in the county at Oslo Road. The acquisition of this property has removed 200 acres of development land from the Land Use Plan along the Oslo Road corridor allowing approval of the proposed land use amendment without any net increase in development land. The county has approved a large scale commercial project which will include a Winn-Dixie at the intersection of 27`h Avenue and Oslo Road and improvements to 27"' Avenue, another principal arterial, from Oslo Road to Route 60 are nearly complete. The intersection of Oslo Road and Old Dbde Highway has been improved to a four lane intersection complete with traffic signal and turning lanes in all directions. Four lanes of Oslo Road have been extended to Timber Ridge Subdivision to tie in to the scheduled future improvements on Oslo Road. Additionally the three remaining corners of Oslo Road and U.S. Highway I have been developed with an auto dealership, a free standing Walgreen's Super Pharmacy, and South Vero Square, a project which had previously been abandoned. All of this significant development has occurred since the adoption of the Plan. All of these projects have significantly impacted levels of services in the south county resulting in infrastructure development and improvements accruing to the benefit of the subject property, assuring that the requirements of concurrency are met and that the area containing the subject property meets the standard defined in the Plan for inclusion within the Urban Service Area. The question which begs to be answered regarding the failure to include the subject property within the USA boundary is Was it a mistake in the Plan, an oversight in the plan, or due to the substantial changes which have occurred in the Oslo Corridor affecting the subject property? or was it all three? Future Land Use Policy 13.3 requires that only one of three criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request Future Land Use Objective I, intended to reduce urban sprawl defined as "scattered, untimely, poorly planned urban development that occurs in urban fringe and rural areas and frequently invades land important for environmental protection, natural protection, and agricultural production." The subject property is not located in the urban fringe area, but rather right smack in the middle of the Urban Service Area Boundary that leapfrogs around the property allowing more intensive commercial/industrial land uses to the west and more intensive residential and commercial land uses to the east on Oslo Road. Because the requirements of concurrency have been satisfied, in order to foster the more intensive land uses to the west, public services and facilities are already available at no increase in cost Land in the area surrounding the subject property is quite expensive with recent sales of 60 acres of land immediately to the south of the property bringing $10,000 per acre. It is no secret at this price agricultural use of the land is economically unfeasible. Nearly all of the groves located within this area are older groves which were set at 65-70 trees per acre and are now declining in production rendering them non-competitive compared with the newer closer set groves (100- 140 trees per acre) which are just coming into peak production (6-10 years old). Fruit prices to the grower in many cases are insufficient to cover the cost of producing the crop as a five year slump in citrus continues. Further downward pressure in prices has resulted from an oversupply of citrus now available from the thousands of acres of citrus that were planted after the devastating freeze of 1989 and the several lesser freezes that occurred during the 1980's. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 64 Conclusively this land is no longer economically suitable for agriculture and the subject land, a grove, has lost money for the last five years and was unable to meet production costs the last two years. If the property is leveraged the situation is even more grim, and it is readily apparent to most growers that they must seek alternative uses for this land or many will join the ranks of the increasing number of growers and investors that have gone bankrupt, been foreclosed on, or have given up their land in lieu of foreclosure. As a former grower, these remarks are in no manner intended to reflect upon the continued economic viability of the more than 80,000 acres of citrus located within the county. It is an accurate reflection that our older, less efficient groves (many of which are located east of 1-95) can no longer compete in a struggling market dominated by vertically integrated big citrus companies and subject to the whims of a worldwide market The argument that this is agricultural land is no longer economically sound. What we have here is not leapfrogged development, but a leapfrogged Urban Service Area Boundary which needs to be modified. Finally the county should allow for some form of transitional land use that would bridge the intense commercial/industrial development and land uses to the west with the less intensive residential and commercial land uses to the east of the subject property on Oslo Road. Future (Land Use Policy 1.1 requires the County to adopt the Future Land Use Goals, Objectives, Policies and Maps all of which are embraced by the requested land use amendment with the exception of map 2.34 Future Land Use Map and 2.33 Urban Service Area Boundary Map. While it is true that over 33,000 acres in Indian River County are designated for residential land uses, much of this land does not meet the concurrency requirements, is located in blighted areas, contains substandard lots, or encompasses platted but unbuilt subdivisions. Development of these properties would in fact encourage urban sprawl and result in increased infrastructure costs, particularly in the areas which do not yet have services available, contain inadequate or non-existent streets; inadequate drainage; substandard (small) lots which cannot accommodate today's housing product; and poor soil conditions. Allowing multi -family development per this request would eliminate one of the leading causes of urban sprawl, the development of large expanses of low-density, single -dimensional projects. The future land use element allows for and encourages "the conversion of agricultural lands to other uses when and where appropriate, and maximizing the efficient provision and use of public facilities and services." While this designation is reserved for properties of at least 1200 acres, it should be considered for the larger area along Oslo Road lying both to the north and south. The purpose of this designation is to create self-sufficient communities where people live, work, and recreate in the same place. This designation can also provide for maximum use of open space by clustering residential and non-residential activities, capturing trips internally, thereby reducing the threat of urban sprawl. An ideal place to apply this concept is in the vicinity of the subject property where the requirements of concurrency are met. The Future Land Use Element estimates that growth in Indian River County will necessitate an additional 8,400 dwelling units by 1995 and nearly 12,000 by 2010 (a cumulative total of 20,400 units). The actual amount of land required to accommodate these additional dwelling units will be determined by the mix of the units and the density of the development Future Land Use Policy 1.13 states that Medium -Density Residential Use Designations be reserved primarily for areas that are east of 1-95 and located within the USA Boundary. Clearly the subject land is east of 1-95 and the boundary should be adjusted to include this property. Objective 2 of the plan as well as Policies 2. I, 2.2, and 2.5 states that all new residential development greater that .2 units/acre, shall occur within the USA Boundary and contain the necessary infrastructure to support the development The subject property contains the services and infrastructure necessary to support development The idea of expanding the USA Boundary to include the area in question is not new. In 1993 the county prematurely promoted a plan to expand the USA Boundary to include this area along Oslo Road between 74th Avenue and 58"' Avenue thereby bridging the gap in the boundary. All of this occurred before the significant aforementioned changes in the area of the Oslo Corridor as well as the development of the Indian River Mall and corresponding continuing development of the Route 60 corridor. While the boundary was not expanded at that time, The Board of County Commissioners however, directed staff to revise the Comprehensive Plan to allow properties up to 500 feet from the Urban Service Area to connect to county water and sewer services. Their foresight recognized a need which currently demands additional attention and expansion of the Urban Service Area Boundary to include the subject property. Policy 2.5 provides for "incentive for mbced use projects." This would be an ideal place to initiate this policy. COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA While most of the area immediately surrounding the subject property is agricultural, the changing face of agriculture and the citrus industry has dictated that this land is no longer economically feasible to maintain and develop as agriculture. Alternative uses must be found or NOVEMBER 4, 1997 65 BOOK 103 PAGE U L BOOK 103 PAGE 302 much of this land may be devalued forcing owners to liquidate at distress prices properties that once provided incomes for families and security for their futures. Most grove owners recognize the limitations of these older groves and would welcome relief in the form of recovering the value these properties once held as both development properties and viable agricultural ventures. The idea that residential development has a cause and effect relationship in increasing crimes such as trespassing and vandalism is absurd. This property is ideally situated and suited for land uses which would provide a reasonable transition from the interuive land uses located to the west to the less intensive land uses located to the east of the property along the Oslo Road corridor. OBJECTIVE 14 PROTECTION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS Care must be taken to insure that regulatory activity is consistent with the protection of private property rights. This mistake or oversight in the Comprehensive Plan of not including this segment of Oslo Road in the Urban Service Area has resulted in economic hardship to property owners who had purchased land which had residential land use anticipating that the close -in location of the properties would allow them to eventually convert these agricultural properties to development. This directly was a motivating factor for many in purchasing these properties for not just their agricultural value but their underlying real estate value. The question of whether or not this amounts to a taking by government is increasingly arising in the courts. Recent legislation, the Bert J. Harris, Jr. Private Property Rights Act, has strengthened the position of owners of private property with regard to asserting their rights under the act Although local government actions on amendments to the comprehensive plan are not included in this act, much attention has been directed at government actions which eliminate all economically profitable use and devalue private property. CONCLUSION In their report staff has stated that development dictates the location of services in Indian River County. While this may be partially true of large scale development such as the Indian River Mall, it is not true of the majority of development which must have facilities in place in order to be economically feasible. It is also contrary to Policies 1.32, 1.37, 2.2, 2.5, 2.9, and Objective I of the Plan, which are intended to discourage urban sprawl by directing efficient and compact development into areas in which urban services are available and can readily be expanded. Staff continues to rely on "increased cost of public services and facilities", "urban sprawl', and "negative environmental impacts" as part of their argument for denial of this request. These issues, by staffs own admission, do not apply to the subject property and should not be considered in deciding this request The requested Comprehensive Plan Amendment conforms fully with the three requirements of Policy 13.3. If we assume that agricultural land use was appropriate 7 years ago when the plan was adopted, we can still conclude that the substantial changes in cimunistances that have occurred since then warrant the inclusion of the subject property within the USA Boundary today. Staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intensive use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, thereby satisfying the concurrency test. The request conforms with Objective 1, efficient and compact land use which reduces urban sprawl; Policy 1. 1, excepting the USA Boundary; Policy 1. 13, that the land lies east of 1-95; Objective 2 and Policy 2.2, contains the necessary infrastructure and services needed to accommodate such development; and Policy 2.5 promotes efficient development by requiring connection to existing facilities. The single area of nonconformity with the policies sighted in Staffs report is that the subject property is not located within the Urban Service Area Boundary, although it is completely surrounded by the Boundary. The request meets the definition and requirement of Future Land Use Element regarding Urban Services and the delineation of Urban Service Areas as "Those areas in which these services have been made available and deliverable." The subject property meets this burden of proof and should be included within the Urban Service Area Finally, we would consider amending our request to a less intensive residential land use (L-1) or (R) to facilitate our request. We respectfully request the Honorable Members of the Board of County Commissioners to support the requested land use amendment and transmit this comprehensive plan amendment to the Department of Community Affairs together with a recommendation that the Urban Service Area Boundary be modified to include the subject property and to conform with the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Land Use Plan. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 66 r= O N lumn _ / k.. F. .. 1 Al EXHIBIT A MAP DEPICTING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA (IN BLUE) AND TBE SUBJECT PROPERTY Peter Robinson, Vice President of Laurel Homes, pointed out there has been a lot of change in that area. He asked that the County start looking at this area for good long term planning rather than waiting for urban service requests trying to force something you may not like. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 67 BOOK 103FACE-363" _ C11Yero Beach ry S _t 117 cem h Tt sw`R t f(RNER7EIUl41� MERNE EXHIBIT A MAP DEPICTING THE URBAN SERVICE AREA (IN BLUE) AND TBE SUBJECT PROPERTY Peter Robinson, Vice President of Laurel Homes, pointed out there has been a lot of change in that area. He asked that the County start looking at this area for good long term planning rather than waiting for urban service requests trying to force something you may not like. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 67 BOOK 103FACE-363" BOOK 103 PAGE 36 Mr. Torres commented that they would also consider amending their request to a less intensive land use if that would make it more palatable. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. Chairman Eggert felt there certainly was no oversight in that area as the County had negotiated the urban service area with the DCA ad nauseam before ending up with that peninsula. Commissioner Macht felt the County line makes that area an island and perhaps it was a mistake not to include it in the urban service area in view of the anticipated expenditure of funds to push development of the contemplated industrial park. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board, by a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Macht opposed) adopted Resolution 97- 141 denying the transmittal of a proposed amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review (Bessemer Trust Co. - Plan Amendment #LUDA 97-07-0170). RESOLUTION NO. 97- 141 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, DENYING THE TRANSMITTAL OF A PROPOSED AMIINIDMENT TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received comprehensive plan amendment applications during its July 1997 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all comprehensive plan amendment requests on October 9, 1997 after due public notice, and NOVEMBER 4, 1997 68 RESOLUTION NO. 97- 141 WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency voted 5 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners deny the request to change the land use designation of the subject property and not transmit the comprehensive plan amendment listed below, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on November 4, 1997 after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c). NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendment is denied for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Future Land Use Map of the Comprehensive Plan from AG -1, Agricultural -1 (up to 1 unit/5 acre) to M-1, Medium -Density Residential - 1 (up to 8 units/acre) for f 18.8 acres located at the southeast corner of 661 Avenue and Oslo Road. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Adams and seconded by Commissioner Ai nn and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Nay The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 41 day of November 1997. in6an Fbva ca Approved Date Admin ofJre Legal 4,— Budget Dept Risk Mgr. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: Car2o K. Egg Chairman ATTEST BY: Jeffrey K Barton, Clerk NOVEMBER 4, 1997 69 BOOK 103 PAGE 36 L_ r GOOK 103 FAcE3667 9.A.4. PUBLIC HEARING - EAR BASED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 . 562-2315 re 3ournal 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, 1•'lorida; that NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TEXT AND LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS 11 � c . I I was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of r� 7 A Swornh to and subscribed �before me this •�.• 0.60. ANN • . w� President Ly 1y WCObtf 10fi : rn : 19IMBERLYANNE LATS p z i 1UlOwol• 1001 5 1*1 Notary Public, State of Florida :fOdW W0. C[611091 : Q : My Commission Exp►,ian. 01, 2001 �9. Comm. No. CC 611092 O ; Personally Known 13 or Produced ID ••def/C�A1f�0E,� '�' Type of 10 Produdad NOVEMBER 4, 1997 70 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County. Florida, will consider several proposals to amend its Comprehensive Plan to change the uaa of land within the unincorpo- rated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday. November 4, 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 hear- ing the Board of County Commissioners will tmnsitler authorizing the transmittal of these amendments to the State Department of Community ANairs for their review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance entitled: AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USEDESIGNATION FOR: 1. +/-18.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 88th AVENUE AND 9th STREET. SW, (OSLO ROAD), FROM AG -1 TO M-1: 2. +/-18.7 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 14 MILE EAST OF 43rd AVENUE, ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 41st STREET. FROM M-2 TO C/I: 3. THE FOLLOWING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL RE- PORT BASED LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS: 3a. +/-67 ACRES OF THE 82 ACRE TRACT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 53RD STREET AND US 1, FROM CA TO M-1. 3b. +/-182.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 41st STREET. FROM M-1 TO C/I: 3c. +/-37.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF 88th AVE- NUE AND 33rd STREET (CHERRY LANE). FROM L-1 TO L-2; 3d. +/-39.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF 58th AVENUE, AP- PROXIMATELY 630 FEET SOUTH OF 4th STREET. FROM R TO L-1; 3e. +/-1.075 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED BETWEEN CR 510 AND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN, AND BETWEEN 88th AVENUE AND 90th AVE- NUE, FROM R TO L-1; 3f. +/-9.887 ACRES OF ENVIRONMENTALLY IMPORTANT LAND THAT HAS BEEN ACOUIRED BY PUBLIC AGENCIES FROM AGA, AG -2, AQ 3, L-1, L-2, AND CA TO C-1; AND AMENDING POLICY 1.14 OF THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT; REVISING THE 15 ELEMENTS AND SUB -ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BASED ON THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE EVALUATION AND APPRAISAL REPORT; AND PRO- VIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the approval of these proposed Comprehensive Plen Amendments. The plan amendment appltcettona may De inspected by the public at the Community De- velepment Department located on the second floc of the County Atlmmistration Building Io- ca"id n, 25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida, between the hours 018:30 a.m. end 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For more information, contact John Waehtei et 587 -GOOD, extension 247. The proposed ordinance may be inspected Dy the public between 8:30 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. at the office of the Clerk to the Board of County Commieeioners, 1840 25th Sheat, Vero Beach, Florida. NO FINAL ACTION ADOPTING THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WILL BE TAKEN AT THIS MEETING. 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 testi- mony 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 (ADA) Coordinator at 567.8000, extension 223, at least 48 hours m advance of the meeting. Indian River County Board of Crony Carrico lanon 2"s By: -e- Ceroyn K, Egged, Clubman � � r The Board reviewed a Memorandum of October 28, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: IY 19" Robert M. Keating,P Community Developme t D' FROM: Sasan Robani, AICP S • Q . Chief, Long -Range Planning DATE: October 28, 1997 SUBJECT: Consideration of EAR (Evaluation and Appraisal Report) based Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendments It is reed that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of November 4, 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 revising all 15 elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan to incorporate the findings and recommendations of the evaluation and appraisal report. These revisions are now complete. To amend the comprehensive plan to incorporate the EAR's findings and recommendations, the normal comprehensive plan amendment procedure must be followed. This procedure calls for a public hearing before the local planning agency (Planning and Zoning Commission), a transmittal public heating before the Board of County Commissioners, and a final adoption hearing before the Board. For the EAR -based comprehensive plan amendments, the public participation process is similar to the public participation process followed in developing the Evaluation and Appraisal Report. As such, the Planning and Zoning Commission has overall responsibility for gathering public input regarding the comprehensive plan and providing direction to staff Many of the elements and sub -elements also have been reviewed by other county committees such as the Affordable Housing Advisory Committee, the Utilities Advisory Committee, Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee (MANWAC), the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Technical Advisory Committee, and the Economic Development Council. Section 163.3191(4), F.S. states that EAR based amendments must be adopted within one year of EAR adoption. Therefore, the adoption date for the county's EAR based amendments became December 17, 1997. Recently, however, the county received a six month extension for adopting its EAR based amendments. Following is a tentative schedule for the adoption of the Comprehensive Plan EAR based amendments. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 71 BOOK 103 FACE 367 L BOOK 103 FADE •.1� ACTIVITY DATE ELEMENTS AND SUB - ELEMENTS Planning and Zoning 9/25/97 Introductory, Land Use, Commission Sanitary Sewer, Solid Waste, Public Hearing Aquifer Recharge, Economic Development, Housing, Recreation and Open Space, Capital Improvement, Intergovernmental Coordination 10/9/97 Potable Water, Stormwater Management, Transportation, Conservation, Coastal Management Board of County 11/4/97 All Commissioners Transmittal Public Hearing Send Amendments to the 2nd week of November 1997 All DCA ORC Report from the DCA 3rd week of January 1998 All Board of County 3/24/98 All Commissioners final public hearing The revised elements and sub -elements of the county's comprehensive plan incorporate all findings and recommendations of the evaluation and appraisal report and meet all state requirements. At the September 25th public hearing, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed 10 elements and sub -elements of the Comprehensive Plan as well as proposed changes to the Future Land Use Map. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved the proposed revisions to the Future Land Use Map with one change. That change was to recommend that the land use designation of only two Properties in the 33rd Street area be changed from L-1, Low Density Residential up to 3 units/acre, to L-2, Low Density Residential up to 6 units/acre, while keeping the remaining properties as L-1. The two parcels to be redesignated are those fronting 66th Avenue. On October 9, 1997, the Planning and Zoning Commission reviewed the remaining elements and sub - elements of the comprehensive plan. The Planning and Zoning Commission approved all elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan and recommended that the Board of County Commissioners approve and transmit the revised plan to DCA Additionally, the Planning and Zoning Commission took a second vote regarding changing the land use designation of the two properties south of 33rd Strut fronting 66th Avenue. That vote was 3-1 in favor of the change. Although a majority of Planning and Zoning Commissioners present voted in favor of the change, Section 103.02.12 of the County Code of Laws and Ordinances states that any matter or application considered by a board or commission with more than five members must receive four or more votes for passage. Since the Planning and Zoning Commission has seven members and the motion received only three affirmative votes, the favorable recommendation technically failed. On October 29, 1997, the Board of County Commissioners held a workshop to review the county's revised comprehensive plan and provide direction to staff. ANALYSIS As submitted, the various elements and sub -elements of the comprehensive plan have been changed significantly from those adopted as part of the 1990 plan. Although existing conditions have been updated to reflect changes since 1990, analyses have been revised to address changed conditions, and objectives and policies have been refined consistent with EAR recommendations, the overall plan for the county remains low density, low rise with adequate infrastructure and natural resource protection. At this time, the Board of County Commissioners should review each draft element and sub -element with emphasis on objectives and policies. The Board should identify any needed changes. As noted previously, several county committees have reviewed various draft elements and sub - elements of the comprehensive plan. Attached to this staff report are recommendations received from several committees for specific changes to the comprehensive plan For policies 4.2, 4.7, 4.8, and 4.9 of the solid waste sub -element, there are several alternatives for policy changes. Since no NOVEMBER 4, 1997 72 consensus was reached for these alternatives, all recommendations are forwarded to the Board for direction. Also attached are several proposed changes that were finalized after distribution of the plan. to the Board. These include policy 2.5 of the Stormwater Management Sub -Element, policies 2.2, 3.4 and 7.3 of the Coastal Management Element, objective 7, and policies 2.2, 2.15, 6.7, 9.1, 12.4, and 12.7 of the Conservation Element and policy 2.5 of the Economic Development Element. The Board of County Commissioners has three options regarding the revised Indian River County Comprehensive Plan. The Board can approve the plan as presented for the transmittal to DCA, approve the plan with changes, or not approve the plan. Either of the first two options are acceptable and will ensure that the county meets the submittal deadline. RECOMMENDATION Staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the revised comprehensive plan by approving the attached resolution and directing staff to transmit the revised plan to the Department of Community Affairs for their review. The Board should also announce its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this plan amendment. Community Development Director Robert Keating reviewed the Comp Plan amendment process, advising that this is the first public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners on this land use amendment request. If the Board approves the transmittal of this application to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) in Tallahassee for their 60 -day review, a second and final public hearing will be scheduled to consider any comments made by the DCA and whether to adopt an ordinance amending the Comp Plan by redesignating the land use. If the Board denies the transmittal of an application to the DCA, the application process will come to an end. Director Keating continued that there are some text changes and some map changes, all of which were reviewed at the recent workshop. Changes have been made to reflect the direction given to staff at that workshop. Commissioner Ginn questioned the total density increase, and Director Keating stated that the affordable housing density is reflected in Policy 2.5 with a range from 10% to 250%. that. Commissioner Ginn felt that is far too great an increase and she could not support Director Keating suggested reviewing first the changes to the Future Land Use Map as reflected by the following: 1. (Conservation) Change land use designation on all acquired conservation properties to C-1, the new conservation land designation with zero density, as reflected by the following map: NOVEMBER 4, 1997 73 BOOK 1 PAGE •�0 Land Use Density ' `F Ali. .41 AG- 1 � 1:5 AG -2 (�L-0 1:10 AG -3 e1� 1:20 It - L - 1 :;1 3:1 L-2 © 6:1 M-1 8:1 M-2_ 10:1 ��.':`:'�RrC Jilj[,PUBLIC FUTURE LAND USE MA i�/� I�flf' )' W, %r!,. i� VWAL Indian`ntL Riverz 44 - /iF /m �, ��,, �. i COM/IND - See following page Vere Beach SCALE 0 4 2 3 4 Mlles ImummAnimmimmumminamial URBAN SERVICE AREA 1 W Ej tIj EntIj H ;D+ a HO tai to tlO �d H O W tzj 2. (Harbor Town Mall) Since Harbor Town Mall was not developed at US# 1 and 53' Street and the DRI will be terminated, the land should be reverted from C/I to the Residential Land Use designation, keeping 15 acres as commercial, as reflected by the following map: NOVEMBER 4, 1997 75 BOOK. 103 PAGE -37i L FF, 'I BOOK 1013 PAGE 372 3. (Medical Node) The C/I node near the hospital should be expanded to the north to 41' Street, as reflected by the following map: 1p v \0 CP 1 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 76 4. (City of Sebastian) Eliminate the Rural Land Use designation and replace it with L-1, which allows 3 units per acre for residential development, as reflected by the following map: i f - I � M H a HO tIjro 00 Ea L-4 03 1 d H O W tIj NOVEMBER 4, 1997 77 mv. 103 f,GE 373 L r BOOK 103 PACE .'74 5. (40 acres West of Kings Highway) Change from Rural to L-1, as reflected by the following map: 170 L NOVEMBER 4, 1997 78 -1 r I I L_ ..— __ 4� 6. (Cherry Lane [33rd Street]) The land on the south side of 33rd Street, west of 66`h Avenue, which is designated L-1 at present, be changed to L-2; as reflected by the following map: _ S.R.60 _ y ! TR12 'TR71 I 71 i0 1 TR.9 ®- AREA PROPOSED TO BE DESIGNATED L-2 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 79 BOOK 103 PAGE • 5 BOOK 103 PAGE 3 J 6 The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding Future Land Use Map Item 1, Conservation, and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, she closed the public hearing. The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding Future Land Use Map Item 2, Harbor Town Mall, and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, she closed the public hearing. The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding Future Land Use Map Item 3, Medical Node, and asked if anyone wished to be heard. There being none, she closed the public hearing. The Chairman opened the public hearing regarding Future Land Use Map Item 6, Cherry Lane (33rd Street), and asked if anyone wished to be heard. Commissioner Adams presented the following letter from Jerry Johnson and asked that it be introduced into the record: Jerry D. Johnson 410 45th Ct. Vero Beach, FL 32968 Phone: 561/562=6549 ext. 224 November 3, 1997 John Tippin, Caroline Ginn, Carolyn Eggert, Ken Macht, Fran Adams Indian River County Board of Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Subject: Land Use Density Changes Dear Commissioners, Mr. Robert C. Adair, Jr., Director of the Kerr Center, recently informed me of possible changes in the land use density rating on some property near the Kerr Center. Mr. Adair is concerned that changes to the land use plan that allow an increased number of units per acre, will have a negative impact on his facility. Mr. Adair's concerns are legitimate. I have seen numerous situations in Florida, and in other states, where development has forced an agricultural operation to significantly change its method of operation and/or relocate to a more remote area I ask you to carefully consider Mr. Adair's concerns, because it does appear that the development sector has the momentum at this time. This is evident by the rapidly developing area along SR#60 between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue and by the recent decision not to require greater buffering zones between developments and agricultural interests. Bonafide agricultural operations cannot quickly react to the changes and/or pressures that expanding development (i.e. more people) exerts on agriculture. While development is inevitable, it is the rate of development that we have control over. You (the current County Commissioners) have an opportunity to influence this rate of development. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 S0 � � i At this time, I would recommend leaving the density levels "as is." Any changes to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan need to be viewed from an overall community improvement aspect (i.e. how will change positively benefit community.) I'm not sure if this has ever been accomplished or is even possible but you (as elected officials) along with the advisory committee, should consider this approach. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Jerry D. Johnson Member of Indian River Agriculture Advisory Committee Hazel Gerbhardt of 6815 33rd Street stated that she lives on the 10 acres west of the property in question. She felt there could be as many as 240 additional families in her neighborhood if the land use is changed to L-2 and believed that would be inconsistent with their way of life on 33' Street. She asked the Board to consider the recommendation very carefully. Leila Fev, Kerr Center biologist, expressed her concerns about the proposed increase in development and the adverse effects on the Center's research and development. Ms. Fev showed some slides of the Apopka Root Weevil and explained its devastating effects on the citrus industry. She felt buffers between any new development and the Center are very important. She cited opinions of the University of Florida and the USDA that their research is imperative. Joan Martinelli of 7110 3131 Street stated that she lives toward the end of the road and felt there needs to be a more significant buffer zone. Kevin O'Dare of 700 Indian Lilac Lane grows vegetables for market and felt the land use amendment would affect the quality of life as development brings money, crime, and traffic. Mr. O'Dare spoke for the wildlife in the area that perished and the ones that were left homeless when the new mall was built. Michael Ziegler of 3375 12' Street, an organic farmer, encouraged the Board to vote against the amendment and felt there is already adequate land available for development. He asked the Board to preserve the boundary or buffer zone between agriculture and development. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 81 BOOK 103PAGE 377 BOOK 103 PAGE 378 Bob Adair, Director of the Kerr Center, 7060 33' Street (Cherry Lane), acknowledged that change is a part of life but felt that the surrounding properties should remain as they are. Ben Bailey of 1415 43' Court, the applicant, felt there are some good reasons this should be reclassified and that the amendment would have no effect on the Kerr Center. He urged the Board to follow staff's recommendations. Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing Ben Bailey and Sid Banack, felt this amendment would reduce urban sprawl and traffic. Peter Robinson, Vice President of Laurel Homes, believed this amendment is a good example of what we will face more and more in this County as he felt there will be a 50% increase in population in the County in the next 50 years. He felt densities have to be increased in order to prevent urban sprawl. Russ Banack of 6075 Atlantic Boulevard believed that change is inevitable and that the Kerr Center will not be affected by the change. Commissioner Ginn felt this property should remain at L-1 as she believed a change would negatively affect the neighbors. Commissioner Tippin stated he was on the Planning and Zoning Commission for 12 years and never faced a more difficult issue. He commented that there are now hundreds of houses in his neighborhood when there used to be just 5. He has seen no increase in crime or vandalism and most of his neighbors are pretty nice people. He disagreed with the fears expressed regarding the increase in development. Chairman Eggert agreed with Commissioner Tippin and commented that there is a lot of land in the County which is waterlogged or inappropriate for development, reducing the amount of available land. Commissioner Adams felt the conflict has not been resolved and asked whether a commitment to additional buffering could be considered in order to continue the traditional agricultural use. Director Keating advised that staff could look into the alternatives but felt the alternatives are very limited. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 82 s � � Commissioner Adams questioned whether the Board would consider an additional review of the item and general discussion ensued regarding types of housing and zoning. Director Keating felt that increasing density in limited areas would bring more people closer to the activity centers which would benefit the County. He pointed out to the Board that this issue will have to be dealt with, if not now, sometime in the near future. Commissioner Ginn believed there were other options and wanted to be able to give the Kerr Center an additional 5 years without any additional encroachment. Commissioners Ginn and Adams were opposed to this amendment. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. The Chairman then opened the public hearing regarding Future Lane Use Map Items 4, (City of Sebastian) Change from Rural Land Use designation to L-1, and 5, (40 acres West of Kings Highway), Change from Rural to L-1, and asked if anyone wished to speak on either matter. Laurie Hoffman of 8406 75' Court commented that the land on the other side of CR -510 has been redesignated to allow 200% more homes and she felt this redesignation would greatly impact the traffic and schools in the area. She stated they live in that area for the privacy and implored the Board to leave the zoning as is. Chairman Eggert stated that all zoning will stay the same, there will only be a redesignation. Rodney Tillman stated he has lived here over 50 years and seen a lot of changes. He realizes people want to make a profit from the land and the County wants to increase its tax base. His concern is the effect on the Indian River Lagoon and the possibility that the State might force the County to build large reservoirs to handle subsequent pollution caused by septic tanks. Tanya Tillman of 8456 75' Court was also opposed to the redesignation. Richard Gaberhardt of 8320 751` Court felt 1 acre tracts should remain available to the public. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 83 ri BOOK 103 FA -GE 3 1 u Fr- -I BOOK 103 PAGE 80 R. Grant Gilmore, Jr. of 5920 1" Street SW commented from the following notes: My name is R. Grant Gilmore, Jr. I live at 5920 V St SW which is bordering the southeast 1/4 section of Section 17 of Township 33S, Range 39E; lying and being in Indian River County, Florida. This 40 acre section is located between 4'a Street and 1g Street SW on the west side of 58' Avenue. It is presently the only property between these streets, 58' and 66' avenues for one mile, designated as Rural (R). All other properties in this Township section are designated as agriculture, AG -1. I consider the Rural designation for this property as incompatible with the surrounding agricultural land. I understand that there is an effort being made by the county planning department to further increase the density of this land from Rural to L-1 or 3 units/acre. I would rather see the designation of this portion of Section 17 returned to agriculture which would be compatible with all surrounding land designations. This parcel is now being used as grazing land and has never been used as residential land. I also understand that this parcel is included in the Vero Beach Urban area although land north, south and west of it is not. The eastern boundary is 58 th avenue and the Lateral B Canal. The loss of this land as agricultural land indicates a effort fQr. the plawiktg depmumn to change the designation of agricultural land to urban housing even though it would be very incompatible with all surrounding land. Increasing the housing densities on this land from Rural to L-1 would further degrade this property from its potentially productive agricultural status. Loss of agricultural production in Indian River County is apparent and of concern. I find the following deleterious implications in redesignating the southeast 1/4 section of Section 17 as L-1: I. Three units per acre is extremely incompatible with the agricultural designation of all surrounding properties. This will permit 120 housing units, or at least 240 people, to occupy the pasture presently used by a dozen Brahman cattle. 2. The resulting higher housing densities will increase suburban runoff into the Lateral B Canal which is a major tributary of the Indian River Lagoon, an estuary of national significance and the most biologically diverse estuary within the continental United States, containing the most endangered aquatic species. This runoff has been demonstrated to deleteriously effect the biological resources of the state of Florida. A couple of years ago I addressed another Indian River County Commission on which most of you served. I addressed another piece of property, over 60 acres adjacent to my property, which was converted from a cow pasture and orange grove into a 6 unit per acre development. This property was completely surrounded by orange groves and bordered by Lateral B Canal and the South Relief Canal, a major freshwater source to the Indian River Lagoon. I lost my argument for reduced densities and that development is now going in. Houses will soon be constructed. This means that if you vote today to increase housing densities and change the designation of the land behind my home I could have over 600 new neighbors (conservative estimate of two people per unit) within 400 yards of my front door when before I had orange groves and cattle. When I complained about the traffic problem this would create across the street from me the county planner, Mr. Keating, told me at that time it was better for a road to have hundreds of people traveling on it than for many roads to have a few people traveling as it improves road maintenance. I fail to see his reasoning, as I did last week when Mr. Keating stated that increasing land housing densities prevents urban sprawl. With this reasoning this planning department and the county commission will continue to pave this County, a process which is readily apparent today. You say this is not going to be Miami. Have you ever been to the Dadeland Mall in Miami? The only difference with ours is that ours is newer, appears larger and has more parking spaces. With the increased housing densities and eradication of agricultural land in Indian River County you will certainly insure that like Dadeland Mall in Miami, I will have to drive around looking for a parking space in the future. Of course this is what this Commission wants. Does this commission have any commercial realestate interests in Indian River County? Would this commission prefer more land sales, housing, urbanization, suburbanization? NOVEMBER 4, 1997 84 The question is, who is benefit4ing fo-un this multiple development. We, the citizens of Indian River County? Who? We all know the answer to this question. With more development, more people, etc., you need more revenue for keeping these people safe, etc., and we will be paying more taxes for the benefit of realestate development as regional and national large corporations move in and local small businesses are lost. And what brought us to this County to begin with? The fish, healthy Indian River Lagoon, wildlife, open space, fresh air, clean water, low taxes, low crime and a small friendly community? Where will we move? Do our County Commissioners see a land of concrete and manicured lawns devoid of natural resources? Does this future prediction seem similar to what exists south of us? Why are those same southern residents moving to get away from what Indian River County is becoming. Can this County Commission control this urban sprawl? You literally have our quality of life in your hands. For those who presently live in Indian River County, and those of future generations, I request this County Commission of November 4, 1997, to not allow urban development in Indian River County which will obviously directly influence the major natural resources of the County, State and Country, the Indian River Lagoon. I also request this commission to logically determine what it takes to maintain the quality of life within Indian River County and the natural resources which allow our community to remain most attractive, uncrowded and without degradation. and requested the Board not to allow urban development. Commissioner Adams felt the change from Rural was premature and applications for rezoning should be dealt with separately as they are filed. Commissioner Ginn agreed the property should be left as Rural, and Commissioner Macht saw no compelling reason to change it at this point. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard regarding this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. The Chairman then opened the public hearing to comments regarding the proposed text amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. (CLERK'S NOTE: REVISIONS TO THE ELEMENTS AND SUB -ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD.) Discussion ensued regarding the Housing Element. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 85 BOOK J03 FACE �3®,1. r � BOOK A3 PAGE 382 POLICY 2.5: The county shall maintain its affordable housing density bonus provision for planned development projects. allowing eligible affordable housing projects to receive up to 250-10 density bonus based on the following table. 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 in allowable Percentage of OptionOption if I Option i$11 units) Project's Total Units State, ial erttai Material equal to a Material equal to -a -F , to ice 10' wide Type C to a 20' wide Type -E-buffer buffer with 6' Type B buffer with 4' epagee opaque feature with 6' opaque fewvre-Mom along residential feature along project districts residential botm+bmiesthat boundaries and 4' district abut residential opaque feature boundaries and distriets and alone roadways a' opaque teadnars feature alone roadways 30 to 50% 10% 3'-irvr 6j% or 10% 10-20% More than 50% 15% �"o—vr 65% or 10% 15-25% Commissioner Ginn felt the density bonus was too high and suggested allowing 10% with options for higher bonuses. Commissioner Ginn also applauded staff for insisting the developer give something back and commended them on an excellent job with the amendments. After general discussion, CONSENSUS was reached to eliminate the bottom line of the Element and change the next line to 30% and more. The Chairman asked if anyone else wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, she closed the public hearing. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 86 ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED by Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 97-142 approving the transmittal of EAR -based amendments to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review (EAR -based Amendments). RESOLUTION NO. 97- 142 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, APPROVING THE TRANSMITTAL OF EAR -BASED AMENDMENTS TO THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS FOR THEIR REVIEW. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Chapter 163.3191 F.S. and Rule 9J-5.0053 F.A.C., the county - adopted its Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) on December 17, 1996; and WHEREAS, on February 24, 1997, the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs determined that the EAR was "SUFFICIENT''; and WHEREAS, the Evaluation and Appraisal Report recommended certain amendments to the comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held public hearings on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report based comprehensive plan amendments on September 25, 1997 and October 9, 1997, after due public notice; and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency made a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioner, regarding the transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendments listed below to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a transmittal public hearing on November 4, 1997, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1); and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of the plan amendment process. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 87 BOOK 103FACE'383 Fr- 'I 500K J03 FAGE384 RESOLUTION NO. 97-142 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT: 1. The above recitals are ratified in their entirety. 2. The following proposed amendments are approved for transmittal to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs for written comment: Request to amend the Introductory Element; Land Use Element; Potable Water Sub -Element; Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element; Solid Waste Sub -Element; Stormwater Management Sub -Element; Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Sub -Element; Transportation Element; Housing Element; Conservation Element; Coastal Management Element; Recreation and Open Space Element; Economic Development Element; Capital Improvements Element; and Intergovernmental Coordination Element of the Comprehensive Plan. The foregoing Resolution was offered by Commissioner Macht and seconded by Commissioner Ademc and upon being put to a vote the vote was as follows: Chairman Carolyn K. Eggert melte Vice -Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn _dye Commissioner Kenneth R. Macht Aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted at a public hearing held this 4h day of November 1997. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: C Carol gge ATTEST: J�eyffreyKClerk NOVEMBER 4, 1997 Indw Rha ca, I AftrOved Legal suagel 88 M e: ate � s � 9.B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION - PETER JURGEL - CHALLENGE TO COUNTY TO PARTICIPATE IN COUNTY SWEEP AND SUPPORT KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL The Board reviewed a letter of October 2, 1997: �41rlDIAly�, jG October 2, 1997 Ms. Margaret Gunner Office of County Commission 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Fl. 32960 Dear Margaret: KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL Please put Peter Jurgel (Harris Sanitation) on the November 4, 1997 Board of County Commissioners Agenda to challenge the County Commissioners to participate in the County Sweep and support Keep Indian River Beautiful. Thank you so much. Sincerely, N., -Patricia Harris KEEP, An Altate of Keep Amena &auIM. Inc. k��� AMEN/9 printed on myded paper and is reryd.bie 1302 U.S. #1 • Sebastian, FL 32958 • (561) 589-5969 • FAX (561) 589-5993 Peter Jurgel advised that Treasure Coast Refuse and Harris Sanitation will each contribute $100 per hour for each Commissioner who participates in the County Sweep. Richard Conte of Treasure Coast Refuse hoped to see all the Commissioners there. No action taken. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 89 Boow. 103FACE385 Fr- -I BOOK 103 PAGE 386. 11.B. OLD COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT - DONATION TO CERTAIN ORGANIZATIONS AND AUTHORIZATION TO SURPLUS AND SELL REMAINING EQUIPMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum dated October 24, 1997: TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: Jim Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Services DATE: October 24, 1997 SUBJECT: Donation Of Old Communications Equipment To Certain Organizations And Authorization To Surplus And Sell The Remaining Equipment On September 16, 1997, after receiving requests from the Sebastian River High School and the Vero Beach High School for some of the old portable radios for use in school activities, the Board authorized eight radios to be donated to the two schools. This was accomplished on September 17, 1997, as noted on the attached document. The radios were delivered to Communications International for reprogramming and subsequently transferred to the respective schools for use as they deem appropriate. Since the Board meeting of September 16, 1997, the following organizations have requested that radios be donated to them: 1. Indian River Farms Water Control District - John Amos. Mr. Amos advised that he had been utilizing a VHF system owned by Communications International and they would be turning it off soon. He requested four (4) portable radios and one base station be favorably considered for donation to the Water Control District. Mr. Amos advised the radios would be used by District staff in their carrying out their assigned duties and responsibilities. 2. Vero Beach/Indian River County Recreation Department - Pat Callahan. Ms. Callahan requested that the fourteen (14) portable radios and one base station prior used at the Golf Course be approved by the Board for donation to the Recreation Department for use in the various recreation activities and events. 3. The Center For The Arts - John Jenson. Mr. Jenson requested that the Board approve the donation of twelve portable radios and one base station to the Center For The Arts. He advised the radio equipment would be used for communication purposes associated with the various activities of the Center. 4. Environmental Learning Center - Ms. Holly S. Dill. Ms. Dill requested that the Board favorably consider donating one mobile radio and eight portable radios to the Environmental Learning Center. She advised the equipment would help her staff communicate and cover the upland, wetland, and open water activities during Lagoon Day and other events. At the meeting of September 16, 1997, the Board also instructed staff to investigate the estimated value and market for all the old radios which are being replaced due to the switch to the new 800 MHz communications system and bring a report back to the Board. In researching this matter for the Board, it was determined that there is at this time, or will be in the very near future, a large amount of this type of radio equipment available on the market. It was learned that Polk, Sarasota, and Charlotte counties all have new systems coming on line and are planning to sell their used equipment very soon. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 90 In talking with Communications International personnel and staff in a couple of other counties, it was learned that Volusia County auctioned off their old equipment themselves and got a few cents on the dollar in return. Brevard County auctioned their equipment off locally and received about two to three cents on the dollar in return. It was also learned that if Indian River County auctions off the equipment, a greater return will be realized if it is sold in lots of ten radios rather than one huge lot. Staff was also advised that the Sebastian Police Department has been advertising its old used portable radios in communications magazines and has had no response to the ad, an indication there is not a great deal of interest in the equipment at this time. It appears that the County (excluding the Sheriff's Department) has approximately 467 (mobiles, portable, base stations, encoders, etc) different pieces of communications equipment to declare surplus and sell at this time. The Fixed Assets Manager has provided a list of potential equipment to be surplused, and he has been working with staff in identifying it. However, this is not a hard and fast number inasmuch as Hobart Tower, the hot back-up for the communications system, has not been completed and additional transmitters, repeaters, antennas, etc, will need to be surplused and sold in the future. Also, some of the older 800 MHz conventional radios may be reflashed and used in lieu of purchasing new radios. The rest is valued at almost zero. At a minimum, staff would recommend that the communications equipment alluded to above be declared surplus and sold since a large amount of old communications equipment is now being stored in various departments awaiting disposition and is taking up space that is needed for other purposes. The value of the equipment mentioned above is difficult to determine. The best information available is as follows: Portables Possible value ranging from $0 to $100 each, depending on the model, condition, and market at the time sold. The TPX, MVS, MT500, and HT600 have almost no value. Mobiles Possible value ranging from $ 0 to $50 each, depending on the model, condition, and market at the time sold. Mobiles have a lower value than the portables because they require installation, antenna, and wiring harness. The TMX, RCA, MDS, older GE MDX, and Centura have almost no value. Base Stations Possible value ranging of $100 to $800 each, depending on the model, condition, and market at the time sold. The TMX and GE Corona have almost no value. Staff feels that some advertisement may be beneficial in selling the communications equipment. It is recommended that the Board authorize staff to utilize the Internet to inform the communications users and industry that this equipment is available, inasmuch as that method will advertise it all over the United States and the world in a very short time frame. If no potential purchaser is identified, staff would dispose of the equipment through auction or the most other feasible and beneficial means available. RECOIVINIVIEI\NDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the following actions: 1. Approve the donation of communications equipment as noted above to the Indian River Farms Water Control District, the Recreation Department, the Center For The Arts, and the Environmental Learning Center, with the understanding that each organization is accepting the equipment in an "as is" condition; all costs associated with deprogramming, reprogramming and maintenance would become the organization's responsibility; and that the radios are not to be returned to the County under any circumstances. 2. Declare the communications equipment on the attached list from the Fixed Assets Manager as surplus, with the except of the equipment that is to be donated or retained for use in the existing communications system. Authorize staff to advertise the communications equipment on the Internet and any other prudent method that may assist the County in obtaining the greatest amount of revenue from the sale of the equipment. 4. Authorize staff to sell the communications equipment at auction or other method of disposal consistent with the Indian River County Purchasing Manual. 5. Authorize staff, where appropriate and as needed, to pay for certain radios to be deprogrammed at a fee of $10.00 each, such as those prior used in the public safety environment. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 91 F,,+cE 387 BOOT 03 BOOK 103 FAGE •� � Commissioner Adams then presented a letter of November 4, 1997 from the City of Fellsmere: Robert C. "Bob" Baker city Q Deborah C. Kra -e, Mayor � City Clerk Jahn V. Little Larry W. Napier, C.G.F.0 • Administrative Assistant ei�l� Director of Finance and Accounting Facsimile Transmittal 561-770-5334 November 4, 1997 The Honorable Mrs. Fran B. Adams County Commissioner 1840 - 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Fran: Pursuant to our conversation yesterday, the City of Felismere is very interested in the Board of County Commissioners donating 10 to n 2 radios along with 2 or 3 twenty amp power supplies. The city will provide these radios to our volunteers, for utilization during our annual fund raising events, such as the Fellsmere Frog Leg Festival, Fellsmere Day Celebration and so on. Thanking you in advance for your prompt attention to this matter. Should you have any questions or require any additional Infonnation please do not hesitate to call me. Sincerely, X41 oR ber`t C. Baker Mayor RCB/dck original to follow via regular mail SWC 1911 &j ?1 South Cypress St. • P.O. Box 39 • Fellsmere, Florida 32943-0039 • Telephone: (561) 571-0116 • Fax (561) 571-1901 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 92 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved (1) the donation of communications equipment to Indian River Farms Water Control District, Recreation Department, Center For The Arts, Environmental learning Center and The City of Fellsmere, with the understanding that each organization is accepting the equipment in an "as is" condition; all costs associated with deprogramming, reprogramming and maintenance are the organizations' responsibility; and the radios are not to be returned to the County under any circumstances; (2) declaring the communications equipment on the list from the Fixed Assets Manager as surplus, with the exception of the equipment that is to be donated or retained for use in the existing communications system; (3) authorizing staff to advertise the communications equipment on the Internet and any other prudent method that may assist the County in obtaining the greatest amount of revenue from the sale of the equipment; (4) authorizing staff to sell the communications equipment at auction or other method of disposal consistent with the Indian River County Purchasing Manual; and (5) authorizing staff, where appropriate and as needed, to pay for certain radios to be deprogrammed at a fee of $10 each, such as those prior used in the public safety environment. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 93 BOOK. 103 P,,GE98 BOOK 103 PACE' 11.C. PROPERTIES NORTH OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING - ESTATE OF MATTIE WRIGHT The Board reviewed a Memorandum dated October 28, 1997: Date: October 28, 1997 To: Honorable Board of County Commissioners Thr'u: James E. Chandler County Administrator From: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director Department of General SerVices Subject: Properties North of County Administration Building BACKGROUND: As it has become available, the County has been purchasing property north of the County Administration budding between 26th and 27th streets. (See Exhibit 1). We have been using those properties to increase employee parking, address Purchasing's need for additional storage, and expand our secured parking for County owned vehicles. ANALYSTS: It has come to my attention that two more lots are now available for sale due to the death of the owner. This writer was notified by the Estate Attorney of the availability and their desire to sell to the County. Staff feels this property should be purchased due to the expanding needs of County operations within close proximity of the Administration Building. With acquisition of these two lots, there will be only two and one-half lots within the above described area that do not belong to the County. RECOMMENDATION: It is requested that authorization be given to staff to proceed with the necessary action to acquire this property. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 94 Z77 ,3r. EXHIBIT 1 ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously authorized staff to proceed with the necessary action to acquire the property from the Estate of Mattie Wright. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 95 MOK 103 PAGE 39 BOOK 103 1`A492 11.G.1. LOCAL AGENCY CERTIFICATION - APPLICATION - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION The Board reviewed a Memorandum dated October 27, 1997: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director SUBJECT: Application for Local Agency Certification with the Florida Department of Transportation DATE: October 27, 1997 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Staff is applying for certification as a Local Agency for Florida Department of Transportation projects. Certification allows Indian River County to use federal -aid funds for project planning, project development, design, right of way, and construction. Indian River County will have the responsibility of providing project level direction and oversight through the Offices of Planning, Environmental Management, Design, Right of way and Construction. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff request the Board authorize the Chairman to execute the attached Qualification Agreement. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the Chairman's execution of the Local Agency Certification Qualification Agreement, as recommended by staff. AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD NOVEMBER 4, 1997 96 11.G.2. FLOODPLAIN CUT AND FILL BALANCE WAIVER - RIVER PARK PLACE PHASE I PLANNED DEVELOPMENT The Board reviewed a Memorandum dated October 24, 1997: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director AND Roger D. Cain, P.E. County Engineer FROM: David B. Cox, P.Ea3C Civil Engineer SUBJECT: Request for Floodplain Cut and Fill Balance Waiver for River Park Place Phase I Planned Development REFERENCE: PD -97-11-13 / 97080124-001 DATE: October 24, 1997 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Knight, McGuire & Associates, on behalf of River Park Associates, Limited Partnership, the developers of River Park Place Phase I Planned Development is requesting a waiver of the cut and fill balance requirement of Section 930.07(2)(d) of the Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance. River Park Place Phase I received preliminary plat and plan approval from the Planning and Zoning Commission on September 25, 1997. The project is located in the southeast corner of the 8' Street/Indian River Boulevard intersection adjacent to the north property fine of Vista Gardens condominiums. The entire site is located in special flood hazard area Zone AE with a base flood elevation of 6.0 feet N.G.V.D. The ten year stillwater elevation is 3.3 feet. The proposed displacement of the floodplain below 4.0 feet for which the waiver is requested is 400. cubic yards as indicated in the attached letter from the applicant's engineer dated August 20, 1997. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS The project meets the cut and fill balance waiver criteria provided in Section 930.07(2)(d)1. of being situated in an estuarine environment within the100 year floodplain along the Indian River and in staffs opinion it appears that all other Stormwater Management and Flood Protection Ordinance requirements can be met without adverse impact on other lands in the estuarine environment. A separate request for a Land Development Permit waiver has been received by the Public Works Department. Alternative No. 1 Approve the cut and fill balance waiver request. Alternative No. 2 Deny the waiver request and require re -design to accomplish an on-site balance of cut and fill. RECOMMENDATIONS Staff recommends approval of Alternative No. 1. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 97 BOOK 103 FAGE39 BOOK 103 PAGE 3494 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the cut and fill balance waiver for River Park Place Phase I Planned Development, as recommended by staff. 13.A.1. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL - ANNUAL APPOINTMENT OF MEMBERS The Board reviewed a letter dated October 22, 1997: st. lude pla October 22, 1997 — — — - - -- The Honorable Carolyn Eggert, Chairman Indian River County Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Subject: Annual Appointment of Council Members Dear Chairman Eggert: In accordance with Council's Rules of Organization, the December meeting is designated as the Annual Meeting, at which time the appointment of all members and alternates is to occur. It is therefore requested that the Board of County Commissioners take the necessary action to appoint members and alternates for the upcoming year. In the case of Indian River County, three members and three alternates need to be appointed (two county, one municipal). It should be noted that all alternates must be elected officials. Additionally, the bylaws do not specifically indicate that municipal appointments must be either appointed or approved by the county. Each county is assigned the number of appointments and the method for making the appointments is left to the discretion and cooperation of the local governments in the area. It would be appreciated if the county would notify the Council of the appointments, including mailing addresses and telephone numbers, as soon as possible, so that the agenda packet for the December meeting can be provided in a timely fashion. Sincerely, Michael J. Busha, AICP Executive Director cc: Mayor Robert Baker, City of Fellsmere Mayor Barbara Holmen, Town of Indian River Shores Mayor W. Lynn Velde, Town of Orchid Mayor Walter W. Barnes, City of Sebastian Mayor William O. Jordan, City of Vero Beach 3225 S.W. maMn downs blvd. wflo 105 • P.O. box 1529 palm oft flodda 34990 Phoeo 15611221-4060 to 269-4060 fa= (561) 2314067 NOVEMBER 4, 1997 98 ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously approved the reappointment of Commissioner Tippin and Commissioner Ginn as members and Commissioner Adams and Commissioner Macht as alternates. 13.A.2. TRAVEL FOR COMMISSIONER GINN TO ATTEND THE METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATION MEETING The Board discussed Commissioner Ginn's attendance at the Metropolitan Planning Organization Meeting. ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED by Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously retroactively approved travel expenses for Commissioner Ginn. 13.A.3. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL PAYMENT The Board discussed the payment due to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and County Attorney Vitunac advised he is expecting a copy of a court decision regarding this matter but participation in the Council is required by State law. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Chairman Eggert, the Board, by a 4-1 vote 13 (Commissioner Adams opposed) approved payment of the balance owed to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 99 aooK 103 FnE 395 Boa 103 PAGE 306 13.D. MARINE ADVISORY NARROWS WATERSHED ACTION COMMITTEE (MANWAQ - APPOINTMENT OF ED DIRECTOR DAVIS - RESIGNATION OF GEORGE PHREANER (Postponed from Meeting of 10/28/97) The Board reviewed a Memorandum dated October 13, 1997: MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Caroline D. Ginn, County Commissioner DATE: October 13, 1997 SUBJECT: Appoirdment to MANWAC George Phreaner has resigned from the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee XANWAC.) The attached resumes have been received from people interested in serving on the MANWAC as a recreational boater representative. One of the applicants, Ed Carr, also serves on the Parks and Recreation Committee and has 3 consecutive absences from that committee. I am requesting that the Board accept Mr. Phreanees resignation with regret, and appoint one of the applicants to serve in his place. Commissioner Ginn recommended Ed Davis to fill the vacancy. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED by Commissioner Macht, the Board unanimously accepted, with regret, the resignation of George Phreaner from the Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed Action Committee and appointed Edmund R. Davis to serve in his place. NOVEMBER 4, 1997 100 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT None. U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment, the Board would reconvene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. U.C. ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL BOARD None. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 12:12 p.m. ATTEST: Je Barton, rk Minutes Approved: 17 — e��' ��L"t Carolyn K ggert, ChW& NOVEMBER 4, 1997 101 BOOK 03 F-AGE397