Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/22/1998MINUTES ATTACHED BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA A G E N D"A TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 22,1998 - 9:00 A.M. County Commission Chamber County Administration Building 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS John W. Tippin, Chairman (District 4) Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman (District 3) Fran B. Adams (District 1) Carolyn K. Eggert (District 2) Caroline D. Ginn (District 5) James E. Chandler, County Administrator Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk to the Board 0 9:00 a.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER BACKUP PAGES 2. EWOCATION Jim Davis, Dir. of Public Works 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - Comm. Fran B. Adams 4. ADDITIONS to the AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS ADDITIONS: 14.B. Solid Waste Disposal District - School/County Building Recycling Program Contract WITHDRAWAL: 11.H.3. Central Regional Waste Water Treatment Plant -Extension of Services (Amdt.3) 5. PROCLAMATION and PRESENTATIONS Presentation of Proclamation Honoring Otis E. Humanes, Jr. on his Retirement from Indian River County 1 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES None 7. CONSENT AGENDA A. Approval of Warrants (memorandum dated September 10, 1998) 2-8 B. Indian River County Utility Services's Request for Site Plan Extension (memorandum dated September 15, 1998) 9-15 C. Request for Board Approval of Florida Communi- ties Trust (FCT) Cost -Share Agreement Extension for the Round Island South LAAC Site (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 16-18 D. 1999 State Aid Application and Agreement (memorandum dated September 9, 1998) 19-25 E. Acceptance of Resignation of Ruth Stanbridge from the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (letter dated September 7, 1998) 26 BOOK 107 PAGE 6 9:05 A.M. 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - Propertv Appraiser's Office: Pat Brown of Property Appraiser's Office to give 15 minute demonstration of tax maps on CD-ROM (memorandum dated September 4, 1998) 39 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CL TO CG, FOR PROPERTY LOCA- TED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 87TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated September 3, 1998) 40-51 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG- NATION FOR ±2.10 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE, FROM M-2 TO CA, AND PRO- VIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE (Legislative) (memorandum dated September 3, 1998) 52-83 3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±7.07 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET, BETWEEN OLD DDGE HIGHWAY AND US 1, FROM L-2 TO C/I, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFEC- TIVE DATE (Legislative) (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 84-125 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None 02 7. CONSENT AGENDA (cont'd )• BACKUPPAGES F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment #030 (memorandum dated September 15, 1998) 27-28 G. Recently Acquired Property - Tax Cancellation (memorandum dated September 9, 1998) 29-31 H. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 32-33 I. Compensation of Court Appointed Counsel - 1998 Legislation (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 34-38 8. CONSTITUTIONAL OFFICERS and GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES - Propertv Appraiser's Office: Pat Brown of Property Appraiser's Office to give 15 minute demonstration of tax maps on CD-ROM (memorandum dated September 4, 1998) 39 9. PUBLIC ITEMS A. PUBLIC HEARINGS 1. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDI- NANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CL TO CG, FOR PROPERTY LOCA- TED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 87TH STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated September 3, 1998) 40-51 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIG- NATION FOR ±2.10 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE, FROM M-2 TO CA, AND PRO- VIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE (Legislative) (memorandum dated September 3, 1998) 52-83 3. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±7.07 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET, BETWEEN OLD DDGE HIGHWAY AND US 1, FROM L-2 TO C/I, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFEC- TIVE DATE (Legislative) (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 84-125 B. PUBLIC DISCUSSION ITEMS None 9. PUBLIC ITEMS (cont'd.): BACKUP C. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEMS PAGES 1. Scheduled for Public Hearing, Oct. 6, 1998: Windsor Properties Inc.'s request for an addition to the Windsor Planned Develop- ment and modification to the development parameters (Quasi -Judicial) (memorandum dated September 15, 1998) 126 2. Scheduled for Public Hearing Oct. 27, 1998: Consideration of Local Option Gas Tax Dis- tribution Formula (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 127-128 10. COUNTY ADMNISTRATOR'S MATTERS None 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS A. Community Development 1. Parks and Recreation Usage Survey (memorandum dated September 15, 1998) 129-145 2. Con sideration of a Resolution of Support for the Community Initiatives Development Corporation's Proposed 100 Unit Moderate Income Housing Project (memorandum dated September 11, 1998) 146-165 B. Emergency Services 1. Approval of Renewal of a Class E Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Able Health Services to Provide Wheelchair Trans- portation Services (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 166-195 2. Renewal of Contract with the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, Inc., for Providing Animal Shelter Services (memorandum dated September 11, 1998) 196-207 C. General Services None - D. Leisure Services None E. Office of Management and Budget None F. Personnel None G. Public Works 1. Special Waterway Projects Grant Agreement Boat Launching Facilities Replacement for Donald MacDonald Park (memorandum dated September 14, 1998) 2. Design/Build Professional Services Selection - Fairgrounds Agricultural Arena. (memorandum dated September 15, 1998) BOOK 208-220 221 107 PAGE 63 BOOK 107 FACE 61 11. DEPARTMENTAL MATTERS (cont'd ): BACKUP G. Public Works (cont'd.):. PAGES 3. Change Order No. 1 37th St., 41 st St. and 45th St. Improvements (memorandum dated September 15, 1998) 222-225 H. Utilities 1. Martin Ave. Sewer Project Final Pay Request (memorandum dated September 11, 1998) 226-235 2. US 1 Water Main - East Side (39th St. to Harbor Drive) Resolution IV - Final Assessment (memorandum dated September 4, 1998) 236-246 3. Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant Extended Engineering Services and Additional Outside Inspection Services (memorandum dated September 8, 1998) 247-262 12. COUNTY ATTORNEY None 13. COMMISSIONERS ITEMS A. Chairman John W Tippin B. Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht C. Commissioner Fran B. Adams D. Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert E. Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTSBOARDS A. Emergency Services District I. - Approval of minutes - meeting of 6/9/98 2. Approval of minutes - meeting of 6/16/98 3. Approval of FY 1998/99 EMS County Awards Grant; Purchase of Capital/Operating Equipment -Utilizing Non -Matching EMS Grant Funds; and Grant Resolution (memorandum dated September 11, 1998) 263-273 BACKUP 14. SPECIAL DISTRICTS/BOARDS (cont'd.): PAGES B. Solid Waste Disnosal District None 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 a meeung- Meeting may be broadcast live on TCI Cable Channel 13 - rebroadcast various times throughout the week Falcon Cable Channel 35 - rebroadcast Friday evening BOOK 107 FACE INDEX TO MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING OF SEPTEMBER 22, 1998 1. CALL TO ORDER ............................................... 1 2. INVOCATION .................................................. 1 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ....................................... 1 4. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA & DELETION ......................... 1 5. PROCLAMATION AND RETIREMENT AWARD TO OTIS E. HUMANES, JR. .............................................................. 2 6. APPROVAL OF MINUTES ........................................ 3 7. CONSENT AGENDA ............................................ 3 7.A. Approval of Warrants ....................................... 4 7.B. Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Site Plan Extension .... 9 7.C. Round Island South LAAC Site - Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Cost - Share Agreement Extension .................................. 11 7.D. Library - 1999 State Aid Grant Application and Agreement ......... 12 7.E. Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Resignation of Ruth Stanbridge 13 7.F. Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 030 ......................... 14 7.G. Resolution 98-095 - Recently Acquired Property - Tax Cancellation - R/W Willow Street (Brendle) ..................................... 16 7.H. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs - FACo to Meet with Editor of Press Journal Regarding Article V, Revision? .................... 19 7.1. Resolution 98-096 - Hourly Fee for Court -Appointed Counsel in Dependency Proceedings .................................... 21 8. PROPERTY APPRAISER - DEMONSTRATION OF TAX MAPS ON CD-ROM ............................................................. 24 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-022 - REZONING APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US#1 AND 87TH STREET - JAMES W. McCORMICK AND OTHERS (BURGER KING) ................... 26 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-023 AND 98-024 - AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING ±2.1 ACRES - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE - (SCOTT PERRY) .... 34 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-025 AND 98-026 - AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING ±7.07 ACRES- 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND US #1 (HELEN DAVIS AND OTHERS) .................................. 55 1 BOOK 107 PAGE 6 I BOOK ' 10 PAGE 67 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - WINDSOR PROPERTIES, INC. - REQUEST FOR AN ADDITION TO WINDSOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS (QUASI- JUDICIAL)................................................... 83 9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX DISTRIBUTION FORMULA ..................................... 84 1 LA. LPARKS AND RECREATION USAGE SURVEY - FLORIDA SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA - GLATTING JACKSON KERCHER ANGLIN LOPEZ AND RINEHART, INC.......... 84 1 LA.2.RESOLUTION 98-097 SUPPORTING COMMUNITY INITIATIVES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S PROPOSED 100 -UNIT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT ................................... 89 1 LB. LRENEWAL OF CLASS E CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO PROVIDE WHEELCHAIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - ABLE HEALTH SERVICES ...................................... 95 11.B.2.CONTRACT RENEWAL - ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES - HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH ..................................... 96 11.G. LDONALD MACDONALD PARK BOAT RAMP REPLACEMENT - SPECIAL WATERWAY PROJECTS GRANT AGREEMENT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ............... 98 11.G.2.FAIRGROUNDS AGRICULTURAL ARENA - NEGOTIATIONS AUTHORIZED WITH BARTH CONSTRUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH EDLUND AND DRITENBAS FOR DESIGN/BUILD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES ................................................... 99 11.G.3.37TH STREET, 41ST STREET, AND 45TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER #1- DICKERSON FLORIDA ..................... 100 1 LH. LMARTIN AVENUE SEWER PROJECT - FINAL PAY REQUEST - DRIVEWAYS, INC ............................................ 101 11.H.2.RESOLUTION 98-098 - US#1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39TH STREET TO HARBOR DRIVE) - FINAL ASSESSMENT (RESOLUTION IV) ..... 103 11.H.3.CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - EXTEND ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE, INC. (AMENDMENT NO. 3) AND ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE INSPECTION SERVICES BY RICHARD KLINK................................ 109 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT ............................. 109 14.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT ............................ 109 MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS ................... .... ........... 109 2 • September 22, 1998 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25' Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, September 22, 1998. Present were John W. Tippin, Chairman; Kenneth R. Macht, Vice Chairman; Fran B. Adams; Carolyn K. Eggert and Caroline D. Ginn. Also present were James E. Chandler, County Administrator, Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney; and Patricia Ridgely, Deputy Clerk. 1. CALL TO ORDER The Chairman called the meeting to order at 9:00 a.m. 2. INVOCATION Public Works Director James Davis delivered the invocation. 3. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Commissioner Adams led the Pledge to the Flag. 4. ADDITION TO THE AGENDA & DELETION Chairman Tippin advised of an emergency addition, item 14.B., for consideration of the contract on the Recycling Program for the School/County Building which would require a Solid Waste Disposal District meeting be held. Administrator Chandler requested that item I LH.3. be deleted from the agenda. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously made the requested addition and deletion to the Agenda. September 22, 1998 1 • aux 10 7 PAGE 6 r, BOOK 107 PAGE OO 5. PROCLAMATION AND RETIREMENT AWARD TO OTIS E. HUMANES, AL Chairman Tippin read aloud and presented the following to Otis E. Humanes, Jr.: PROCLAMATION HONORING OTIS E. HUMANES, JR. ON HIS RETIREMENT FROM INDIAN RIVER COUNTY EMPLOYMENT ON SEPTEMBER 30,1998 WHEREAS, OTIS L HUMANES JR announces his retirement from the Indian River County Department of Emergency Services, Fire Division and the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners effective September 30,1998; and WHEREAS, OTIS E. HUMANES JR moved to Vero Beach from Miami in 1955 and graduated from Vero Beach High School in 1960; and WHEREAS, OTIS L HUMANES JR returned to Vero Beach after enlistment in the Navy in 1968; and WHEREAS, OTIS L HUMANES JR was employed by the Vero Beach Fire Department on June 17,1968 as,a Firefighter, was promoted to Engineer on January 27,1972; to Lieutenant on November 15,1973; to Captain on August 1,1981; to Battalion Chief on May 30,1986; and to Fire Chief on April 6,1990, serving in that capacity for the past eight years. He has earned the raped of the community and will be sorely 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 OTIS E HUMANES, JR has performed on behalf of Indian River County and extends heartfelt wishes for a happy retirement and success in future endeavors. Adopted this 22nd day of September, 1998. September 22, 1998 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA J n W. Tippin, Chai an 2 0 is -I • it I) ,` V/"V' 60" • �� auris is fn rtrtifJ tlittt OV4 e.,Aumane3 Jr. is #Mby Prtstuto tiffs for outstsubtno .perforumna and fatt4ful strain to �•: �o�t o� C�ow�fi� �om��iow►y = : for�l",� j Utars of strairt on t is sots �tti f &pe�,j- 9s Jo 19 { Gw.ny�ry S. (Gs..d e`�.erWY C.a•.wi1r•a•n .'`,.,+ �\ . ''•,�:, tea. -- 6• APPROVAL OF MINUTES None. 7• CONSENT AGENDA Chairman Tippin requested the separation of 7.H. and 7.I. for discussion. Commissioner Ginn also wished to have 7.I. separated. September 22, 1998 3 BOOK 10 7 PAGE 70 7.A. Approval of Warrants The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 10, 1998: TO: DATE: SUBJECT: FROM: HONORABLE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS SEPTEMBER 10, 1998 APPROVAL OF WARRANTS EDWIN M. FRY, JR., FINANCE DIRECTOR BOOK 107 PAGE 71 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 September 4 to September 10, 1998. September 22, 1998 4 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the list of warrants issued by the Clerk to the Board for the period September 4-10, 1998, as requested. CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0248589 ADRON FENCE COMPANY 1998-09-10 27,800.00 0248590 AIRBORNE EXPRESS 1998-09-10 13.00 0248591 ALBERTSONS SOUTHCO #4357 1998-09-10 179.78 0248592 ALPHA ACE HARDWARE 1998-09-10 5.65 0248593 ACTION ANSWERING SERVICE 1998-09-10 410.50 0248594 APPLE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO 1998-09-10 152.33 0248595 APPLE MACHINE & SUPPLY CO 1998-09-10 146.30 0248596 AT YOUR SERVICE 1998-09-10 1,911.20 0248597 AUTO SUPPLY CO OF VERO BEACH, 1998-09-10 125.46 0248598 ABS PUMPS, INC 1998-09-10 3,444.00 0248599 AL'S WINSHIELD & VINYL RP 1998-09-10 30.00 0248600 A T & T 1998-09-10 360.00 0248601 AGENCY FOR HEALTH CARE 1998-09-10 35,302.21 0248602 ASHWORTH INC 1998-09-10 59.00 0248603 ATLANTIC COASTAL TITLE CORP 1998-09-10 72.00 0248604 ALL COUNTY EQUIPMENT COMPANY 1998-09-10 191.48 0248605 AUTO PARTS OF VERO, INC 1998-09-10 477.57 0248606 ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES 1998-09-10 4,813.46 0248607 ARCH PAGING 1998-09-10 509.35 0248608 ABCO GARAGE DOOR CO 1998-09-10 40.00 0248609 AMJ EQUIPMENT CORP 1998-09-10 910.00 0248610 B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 1998-09-10 610.06 0248611 BUREAU OF ECONOMIC & BUSINESS 1998-09-10 49.46 0248612 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1998-09-10 2,361.75 0248613 B & B INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY CO. 1998-09-10 488.73 0248614 BARTON, JEFFREY K -CLERK 1998-09-10 5,000.00 0248615 BRODART CO 1998-09-10 854.75 September 22, 1998 4 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0248616 BAKER & TAYLOR 1998-09-10 64.00 0248617 BRANDTS & FLETCHERS APPLIANCE 1998-09-10 247.89 0248618 BOYNTON PUMP & IRRIGATION 1998-09-10 836.33 0248619 BOOKS ON TAPE INC 1998-09-10 136.00 0248620 BAKER & TAYLOR ENTERTAINMENT 1998-09-10 251.34 0248621 BELLSOUTH MOBILITY 1998-09-10 127.37 0248622 BELLSOUTH 1998-09-10 190.74 0248623 BMG 1998-09-10 58.48 0248624 BOND, JAMES 1998-09-10 27.00 0248625 CAMERON & BARKLEY COMPANY 1998-09-10 994.56 0248626 CENTRAL WINDOW OF 1998-09-10 1,784.00 0248627 CHANDLER EQUIPMENT CO, INC 1998-09-10 745.04 0248628 CITRUS MOTEL -_ 1998-09-10 34.00 0248629 COASTAL REFINING & MARKETING 1998-09-10 11,515.32 0248630 CLINIC PHARMACY 1998-09-10 8.14 0248631 CROSS CREEK APPAREL, INC 1998-09-10 1,442.30 0248632 CUSTOM CARRIAGES, INC 1998-09-10 62.59 0248633 CALLAWAY GOLF COMPANY 1998-09-10 176.52 0248634 CASANO, F V ELECTRICAL 1998-09-10 55.00 0248635 C4 IMAGING SYSTEMS INC 1998-09-10 26.73 0248636 CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDENT 1998-09-10 45.50 0248637 CSR RINKER MATERIALS CORP 1998-09-10 310.00 0248638 COMPUSA, INC 1998-09-10 10,358.96 0248639 CENTER FOR EMOTIONAL AND 1998-09-10 85.50 0248640 CROWN POINT LTD 1998-09-10 1,374.37 0248641 COLUMBIA HOUSE 1998-09-10 20.94 0248642 COUNTRY HEART INN 1998-09-10 82.00 0248643 DAILY COURIER SERVICE 1998-09-10 743.00 0248644 DAVES SPORTING GOODS 1998-09-10 209.97 0248645 DELTA SUPPLY CO 1998-09-10 167.70 0248646 DICTAPHONE CORPORATION 1998-09-10 554.90 0248647 DATA SUPPLIES, INC 1998-09-10 4,789.75 0248648 DURA STONE COMPANY 1998-09-10 210.00 0248649 FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF 1998-09-10 4,800.00 0248650 DEAF SERVICE CENTER OF THE 1998-09-10 416.63 0248651 DIROCCO CONSTRUCTION 1998-09-10 500.00 0248652 DADE PAPER COMPANY 1998-09-10 761.87 0248653 FLORIDA STATE OF FLORIDA 1998-09-10 3,000.00 0248654 DOWNTOWN PRODUCE INC 1998-09-10 47.40 0248655 DEPT OF ENVIRONMENTAL 1998-09-10 2,500.00 0248656 DIRECTORY DISTRIBUTING ASSOC 1998-09-10 45.40 0248657 E -Z BREW COFFEE SERVICE, INC 1998-09-10 71.00 0248658 EXPEDITER INC, THE 1998-09-10 66.81 0248659 ERICSSON, INC 1998-09-10 975.49 0248660 ECKERD DRUG CO 1998-09-10 59.44 0248661 FGFO EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATION 1998-09-10 75.00 0248662 FEDEX 1998-09-10 14.50 0248663 FLORIDA EAST COAST RAILWAY CO 1998-09-10 2,783.00 0248664 FLORIDA POWER & LIGHT COMPANY 1998-09-10 18,532.58 0248665 FRASER ENGINEERING & TESTING 1998-09-10 50.00 0248666 FLOWERS BAKING COMPANY OF 1998-09-10 71.46 0248667 FRANKLIN PRODUCTS CORP 1998-09-10 192.71 0248668 FALCON CABLE 1998-09-10 25.10 0248669 FELLSMERE POLICE DEPARTMENT 1998-09-10 50.00 0248670 FLORIDA ANIMAL LEAGUE 1998-09-10 18.00 0248671 FPL 1998-09-10 188.58 0248672 FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INSURANCE 1998-09-10 12,897.16 0248673 GENE'S AUTO GLASS 1998-09-10 235.00 0248674 GLIDDEN COMPANY, THE 1998-09-10 22.00 0248675 GREY HOUSE PUBLISHING 1998-09-10 187.50 0248676 GOLD STAR OF THE TREASURE 1998-09-10 1,922.00 September 22, 1998 5 BOOK 10 i PAGE 74 I aaa 107 FA GE 73 CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0248677 GATEWAY LEARNING CORP 1998-09-10 140.13 0248678• HARRIS SANITATION, INC 1998-09-10 448.43 0248679 HUNTER AUTO SUPPLIES__ 1998-09-10 727.32 0248680 HOLIDAY BUILDERS, INC 1998-09-10 500.00 0248681 HARRIS SANITATION, INC 1998-09-10 47,782.74 0248682 HILL MANUFACTURING 1998-09-10 2,178.43 0248683 HOMETOWN PET CARE CENTER 1998-09-10 15.00 0248684 HEWLETT PACKARD COMPANY 1998-09-10 373.29 0248685 HOJO INN 1998-09-10 107.85 0248686 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY 1998-09-10 225.00 0248687 INDIAN RIVER BATTERY, INC 1998-09-10 620.58 0248688 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY UTILITY 1998-09-10 1,586.18 0248689 INTERSTATE BILLING SERVICE 1998-09-10 3,638.33 0248690 IBM CORPORATION 1998-09-10 431.52 0248691 JANET'S AUTO TRIM & GLASS 1998-09-10 65.00 0248692 JAMEISON PUBLISHERS 1998-09-10 502.50 0248693 K MART 1998-09-10 249.99 0248694 KELLY TRACTOR CO 1998-09-10 15.96 0248695 KT MOWER & EQUIPMENT 1998-09-10 414.13 0248696 KEEP INDIAN RIVER BEAUTIFUL 1998-09-10 1,483.29 0248697 LAWYERS TITLE INSURANCE 1998-09-10 15,000.00 0248698 L B SMITH, INC 1998-09-10 215.93 0248699 LIGHT SOURCE BUSINESS SYSTEMS 1998-09-10 828.00 0248700 LUCENT TECHNOLOGIES 1998-09-10 31.80 0248701 LOWE'S HOME CENTERS, INC 1998-09-10 30.67 0248702 MAXWELL PLUMBING, INC 1998-09-10 252.07 0248703 MARTINS LAMAR UNIFORMS 1998-09-10 120.00 0248704 MERCURY TECHNOLOGIES 1998-09-10 330.80 0248705 MIDWEST TAPE EXCHANGE 1998-09-10 15.95 0248706 MR BOB PORTABLE TOILET 1998-09-10 421.80 0248707 NATIONAL FIRE PROTECTION 1998-09-10 117.85 0248708 NATIONWIDE ADVERTISING 1998-09-10 244.32 0248709 NOLTE, DAVID C 1998-09-10 12,289.00 0248710 NORTH SOUTH SUPPLY 1998-09-10 137.39 0248711 NEFF MACHINERY, INC 1998-09-10 184.81 0248712 NEW HORIZONS OF THE TREASURE 1998-09-10 4,934.58 0248713 NOCUTS, INC 1998-09-10 39.40 0248714 OFFICE PRODUCTS & SERVICE 1998-09-10 1,098.32 0248715 OXMOOR HOUSE 1998-09-10 32.91 0248716 OFFICE DEPOT, INC 1998-09-10 9,054.31 0248717 ODYSSEY GOLF 1998-09-10 74.10 0248718 OMNI ROSEN HOTEL 1998-09-10 180.00 0248719 PARAGON ELECTRIC, INC 1998-09-10 1,198.56 0248720 PARKS RENTAL INC 1998-09-10 75.00 0248721 PEACE RIVER ELECTRIC 1998-09-10 163.73 0248722 PERKINS INDIAN RIVER PHARMACY 1998-09-10 161.10 0248723 POSTMASTER 1998-09-10 10,000.00 0248724 PAVCO CONSTRUCTION, INC 1998-09-10 21,200.00 0248725 PORT PETROLEUM, INC 1998-09-10 157.18 0248726 PRESS JOURNAL 1998-09-10 772.50 0248727 POSTMASTER 1998-09-10 128.00 0248728 PRECISION CONTRACTING 1998-09-10 1,200.00 0248729 QUALITY BOOKS, INC 1998-09-10 75.92 0248730 QUALITY JANITORIAL SERVICE 1998-09-10 260.00 0248731 RUSSO PRINTING, INC 1998-09-10 17.50 0248732 RICHMOND HYDRAULICS INC 1998-09-10 46.00 0248733 R & G SOD FARMS 1998-09-10 120.00 0248734 RUBBER STAMP EXPRESS & MORE 1998-09-10 6.30 0248735 RSR WHOLESALE SOUTH, INC 1998-09-10 125.76 0248736 ROBERT WILSON ASSOC 1998-09-10 1,500.00 September 22, 1998 D C7 CHECK NUMBER 0248737 0248738 0248739 0248740 0248741 0248742 0248743 0248744 0248745 0248746 0248747 0248748 0248749 0248750 0248751 0248752 0248753 0248754 0248755 0248756 0248757 0248758 0248759 0248760 0248761 0248762 0248763 0248764 0248765 0248766 0248767 0248768 0248769 0248770 0248771 0248772 0248773 0248774 0248775 0248776 0248777 0248778 0248779 0248780 0248781 0248782 0248783 0248784 0248785 0248786 0248787 0248788 0248789 0248790 0248791 0248792 NAME SBCCI-PUBLIC SAFETY TESTING SEWELL HARDWARE CO, INC SOUTHERN BUILDING CODE SOUTHERN EAGLE DISTRIBUTING, STATE OF FLORIDA SUN COAST WELDING SUPPLIES INC SUNSHINE PHYSICAL THERAPY ST LUCIE PAPER & PACKAGING,INC SERVICE REFRIGERATION CO, INC SIMON & SCHUSTER STEWART TITLE OF INDIAN RIVER SCHOOL DISTRICT OF IRC SUBSTANCE ABUSE COUNCIL SOLINET SEBASTIAN POLICE DEPARTMENT SOUTHERN SECURITY SYSTEMS OF STRIBLING, WILLIAM JR SHELDON, JAMES SLECHTA, SCOTT SOUTHERN TECHNOLOGY GROUP TEN -8 FIRE EQUIPMENT, INC TITLEIST DRAWER TRI -COUNTY CONCRETE PRODUCTS TARGET STORE T-1050 SMITH, TERRY L TRAX INC TELECOMMUNICATIONS ULVERSCROFT LARGE PRINT US FILTER DISTRIBUTION GROUP US IMAGING INC VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH, CITY OF VIRGIL'S RADIATOR WORKS VERO BEACH, CITY OF VERO BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT VOLUNTEER ACTION CENTER WALGREENS PHARMACY #4248 WEST PUBLISHING PAYMENT CENTER WILSON'S PETROLEUM EQUIPMENT, WAL-MART PHARMACY, INC WILLHOFF, PATSY WORLD CHAMBER OF COMMERCE WHEELER PUBLISHING, INC WASTE MANAGEMENT, INC WYNDHAM WESTSHORE __ YAVORSKY'S TRUCK SERVICE,INC ZANCA, MARY ZEPHYRHILLS NATURAL SPRING AMERICAN TOURISTER IRC HOUSING AUTHORITY BRITT,JEFFREY L INDIAN RIVER VILLAGE CARE MILLES, CHARLES V SABONJOHN, PETER SACKVILLE, WALTER MCDONOUGH, RICHARD C September 22, 1998 L- 7 CHECK DATE 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 19978-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 1998-09-10 CHECK AMOUNT 60.00 162.34 400.00 403.22 9,412.29 262.65 75.00 726.48 1,390.04 849.41 5,000.00 724.94 4,427.19 682.82 75.00 110.00 225.00 4,584.00 471.87 4,005.00 590.69 228.48 3,517.00 89.75 42.00 137.99 37.32 613.88 6,667.37 2,407.50 3,911.19 170,000.00 830.00 121.92 225.00 25.00 138.75 1,229.25 158.06 39.35 130.00 35.00 139.99 334,259.00 119.00 79.08 250.10 15.25 107.32 41.05 17.44 52.01 2.40 75.56 28.30 24.06 M • io i PAGE r ,,BOOKQ3 R�6E CHECK NAME CHECK CHECK NUMBER DATE AMOUNT 0248793 WHALEN, ROBERT W 1998-09-10 69.62 0248794 EVANS, DONNA 1998-09-10 32.15 0248795 CARONE, JOSEPH V 1998-09-10 30.43 0248796 PROBST, CATHERINE 1998-09-10 68.93 0248797 GEORGIA, MINTON 1998-09-10 48.22 0248798 OWENS, EILEEN M 1998-09-10 28.30 0248799 FI%, JANELL 1998-09-10 38.05 0248800 FAY, THOMAS C 1998-09-10 31.38 0248801 BEAZER HOMES FLORIDA INC 1998-09-10 100.00 0248802 UNION NATIONAL BANK 1998-09-10 7.14 0248803 _ SENN, RENAE 1998-09-10 22.47 0248804 RIGHTON, HARRY 1998-09-10 42.88 0248805 R ZORC & SONS BUILDERS INC 1998-09-10 2.72 0248806 LOWRY, MCCURDY A 1998-09-10 25.86 0248807 KLINE, REGAN 1998-09-10 97.69 0248808 SCHMITZ, JOHANN 1998-09-10 44.47 0248809 LERMAN, IRA 1998-09-10 64.48 0248810 EYRE, WILLIAM E 1998-09-10 74.32 0248811 MAAG AGROCHEMICAL 1998-09-10 146.40 0248812 ROADHOUSE, JOHN S 1998-09-10 13.65 0248813 HIPE, PHILIP & FANNIE 1998-09-10 46.90 0248814 HICKS, BERNICE J 1998-09-10 14.52 0248815 INDIAN BEACH ASSOC, INC 1998-09-10 1,400.00 0248816 MARGENE INVESTMENT GROUP INC 1998-09-10 58.17 0248817 SCHWEY, POLLY 1998-09-10 69.92 0248818 YATES, DALLAS 1998-09-10 56.60 0248819 OSTRANDER, JACK & SHIRLEY 1998-09-10 44.99 0248820 VALENTINI, PATRICK 1998-09-10 34.73 0248821 DRURY, TIM 1998-09-10 74.10 0248822 MEEKS, RONALD E & TAMMY 1998-09-10 21.03 0248823 STUDER, RICHARD/DELORES 1998-09-10 33.43 0248824 MANUFACTURED HOME COMM/REPOS 1998-09-10 68.77 0248825 HAINES, JILL 1998-09-10 35.11 0248826 GHO VERO BEACH INC 1998-09-10 56.33 0248827 KOSCIUSKO, JOSEPH S 1998-09-10 40.90 0248828 CORNERSTONE SELECT HOMES INC 1998-09-10 145.87 0248829 HOLMGREN, ROBERT 1998-09-10 33.93 0248830 MC HUGH, JOHN & BETH 1998-09-10 71.36 0248831 WHITNEY SR, RICHARD M 1998-09-10 46.26 0248832 OTOWCHITS, BARBARA -_ 1998-09-10 36.37 0248833 BEA ER HOMES FLORIDA INC 1998-09-10 64.35 0248834 STAGGS, DAN 1998-09-10 44.53 0248835 LOVE, LARRY 1998-09-10 39.25 0248836 JONES, GEORGE E 1998-09-10 24.75 0248837 FITZPATRICK SR, DONALD R 1998-09-10 11.67 0248838 SUTTON, PAULA RAE 1998-09-10 24.89 0248839 ALLEN, MANDA L 1998-09-10 26.43 0248840 KRAMER, ALICIA 1998-09-10 29.39 0248841 YARBROUGH, BRENDA K 1998-09-10 50.77 0248842 MARTIN, RICHARD C 1998-09-10 44.11 0248843 DIVERSIFIED DRILLING 1998-09-10 338.87 0248844 FRASIER, DANIEL B 1998-09-10 37.29 0248845 MC COY, VERNON & BETTY 1998-09-10 51.97 0248846 WARD, ELIZABETH L 1998-09-10 76.49 0248847 R PLACE BEAUTY SALON INC 1998-09-10 67.49 0248848 LONG, M SCOTT 1998-09-10 39.97 0248849 HUTCHINSON, NIEL E 1998-09-10 75.23 0248850 J K INVESTMENT USA IBC 1998-09-10 38.73 0248851 CROFT, JOHN A 1998-09-10 39.23 0248852 BOERUM, HOWARD J 1998-09-10 54.68 September 22, 1998 8 U CHECK NAME NUMBER 0248853 SPENCER, ANGEL 0248854 MAI, THANH 0248855 DUBORD, DOROTHY A 0248856 oLIvER, MIKE 0248857 FELICI, SUSAN L 0248858 FOSTER MANAGEMENT 0248859 ROONEY, THOMAS 0248860 POPKINS, MARY 0248861 MC CLOUD, TONY 0248862 LAMM, TROY S 0248863 BASS, LAURA 0248864 ZORC, JODI 0248865 ZALEUKE, DEBRA 0248866 THORPE REAL ESTATE 0248867 SAUL DAWSEY CHECK CHECK DATE AMOUNT = 1998-09-10 54.12 1998-09-10 2.53 1998-09-10 23.98 1998-09-10 65.45 1998-09-10 76.46 1998-09-10 65.05 1998-09-10 15.50 1998-09-10 27.03 1998-09-10 4.56 1998-09-10 36.68 1998-09-10 30.78 1998-09-10 44.95 1998-09-10 40.82 1998-09-10 29,98 1998-09-10 2,390.00 886,809.58 Z.B. Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant - Site Plan Extension The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 15, 1998: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DPRNON HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, A1C Community Development Dir r All THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: Eric Blad<. 1 Staff Planner, Current Development DATE: September 15, 1998 SUBJECT: Indian River County Utility Service's Request for Site Plan Extension It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. K 9 On September 16, 1997, the Indian River County Utilities Services Department was granted major site plan approval (with conditions) to construct an expansion to the Central County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. The subject site is located at 3550 49' Street. The current expiration date of the site plan approval is September 16, 1998. September 22, 1998 BOOK 107 PAcE C J F, BOOK 107 PAGE 7 The construction contract for the expansion of the Central County Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant was awarded by the Board on August 11, 1998. Subsequent to the construction contract being awarded, building permit applications for the project were submitted, and are now under review by the Building Division. To ensure that the site plan remains valid so that building permits can be issued, an extension of the site plan approval is necessary. On September 8, 1998, the project's agent, Camp Dresser & McKee, Inc., filed a request (see attachment #1) to extend the site plan approval expiration date. Pursuant to site plan regulations, the request may now be considered by the Board of County Commissioners. V Although the LDRs have been amended since the initial project review and approval, the members of the Technical Review Committee (TRC) concur that subsequent amendments as applied to the subject project are not significant enough to require any revisions or redesign of the project. All TRC staff members have recently approved the applicant's request for site plan extension. As allowed under the provisions of the LDRs, Indian River County Utilities Services Department is requesting a full one year extension of the site plan approval expiration date. Pursuant to Chapter 914 of the LDRs, the Board of County Commissioners may aeny, approve, or approve with additional conditions the requested site plan extension. Staff has no objections to the Board granting the request since the previously approved site plan conforms to all current LDR requirements. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the Indian River County Utilities Service Department's request for a one year extension of the conditional site plan approval, with all original site plan approval conditions to remain in effect. The new site plan approval expiration date will be September 16, 1999. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Expiration Date Extension Request 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved the request of the Utilities Department for a one-year extension of the conditional site plan approval for the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, with all original site plan approval conditions to remain in effect, as recommended in the Memorandum. New site plan approval expiration date will be September 16, 1999. September 22, 1998 10 0 - 0 I • • 7. C. Round Island South LAAC Site - Florida Communities Trust (FCT Cost -Share Agreement Extension The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 14, 1998: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE: 7ortor ObertM. KeatingP Community Developm t Di FROM: Roland M. DeBlois CP _ Chief, Environmental Planning DATE: September 14,1998 -- RE: Request for Board Approval of Florida Communities Trust (FCT) Cost -Share Agreement Extension for the Round Island South LAAC Site It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. Staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached "Addendum III to Conceptual Approval Agreement" relating to the Round Island South/ Florida Communities Trust (FCT) environmental land acquisition cost -share project. On September 8, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved purchase of six of nine parcels in the overall project, under the 50% cost -share funding agreement with the FCT. Closing on those parcels is expected to occur in October, 1998. The referenced Addendum extends the FCT grant award expiration date to April 30, 1999, to allow for on-going staff negotiations to acquire the remaining southern three parcels in the project. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners authorize the Board Chairman to execute the attached agreement addendum. Round Island South "Addendum III to the FCT Conceptual Approval Agreement" September 22, 1998 11 BOOK 10 7 PAGE 78 BOOK 10 7 PAGE 79 1 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute Addendum III to Conceptual Approval Agreement relating to the Round Island South/FCT environmental land acquisition cost -share project, as recommended in the memorandum. ADDENDUM III ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 7.D. Library -1999 State Aid Grant Apj2licadon and Agreement The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 9, 1998: DATE: September 9, 1998 TO: Board of County Commissioners THRU: James E. Chandler, County Administrator a THRU: H.T. "Sonny" Dean, Director, Department of General Service* FROM: Mary Powell, Library Services Direct SI TR TFrT- 1994 etgtp Aid e,.,.r,,..,tinn k A gM=ent BACKGROUND: The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners applies each year to the Division of Library and Information Services for the annual state aid grant. The contract agreement is also part of the annual application. ANALYSIS: The Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners' signature is required on the application/agreement (attached). RECONDAENDATION: Staff respectfully requests that the Board authorize its Chairman to sign the application/agreement and return to the Library Services Director to be forwarded to the appropriate state library staff. September 22, 1998 12 U ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to sign the 1999 State Aid Grant Application and Agreement, as recommended in the Memorandum. GRANT DOCUMENTS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO TBE BOARD 7.E. Land Acquisition Advisory Committee - Acceptance of Resignation ofRuth Stanbridge The Board reviewed a Letter of September 7, 1998: 4835 66th Avenue Vero Beach, Florida 32968 September 7, 1998 Mrs. Carohm Eggert Chairman. Indian River County Land Acquisition Advisory Committee 1840 26th Street Vero Beach. Florida 32960 Dear Mm.� Please accept this letter of resignation from the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee. With my recent election to the Indian River County Commission, it would be most appropriate to have a new member from the Sierra Club to continue membership on this committee. I have spoken to Mr. C. C. `Bud" Klechner, chairman of the local Conservation Committee (Sierra Club) and he is willing to step in as a LAAC member. I am sure he would be happy to furnish a resume or other information that is needed. Thank you for the opportunity to serve on this committee. It has been both a gratifying and frustrating experience, but absolutely necessary if Indian River County wishes to preserve its natural resources under this land program. There is still much to be done in "closing the gap" on lands necessary to protect the water quality of the Indian River Lagoon and to correct our existing greenway corridors. CC: W. C. C. `Bud' Klechner 7720 Indian Oaks Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32966 September 22, 1998 13 Sincerely, 5�� Ruth Stanbridge • BOOK 107 PACE 30 BOOK 107 PAGE 8 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously accepted the resignation of Ruth Stanbridge from the Land Acquisition Advisory Committee, as requested in her letter. Z.F. Miscellaneous Bud get 030 The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 15, 1998: TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners DATE: September 15, 1998 SUBJECT: MISCELLANEOUS BUDGET AMENDMENT 030 CONSENT AGENDA FROM: Joseph A. Baird/ OMB Director ���c -- DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached budget amendment is to appropriate funding for the following: 1. We have received official notification of funding for FY 1997/98 from the Federal Transit Administration Section 5307 Grant. The attached entry appropriates these funds 2. The Board of County Commissioners approved purchasing land for Station 11 in the amount of $115,000. The land was appropriated and paid from the Emergency Services District; however, staff feels this should be charged to Optional One Cent Sales Tax. 3. At the meeting of May 5, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved purchasing two (2) pumpers at a cost of $429,408. The attached entry appropriates funds. 4. The Board of County Commissioners approved $58,640 for Oslo Riverfront Park Improvements of the Native Upland Acquisition; however, $312 in permit fees were not included in the budget cost. Staff is requesting an increase in the budget for $850 to cover the permit fees and other miscellaneous costs which may arise. 5. The C.D.B.G. Block Grant may need additional funds transferred in to cover costs. Transfer is from the Secondary Road Trust fund. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the attached budget amendment. September 22, 1998 14 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously approved Miscellaneous Budget Amendment 03 0, as recommended in the Memorandum. TO: Members of the Board of County Commissioners FROM: Joseph A. Baird OMB Director BUDGET AMENDMENT: 030 DATE: September 15, 1998 Entry Number Funds/Department/Account Name Account Number Increase Decrease 1. REVENUE GENERAL FUND/Section 9 Transportation 001-000-331-041.00 $189,150 $0 EXPENSE GENERAL FUND/Community Transportation Coordinator 001-110-541-088.23 $144,579 $0 GENERAL FUND/Cash Forward 001-199-5$1-099.92 $44,571 $0 2. REVENUE OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Interest- AX/InterestInvestment Investment 315-000-361-010.00 $115,000 $0 EXPENSE OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Fire/Land 315-120-522-066.11 $115,000 $0 ESD/Fire/Land 114-120-522-066.11 $0 $115,000 ESD/Fire/CashForward 414-120-522-099.92 $115,000 $0 3. REVENUES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Interest- Investments 315-000-361-015.00 $100,000 $0 EXPENSES OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Automotive 315-120-522-066.42 $208,529 $0 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Cash Forward -September 30 315-199-581-099.92 $0 $8,529 OPTIONAL SALES TAX/Building Alterations 315-220-572-041.25 $0 $100,000 ESD/Fire Services/Automotive 114-120-522-066.42 $220,879 $0 ESD/Fire Services/Cash Forward -- 114-120-522-099.92 $0 $220,879 4. REVENUE NATIVE UPLANDS LAND ACQUISMON/Native Upland Habitat Fees 127-000-343-071.00 $850 $0 EXPENSE NATIVE UPLANDS LAND ACQUISMON//Oslo River&ont Park 127-210-537-068.02 $850 $0 September 22, 1998 15 • BOOK 10 7 PAGE 8 I BOOK 10-7 PAGE, 8 H I 1 5. REVENUES C.D9.GJTnansfer In 129-000-381-020.00 $20,000 $0 SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTTON/!merest-Invesanent 1094)00-361-010.00 $20,000 $0 EXPENSES C.D.B.G./Other Professional Services 129-149-513-033.19 $20,000 $0 SECONDARY ROAD CONSTRUCTION/Tiansfer Out 109-199-581-099.21 $20.000 $0 11 7.G. Resoludon 98-095 - Recently Acquired Properiy - Tax Cancellation - R/W Willow Street Brendle) The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 9, 1998: TO: Board of County Commissioners J�Gz- �. FROM: Lea R. Keller, CLA Legal Assistant - County Attorney's Office DATE: September 9, 1998 RE: Recently Acquired Property - Tax Cancellation The County recently acquired some property and, pursuant to Section 196.28, F.S., the Board of County Commissioners, after formally accepting it, is allowed to cancel and discharge any taxes owed on the portion of the property acquired for public purpose. Such cancellation must be done by resolution with a certified 0ey being forward to the Tax Collector (along with copies sent to the Property Appraiser and Fixed Assets). Reouested Action. Board authorize the Chairman to sign the attached resolution canceling taxes upon lands the County recently acquired. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 98-095 canceling certain delinquent taxes upon publicly owned lands, pursuant to Section 196.28, Florida Statutes. (R/W Willow Street - Brendle) September 22, 1998 16 0 - 0 Re: RAN - Bmndle RESOLUTION NO. 98- 9 8 - 9 5 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CANCELLING CERTAIN DELINQUENT TAXES UPON PUBLICLY OWNED LANDS, PURSUANT TO SECTION 196.28, FLORIDA STATUTES. WHEREAS, Section 196.28, Florida Statutes, allows the Board of County Commissioners of each County to cancel and discharge any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, held or owned by the county or the state, upon lands heretofore or hereafter conveyed to or acquired by any agency, governmental subdivision, or municipality of the state, or the United States, for road purposes, defense purposes, recreation, reforestation, or other public use; and WHEREAS, such cancellation must be by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners, duly adopted and entered upon its minutes properly describing such lands and setting forth the public use to which the same are or will be devoted; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of a certified copy of such resolution, proper officials of the county and of the state are authorized, empowered, and directed to make proper entries upon the records to accomplish such cancellation and to do all things necessary to carry out the provisions of Section 196.28, F.S.; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The right of way is hereby accepted and any and all liens for taxes, delinquent or current, against the property described in OR Book 1 A.P7 Page a?63 which was recently acquired by Indian River County for future right of way are hereby canceled, pursuant to the authority of Section 196.28, F.S. 2. The Clerk to the Board of County Commissioners is hereby directed to send a certified copy of this resolution to the Tax Collector and the Property Appraiser. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner E 9 g e r t , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner A d a m s , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye The Chairman t e eupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 Z day of September, 19 �. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Aft . Barton Clerk / By G. _ By: / John W. ip n Chairman TAX CERTIFICATES OUTSTr?I DIING' [� yes no CI MFEIrIT PRORATED TAX RECEIVED AND � ID'EPOSITED WITH TAX COLLECTOR $ September 22, 1998 17 inman Fiv.r Co Approved Date Admin. j Legal Budget Risk Mgr. I I BOOK 10 7 PAGE 8 ko Co. I 9 Homewood SID Tracf 1954 Pari of Lofs L400 w/irow -F 13 & 14 V46Je .flue-IU4 Street R/W (P/c/) F56 f GRAPHIC SCALE t F 1s' .i0' 68.5' 84' Loi 13Lof 14-►� LEGAL DESCRIPTION I The West 15 feet of the North 30 feet of Lot 13 and the West 15 feet of the South 68.5 feet of Lot 14 of Tract 1954 of the Homewood Subdivision, as recorded in Plat Book 2, Page 15 of the Public Records of Saint Lucie County, Florida. PREPARED FOR INDIAN ENGINEERING DEP CERTIFIcanoN Said land lies in Indian River County, Florida. THIS IS NOT A 1, Charles A. Cramer., hereby certify that I am a re istered Professional Sun SKETCH TO ACCOMPANY LE license to 9 eyor and Mapper ¢ pro ti a to the state f Florida, that this sketch w P mad nder tmmedta s�ypernsion on tat it is accura�e orld gorrec�t. I fur h r er�iff thq t�iis ske h meets i�ie tnimum Techntca standards as describe to hapten 1�1� or a ondo Administrative ode, pursuant t F.S. Chapter 472. r` Date ! GP Charles A. Cramer, P.S.M. Reg. 14094 1840 25th.St., Vera Beach. FL 32960 Indian River County Surveyor (407) 567-8000 Pmt of P«w waae.R ao 31 st OW11 hiss OOMM s AMouo ME me-aAe125\rwst\t9s41314J ra h Z COUNTY DESCRIPTION bra tW w.ae.. - 1"81 t 2-4-9e at YNI ML 00 o1� oN rl C- N a� a O.� 0� 00 0 • M. Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs - FACo to Meet with Editor of Press Journal Regarding Article V, Revision? The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 14, 1998: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assistant County Attomey- Ir 6 DATE: September 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Payments to Vendors of Court Related Costs The Office of the County Attomey has processed and approved payment to the following vendors for the week of September 7, 1998. Listed below are the vendors names and the amount of each court related costs. Elizabeth Brooker, Esq. Legal Services 1,400.00 James T. Long, Esq. Public Defender Conflict - Misd. 300.00 James T. Long, Esq. Public Defender Conflict - Felony 8,400.00 Barbara G. Schopp Transcription 31.50 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 66.50 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 217.00 Carlos Wells, Esq. Witness Reimbursement 128.96 Ralph Mora, Ph. D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Ralph Mora, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Justin Lane Witness Reimbursement 39.00 Howard Johnsons Witness Management 94.00 JR Reporting Associates - Court Reporter 25.00 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 108.50 Sandy Crawford, Clerk Record Research 40.00 Barbara Schopp Transcription 28.00 Shirley Corbin Transcription 24.50 Shirley Corbin Transcription 168.00 Shirley Corbin Transcription 91.00 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 115.50 Peggy Gollnick Transcription 112.00 Shirley Corbin Transcription 87.50 Linda Copeland Transcription 52.50 Driush Safikhani Witness Reimbursement 26.01 JR Reporting Associates Transcription 81.00 Ralph Mora, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Patricia B. Held Transcription 56.00 Sheila I. Flinn Transcription 31.50 Peggy Gollnick Transcription 38.50 Shirley Corbin Transcription 80.50 Shirley Corbin Transcription 143.50 Peggy Gollnick Transcription 269.00 Shirley Corbin Transcription 63.00 Linda Copeland Transcription 206.00 Linda Copeland Transcription 56.00 Linda Copeland Transcription 91.00 Lenora Mergler Transcription 35.00 Patricia B. Held Transcription 133.00 Lynn Park, Esq. Photo Enlargement 4.24 September 22, 1998 19 BOOK 10_ 1 PAGE BOOR 10.1 PAGE 87 Lathryn Hill, Esq. Legal Services 5,165.56 James G. Harpring, Esq. Legal Services 482.00 A.J. Glaser, III, R.N. Clinical Evaluation 80.00 Robert J. Brugnoli, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 450.00 Kenneth L. Director, M.D. Clinical Evaluation 300.00 Drew S. Greenfield, M.D. Expert Witness 300.00 Joseph J. Altieri, M.D. Expert Witness 675.00 American Reporting Transportation 45.00 Karen Rushing, Clerk of Court Record Research 11.00 Sheldon H. Rifkin, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 Gregory C. Landrum, Psy.D. Expert Witness 450.00 Medical Record Services Record Research 9.55 Ralph Mora, Ph.D. Clinical Evaluation 500.00 David A. Cairns, Esq. Legal Services 898.00 Total $24,209.82 Chairman Tippin wished to highlight the cost of the State court system and remind everyone of the burden placed on the counties by the Legislature (unfunded mandates). Chairman Tippin advised that representatives from the Florida Association of Counties (FACo) would be here this afternoon for a meeting with the editor of the Press Journal to discuss Article V, Revision 7. He pointed out that during the week covered by the above memo, the cost to Indian River County was over $24,000. He asked Assistant County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien to explain the payment to James T. Long, Esq., in the total amount of $8,700 (for public defender conflict - Misdemeanor and Felony). Assistant Attorney O'Brien explained that Mr. Long is our contract attorney who handles all our felony and misdemeanor cases, who was selected through a bid -type procedure. The amount paid to him probably represents a month or two of his work. Assistant Attorney O'Brien pointed out that the $5,165.56 paid to Lathryn Hill, Esq. was for services related to a dependency hearing. Dependency cases have become very expensive and long-running; this particular case was over two years. Then Assistant Attorney O'Brien recapped the amounts paid out in previous weeks to illustrate that not all weeks are as costly. County Attorney Vitunac emphasized that the amounts would be a lot higher if Assistant Attorney O'Brien did not appear in court two or three times a week disputing even more exorbitant requests for money. Vice Chairman Macht pointed out that passage of Article V, Revision 7 would save Indian River County $2.2 million in the Year 2000. Chairman Tippin urged the voting public to think seriously about Article V, Revision 7, because it is vital to all counties in Florida, particularly the rural counties which are at the 10 mill cap. September 22, 1998 20 Commissioner Ginn felt there was one statement that says it clearly: "State funding for State courts - Vote `yes' on Revision 7." NO ACTION REQUIRED. U Resolution 98 -096 -Hourly Fee for Court Appointed Counsel in Dependency Proceedings The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 14, 1998: TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Terrence P. O'Brien, Assiscint County Attorney Tp DATE: September 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Compensation of Court Appointed Counsel -1998 Legislation The legislature has amended the manner in which counsel is compensated pursuant to a court appointment in dependency proceedings. Under former law, the court could pretty much determine the amount of compensation. Now the compensation shall be established by each County. The pertinent section of the Florida Statutes reads as follows: Section 39.0134 Anointed counsel: compensation. If counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuant to a court appointment in a dependency proceeding pursuant to this chapter, such compensation shall be established by each county. There appears to be two approaches from the County's standpoint, (1) set a per hour fee for in -court and out-of-court work, (2) enter into a contract, after bids, for a set amount for each case. This latter procedure is what we now use in criminal uses where an attorney is court appointed. As an initial step and as an interim measure it is recommended that we establish an hourly fee and then direct staff to try the contract approach and see what bids we receive. A $65.00 out-of-court and a $75.00 in -court per hour fee is recommended. This is the same fee appointed attorneys in capital cases are paid. A Resolution establishing this per hour fee is attached for consideration. I have spoken to Chief Judge Ranarek on this matter and we agree that a committee should be formed to make recommendations as to an hourly fee and to look into contracting out services. A committee of the Chief Judge or his designee, myself and a member of the Indian River County Bar Association is recommended The bar member would be selected by President of the IRC Bar Association. September 22, 1998 21 BOOK 107 PAGE 8 BOOK U PACS Chairman Tippin advised that he separated this item from the Consent Agenda to ask Assistant County Attorney Terrence P. O'Brien to explain it. Assistant Attorney O'Brien explained that prior to the enactment of Section 39.0134 of the Statutes, which will become effective October 1, the County was obligated to pay court-appointed attorneys for dependency proceedings, however, there was no cap on their hourly fee. It would usually run $100 per hour and the court would generally okay that amount. After October 1, the County has the authority to regulate or put a cap on these fees. The proposed resolution will establish compensation at $75 per hour in -court and $65 per hour out-of-court beginning October 1st. He added that Chief Judge Paul Kanarak recommended that a committee be formed to look at contracting for this work just as we do with the misdemeanor and felony cases. Assistant Attorney O'Brien agreed with Judge Kanarak's recommendation. The Legislature also passed, effective October 1, Section 39.013(8) which will require the judges to appoint counsel for all indigent parents, legal custodians, or caregivers in dependency cases, unless they knowingly waive it. Previously, appointment of counsel was at the judge's discretion. We, therefore, will incur more attorney's fees because it will be mandatory. Chairman Tippin suggested that Budget Director Joseph A. Baird be appointed to that committee (which would consist of the Chief Judge, Assistant Attorney O'Brien, and a representative from the County Bar Association). Commissioner Ginn felt that was important, but did not see the need for a committee just to put it out for bid. Assistant Attorney O'Brien felt the input of the Judge and attorneys was important and recommended that the committee be used for the selection of the successful bidder. Commissioner Ginn felt that there were attorneys who would be very willing to bid for the work at a very reasonable hourly charge. Assistant Attorney O'Brien cautioned there was a need to have competent counsel, because, if you do not, the decisions often get reversed and the expenses are even greater. Ultimately it will be the Board's selection. September 22, 1998 22 • • ON MOTION by Commissioner Tippin, SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 98-096 establishing a per hour fee for court- appointed counsel in dependency proceedings and directed that Budget Director Joseph A. Baird be appointed to the committee as discussed. RESOLUTION NO. 98- 9 6 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, ESTABLISHING A PER HOUR FEE FOR COURT APPOINTED COUNSEL IN DEPENDENCY PROCEEDINGS. WHEREAS, the 1998 Florida Legislature has directed counties to establish compensation criteria for court appointed counsel in dependency proceedings (Section 39.0134, F.S.); and WHEREAS, the current per hour fee in the Nineteenth Judicial Circuit for capital cases is $65.00 per hour out-of-court and $75.00 per hour in -court; and WHEREAS, this appears to be adequate compensation in dependency matters, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Court appointed counsel in dependency proceedings shall be compensated as follows: a) $75.00 per hour in -court b) $65.00 per hour our -of -court The resolution was moved to adoption by Commissioner T i p p i n and the motion was seconded by Commissioner E ag e r t , and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams A y e Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye September 22, 1998 23 BOOK 101 PAGE 00 BOOK 107 PAGE 0*1 7 The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22 day of September , 1998. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA Jeff re Barton, Clerk—) John W1 Tippin, Chai"r Section 39.0134 Page 1 of 1 139.0134 Appointed counsel; compensation. -- (1) If counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuant to a court appointment in a dependency proceeding pursuant to this chapter, such compensation shall be established by each county. (2) If counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuant to court appointment in a termination of parental rights proceeding, such compensation shall not exceed $1,000 at the trial level and $2,500 at the appellate level. History: -s. 12, ch. 84-311; s. 9, ch. 87-289; s. 28, ch. 98-403. 1Note.--Section 1, ch. 92-37, provides that "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the contrary, the attorneys whose compensation was provided in the November 1989 Supplemental Appropriations Act and is continued in subsequent general appropriations acts shall provide legal representation in cases arising under sections 39.40-39.474, Florida Statutes." Provisions within chapter 39 were transferred to other locations by ch. 97-238 and ch. 98-403. Some of the material within the cited range can be found at parts VI, VII, and IX of ch. 39, as redesignated by ch. 98-403, and ch. 984, as redesignated by ch. 97-238. Note. --Former ss. 39.415, 39.474. AFF. OCT %1 1 91T 8. PROPERTY APPRAISER - DEMONSTRATION OF TAX MAPS ON CD-ROM The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 4, 1998: September 22, 1998 24 By L_ John W1 Tippin, Chai"r Section 39.0134 Page 1 of 1 139.0134 Appointed counsel; compensation. -- (1) If counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuant to a court appointment in a dependency proceeding pursuant to this chapter, such compensation shall be established by each county. (2) If counsel is entitled to receive compensation for representation pursuant to court appointment in a termination of parental rights proceeding, such compensation shall not exceed $1,000 at the trial level and $2,500 at the appellate level. History: -s. 12, ch. 84-311; s. 9, ch. 87-289; s. 28, ch. 98-403. 1Note.--Section 1, ch. 92-37, provides that "[n]otwithstanding the provisions of chapter 39, Florida Statutes, to the contrary, the attorneys whose compensation was provided in the November 1989 Supplemental Appropriations Act and is continued in subsequent general appropriations acts shall provide legal representation in cases arising under sections 39.40-39.474, Florida Statutes." Provisions within chapter 39 were transferred to other locations by ch. 97-238 and ch. 98-403. Some of the material within the cited range can be found at parts VI, VII, and IX of ch. 39, as redesignated by ch. 98-403, and ch. 984, as redesignated by ch. 97-238. Note. --Former ss. 39.415, 39.474. AFF. OCT %1 1 91T 8. PROPERTY APPRAISER - DEMONSTRATION OF TAX MAPS ON CD-ROM The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 4, 1998: September 22, 1998 24 5I WE ARE HERE TO SERVE YOUI 1640 25TH STREET VERO BEACH. FL 32960 (561)567-8000x469 SUN -Coni 224-1489 FAX (561) 770-5087 email: pmbmwn@iu net INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ASSESSING OFFICERS FLORIDA CHAPTER IAAO HONORARY MEMBER TENNESSEE CHAPTER IAAO LAAO MEMBER OF THE YEAR 1989 AMERICAN SOCIETY OF APPRAISERS PROFESSIONAL APPRAISERS ASSOCIATION OF FLORIDA FLORIDA ASSOCIATION OF PROPERTY APPRAISERS • David C. Nolte, ASA INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROPERTY APPRAISER Date: 4 September 1998 i To: James Chandler, County Administrator From: Patricia M. Brown Subject: Request for Agenda Time The Property Appraiser's Office has published all of the tax maps on CD-ROM. The maps may be viewed and printed using a web browers and Acrobat Reader, which is available free on the Internet. We would like to give a 15 minute demonstration of this disk to the County Commissioners at their meeting on September D$, 1998. Please let me know. You can reach me at ext. 489. 27- This 2 This product is available to the public for $50. We are providing one free copy to any government agency and county department that requests one; we are charging $50 for additional copies. We will be refreshing the data quarterly. Users may purchase updated disks as they need them. Vetrol Data has developed a system on their web page that queries data from the property Appraiser's Office, allowing web -users to look up property information by parcel number, site address, and property owner. Our office provides updated information monthly. Also, our office is working with Community Development to publish zoning maps from the GIS. These should be available by the end of September. The most recent Future Land Use map is now computer-generated on the GIS and for sale through our office. We expect to continue working with Community Development to publish these maps and perhaps related information on CD-ROM. This publication format offers many advantages to the County. The same information is provided in a more flexible format at a lower cost. More people can take this information back to their office, thereby reducing traffic to the Property Appraiser's Office. These products are received as an increase in service, but over time they can be expected to reduce parking, personnel, space and equipment requirements for public access. To the extent that County personnel use these products, we can anticipate savings in staff time since people won't have to leave their offices to obtain the information. September 22, 1998 25 BOOK 107 PAGE 92 BOOK 10 ! FACE 03 Pat Brown presented a comprehensive narrative concerning the tax maps on CD- ROM. She demonstrated the ease of locating properties using the CD-ROM. She advised of the $50 cost for the maps on CD-ROM as compared to hard copy ($2,000 - which takes 15 manned hours to print). The information is also available on the Internet. Ms. Brown stated that this accomplishment has taken years, but they expect to be able to move forward more quickly now. She advised of the goals the Property Appraiser's Office which will enable them to interact with other County departments in the future. Commissioners indicated their amazement and appreciation for the demonstration and information. 9.A.1. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-022 - REZONING APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US#1 AND 87TH STREET - JAMES W. McCORMICK AND OTHERS (BURGER KING) PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Bleach, Iridian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority ply appeared Darryl K. Hicks who an oath says that he is President of the Press%lournal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach trh khdian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement being a in the matter of l —� In the q &9.? Court, was pu b- assthed in 9M newspaper in the issues a 1 /7 �P her says that the said Press -Journal Is a River County, Florida, and that the xbWed In said Indian River County, Fla mal matter at the post office in Vero Be of are year nrext preceding the fit k and affiant tu= says that he has no I arty olscaaht rebate, oarePossion or i t for publhretion In said newspaper. * ' -� jAIWp'I01Bi,2001 z CUL IO. Ecill 7 aper published at Vero Beach, In �vs�p� has theretofore lasers ah dally end toes been entered as said Indian Rives Courhty, Florida, etion of the attached copy of ub nor prornised any person, firm for the purpose of searing this before me this k.�__ day D.19 I A. t My Ca unission Exp. 49n. 01, 2001 Comm. No. CC 811 pe-sonaby wawn of prod" ro e Toe of ID Produced -.W ..,..ru....ft September 22, 1998 F sic Fla of Ian pa Thu Janes W. McCormick and athers.' A public heating at which parties in irderesf and .dfi m - shall ham an opportunity to be head, will be' held on Tuesday. September 22, 1998 0 US Gars. in the. County, Commission Chambers of••4h*, County Administration. Bull l tg„ located at 1840 2" chest .Ven Beach; Florida. The proposed ardl- hahce to mum the subject prop. M11 . . ` aRDINANC _ .E`OF1RMN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING- THE -]ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM- PANYING, CCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR +- 0.94 ACRES LOCATED AT THE. SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 87th STREET, FROM CL, LIM, ITED COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, TO CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL DISTRICT; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Thr razonhg application • may, be-impeced• by the, public at #r; Community Development • Depart-, mart luted on the second floor of, the County Administration Building located at 184-251h Street, Vero Beach, Florida between the lours of 8=30 cm. and 5:W pun. week- days. • For more hdormadc% con- tact John Wachtel of .x$61)-567- 8000, odensln 247.. The proposed ordinance may be Inspected .by the public between 8:30 a.m. and 5:00 pm. at the office of the Clerk to. the Board of County Commissioners, 1840 25th Street, Vero Baoeh, Florida The Board of County Commis- aioarrrs may adopt another zoning district, other than the . district requested, provided : that. the ing adopted zondistrictis consis- tentpthe county's eomprshen- lam 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 node, which ,Includes the festima y- and evi- dence upon which the appeal is based. • • - . P'. Anyone who needs a special accommodaNar for , this meeting neat mftd the co rVs Ameri- .'Caruar8h . �.,•_� . Disabilities (ADA) Coordhotor of i (561) 5678000, adansion 223, at i least 48 lours In advance of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners Bye-s-Jcm W. Tipple•, Chairman Sepal. 9,1 'I 443520r 0 Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of September 3, 1998 using a location map projected on the ELMO: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE Robert M. Keating, CP Community Develop er rector THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICPa L- ChieA Long -Range /Planning FROM: John Wachtel. Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: September 3, 1998 RE: JAMES W. MCCORMICK AND OTHERS' REQUEST TO REZONE APPROXIMATELY .94 ACRES FROM CL TO CG (RZON 98-05-0051) It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. This is a request to rezone approximately .94 acres from the CL, Limited Commercial, District to the CG, General Commercial, District. The subject property is located at the southeast corner of US 1 and 87h Street. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to permit a restaurant with a drive-through on the subject property. On August 27, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property to CG. This area of the county has a mixed land use pattern. The subject property and properties to the north, south, and east are within the CL, Limited Commercial, Zoning District. The Cumberland Farms convenience store at the northwest comer of US 1 and 87"' Street is also zoned CL. The subject property is vacant and has been cleared except for several pahn trees. Fran's Market is located to the north of the subject property, across 87' Street. A single-family home exists on property abutting Fran's Market on the east. The subject property is bounded on the east by the right-of-way for 48d Avenue, an undeveloped local road. Like the subject property, land east of 48'" Avenue consists of a vacant field with several trees and is zoned CL. A small wooded area borders the subject property on the south. Land to the west of the subject property, across US 1, is within the CG, General Commercial, Zoning District, and contains a vacant gas station. South of that gas station is a single-family house. The subject property and all surrounding properties are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the future land use map. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. September 22, 1998 27 BOOK i0_7 PAGE 9 BOOK i0-1' PAGE 95 1 The subject property is not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property does not contain any flood hazard areas. The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater lines extend to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. - The site is bounded on the west by US 1. Classified as a rural principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of US 1 is a four -lane paved road with approximately 106 feet of public road right-of-way. No expansion of this portion of US 1 is currently programmed. The site is bounded on the north by 87' Street (Bridge Boulevard), a two-lane paved local road with approximately 60 feet of public road right-of-way. The eastern boundary of the subject property is the 48" Avenue (Oleander Avenue) right-of-way. Although its public road right-of-way is 50 feet wide, this portion of 48`h Avenue has not been constructed. There are many similarities and some differences between the existing CL zoning district and the proposed CG district. The CL district is intended to serve, and be more compatible with, nearby residential development. Therefore, in terms of permitted uses, the CL district is generally more restrictive. In contrast, the CG district allows somewhat more intense commercial development. The differences between the districts are best illustrated by their purpose statements. These purpose statements are as follows: • CL, Limited Commercial District. The CL, limited commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of restricted commercial activities. The CL district is intended to accommodate the convenience retail and service needs of area residents, while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas. • CG, General Commercial District. The CG, general commercial district, is intended to provide areas for the development of general retail sales and selected service activities. The CG district is not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities, such as commercial service uses, heavy repair services nor industrial uses. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include: • an analysis of the request's impact on public facilities; • an analysis of the request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • an analysis of the request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • an analysis of the request's 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. The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The comprehensive plan also requires that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained. September 22, 1998 0 28 C� 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 rezoning requests, conditional concurrency review is required. Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since rezoning requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested zoning district. For commercial rezoning 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 rezoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±.94 acres 2. Land Use Designation: CA, Commercial/Industrial 3. Existing Zoning District: CL, Limited Commercial 4. Proposed Zoning District: CG, General Commercial 5. Most Intense Use Under Existing Zoning District: ±9,400 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6th Edition ITE Manual) 6. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District: ±9,400 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 6`h Edition ITE Manual) As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested zoning would not increase the use intensity of the site. By changing the zoning ofthe subject property from CL to CG, some commercial uses not currently allowed would be permitted on the site. However, because the most intense use of the property would be the same with either zoning district, changing the property's zoning from CL to CG would not create additional impacts on any concurrency facilities. In this case, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand. Generally, sites such as the subject property that front on major roads may be appropriate for any one of several different commercial zoning districts, including CL and CG. In fact, this area of the county already reflects that type of mixed zoning. Staff's position is that both the CL and the CG zoning districts are appropriate for land along US 1 in the US 1/CR 510 (north) commercial/industrial node. Applying either of those zoning districts to the subject property would result in development compatible with surrounding property. In terms of permitted uses, the CL and CG zoning districts are similar. Both districts generally allow retail, restaurant, and office uses. Because the CL district is intended to be more compatible with residential areas, it is more restrictive. Therefore, each use permitted in the CL district is also permitted in the CG district. In contrast, the CG district allows some land uses such as general automotive repair, car dealers, and drive through restaurants that are considered too intense for the CL district. Development of the subject property with such uses, however, would be compatible with surrounding areas. That is because the subject property is surrounded by commercial areas, and therefore does not abut any residential uses or zoning districts. For that reason, compatibility is not a major concern for the subject property. Additionally, the subject property is subject to the provisions of the Wabasso Corridor Plan. That plan includes special standards for signs, roofs, building colors, buffers, and landscaping. For those reasons, development of the site under the requested CG district would be compatible with surrounding areas. September 22, 1998 29 • BOOK 107 PAGE Z r BOOK x.0.7 PAGE 97 Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities. Commercial and industrial land uses are located in nodes throughout the unincorporated areas of Indian River County. 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 rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16. • Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16 states that the commercial/industrial land use designation shall permit uses that include retail and wholesale trade, office uses, business and personal services, and other similar uses. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that all commercial/industrial uses must be located within the county's urban service area. Since the subject property is located within the county's urban service area, and the requested CG district is intended for uses permitted within the commercial/industrial land use designation, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16. While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other comprehensive plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan. Environmental protection regulations are the same for both the CL and the CG zoning districts. Because the subject property is not environmentally significant or environmentally important, development of the site will not impact significant natural resources. The requested zoning is compatible with -the surrounding area, and is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezoning the site, as requested, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality or the provision of public facilities and services. The subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for general commercial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For those reasons, staff supports the request. Based on the analysis, staff and the Planning acid Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from CL to CG. 1. Rezoning Application 2. Location Map 3. Unapproved minutes of the August 27, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting 4. Rezoning Ordinance September 22, 1998 30 i GO`T. LOT ? "a GO\ LOT 4 C R V P I:ESSUD Rk4 JA TRACI .W!2 :'-3�-3. GO\-. LOT 03CL = ` RM -6 Subject Property �a=� Q 0 3s t 06 ■ Irl KTP Pins W NA 6 SUB ■ ;PWI aVD; jp-- ■ a■. ■ GO\-. LOT C ' �' �� w ■ Et;RExA SiA i E5 PIS - CG cc ■ 3 5 - e /OUR 01 ASSESSED 3 3*3■ 857H ST n, - — CH September 22, 1998 31 BOOK 101' FACE 018 L `BOOK 10r/ PAGE ` 9 Commissioner Ginn asked if traffic impact (of a drive-in restaurant) had been taken into consideration, and Director Keating assured her that it had been. Vice Chairman Macht asked if the location would be subject to the Wabasso Corridor requirements, and Director Keating replied in the affirmative adding that the applicant has met all the criteria. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-022 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the Accompanying Zoning Map from CL to CG for property located at the southeast comer of US 1 and 87' Street. (McCormick, et al - Burger King) ORDINANCE NO. 98- 2 2 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM CL TO CG, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF US 1 AND 871*H STREET, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: September 22, 1998 32 ORDINANCE NO. 98- 2 2 AL OF TRACT "A', WEONA PARK, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 5, PAGE 26, PUBLIC RECORDS OF ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID LANDS NOW LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; LESS THE SOUTH 130.48 FEET THEREOF, AND LESS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF STATE ROAD 5. Be changed from CL to CG. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. This ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 22nd day of September, 1998. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 9' day of September, 1998 for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of September, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner M a c h t , seconded by Commissioner G i nn , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht Aye— Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY: /7 john W. Tip W, - airman ATTEST BY: ffrey K. Bar }�n rk This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the following date: 9-28-98 ! MM Ca I Agdroved Date u\v\j\rz\mccormic\rzonord.ord Budget September 22, 1998 °eOL Risk M gr. 33 BOOK 10 1 PAGE.ILOU BOOK PAGE, 9.A.2. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-023 AND 98-024 - AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING f2.1 ACRES - SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE - (SCOTT PERRY PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersignied authority personally appeared Darryl K oath says that he Presof ifnePreas,louururl nevvspaperpurbtisfhed at Vero Beawho d in Indiert River County, Florida; that the attached copy of fit, be4tg a-ilrfl d in the 4 Carat, was per. Banat in said newspaper in the Issues of d Afliatht further says that the said Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at Vero Beach. -in said Indian River � dy published innssaid Inure Rher County, Florida Florida. and that the said ne and nae been entereheretofore d secxmni class mall matter at the post office in Vero Beach, In said Indian River County, Florida, fora period of one year next praoeding the first pubRcetlon of the attached copy of �t and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount rebate. commission or refund for the purpose of seal" this advertisement for publication In said newspaper. L ••r�jZ`to i tb�fbed before me tfft day 1A �a •• * : Mf (tWiKSNN E11fitE5 : " UNOAtt 01,1001 lip) COMM. No. ([6110/3 c RHONDA STAN p4 `� Notary Public, State of Florida C, STAB : MY Commission . Jan. 01, 2001 -''""••••"'"• Comm. No. CC 811 Personaly Known ti or Produced ID Q Type of ID Produced .-__� September 22, 1998 0 34 .' NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING l . The Board of Courcy Comua&-j stoners of Indian River County, I Florida, will consider the adoption of a county ordinance rezoning. land, within the unincorporated portiem of Indian River County. The subject property Is owned by Scoff Perry. A public Waring at which parties in Entered and udti- zem shall have an opportunity to be beard, will be held an Tuesday, Septanber 22, Mill at 9:05 am In the County Commission Oann- bers of the County Administration Buildhg, located 'at 1840 251b Strew, Vero BwdR, Florida At this publk'Faaricq He 8oard�oF Courcy" Commissioners will mane a final decision whether to rezone do sub. 1W pop". The Proposed ardt- : s the -; t AN ORDINANCE- OF INDIAN; RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM- PANYING ZONING MAP FOR +- 2.10 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE, FROM RM -10, MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (UP TO 10 UNITS/ACRE) TO CG, GENERAL COMMERCIAL, AND PROVID- ING CODIFICATION, SEVERA 116 ITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. ` The rezoning application may be Mspeded by the public at the Community Development Depart- ment heated an the:ecard Baer of the County Administration Building 1 located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida between the hour Of 8M am and 5:00 pm week- days. For more irdormation, coo- fort - Peter Radke at 567.8000, ehdension 243. The proposed ordinance my be Inspected by the public between 8:30 am and 5:00 ,pm at the Office of the [ark to the Board of Canty Commissioners, 1840 25th Strew, Vero Beach, Florida. The Board of County Commis. i :loners may adopt another zoning district, other chant to dbfrid requested, provided'*W the adopted zmft disfrid Is corals few with the courWs camrprelen sive plan. Anyone—who may wish to appeal any decision which may be l it ate al Pus mewing will nod to ensue that a verbatim record of fisc%praasdhW h • moria,- wMah Includes -As. Isithnony `ad , eri_ dance upon'whlch :fhe WpW Is C. Myon who .reeds a, special gaomeadatian for this sewing lmw caftod On =wilts° Amerl- ,.mm with . Disabilities (ADA) CoardUwlar of (W) W40W, ezbmiah 223,14 'Isad 48 lours in advomc01+0 On mewing. } . . ;hhdiai Rhar,C,ohiNy dam;;.. Band of e i -%rip CorwAssloom . . Bye-s-Jolm w. Tippinn, Chairman. _ S�pk9�_1998. ss A-49501 - 0 • P.O. Box 1268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 Prey 31""ournai� COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personallyappeared Flicks who on oath says that he is President oth-Jo�l $ dailyidn; that wspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Flor A Display ad measuring 20 col. inches at $10.62 per col, inch billed +r I . Planning Department was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of , Monday, September 14th, 1998 on page 10 A Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th any of September 1998 A D <•�pN�A.STq� . President o Mt[OIWTSlpIOUItfS E * L 14I0119I1, 2M1 RHONDA STANCE , COA L I0. [[611099 7 Pubdc, State of P10rlde My Commbsion EXP. Jan. 01, 2001 s3 •, :woe: ........ �� CWW. No. CC 611093,-- 1101#3/......... Parana 4 Known Cror Produced lD O �. STAB .r Type of ID Produced September 22, 1998 35 8001( WPAGE,i IL BOOK 107 PAGE NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS CA SUM s • L-1 rim ., L-2 OS2Cz;C CA\. The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider two proposals to amend its Comprehensive Plan and to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, September 22, 1998 at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision whether to amend the county's Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are included in the proposed ordinances entitled: 1. , _ AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±2.10 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE, FORM M-2, MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -2 (UP TO 10 UNITS/ACRE) TO C/I, COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVER- ABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE; AND 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±7.07 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET, BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND U.S. 1, FROM L-2, LOW RESIDENTIAL -2 (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE) TO C/I, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the. approval. of these proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendments. The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the Community Development Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building located at 1840 .25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:36 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For more information, contact Peter Radke at 567-8000, extension 243. The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public between 8:30 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. 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 is based Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Indian River. County Board of County Commissioners 19574 IP By: -s- John W. Tippin, Chairman September 22, 1998 36 Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of September 3, 1998 using the Zoning Map projected on the ELMO: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE obert M. Keating,CP THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP .S' .5 _ Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Peter -J. Radke Economic Development Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: September 3, 1998 RE: Scott Perry's Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 2.1 acres from M-2 to C/I and to Rezone that 2.1 acres from RM -10 to CG. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 98-01-0177 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 2. 10 acres. The subject property is located at the southeast comer of 45`' Street and 24h Avenue, and continues south along 24" Avenue for approximately 500 feet. The request involves changing the land use designation from M-2, Medium- Density Residential - 2 (up to 10 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial, and rezoning th_e property from RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre), to CG, General Commercial, Zoning District. On March 26, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment and rezoning. On April 28, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation amendment and zoning district amendment. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated August 5, 1998), which planning staff received on August 7, 1998. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 7) contained four objections to this proposed amendment. Those objections are listed below. September 22, 1998 37 am 107 FADE .1.04 BOOKFAGS.L A. Density/Intensity Standards. The proposed future land use designation of Commercial/Industrial lacks density or intensity standards. Development standards for this land use designation have not been established within the County's Comprehensive Plan. Provision of development standards in local government land development regulations is not sufficient to satisfy the statutory and rule requirements regarding density and intensity standards. [Sections 163.3177(6)(a),163.3177(8), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Rules 9J5-.005(2), 9J -5.006(1)(c), 9J -5.006(3)(c)1. and 7., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).] B. Public Facilities Analysis. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation the analysis of the availability of public facilities, including transportation, sewer and water, solid waste, and stormwater drainage facilities, is inadequate. [Sections 163.3177(3)(a)3., 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(8), F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J -5.006(2)(a), 9J-3.006(3)(b)l., 9J -5.006(3)(c)3., F.A.C.] C. Data and Analysis. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation, the proposed amendment is not supported by data and analysis appropriate to the Future Land Use Element. [Sections 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(8), F.S. Rules 9L-5.005(2), 9J -5.006(1)(c), 9J-5.006(2)(c)l., F.A.C.] D. Internal Consistency. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation, and the consequent inadequacy of the public facilities analysis, the proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the following: Future Land Use Element Policy 2.4 (public facility capacities and intensity of future land use designations), Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Objective 1 (sanitary sewer concurrency), Potable Water Sub -Element Objective 1 (potable water concurrency), Solid Waste Sub -Element Objective 1 (solid waste concurrency), Transportation Element Objective 1 (transportation capacity), and Capital Improvements Element Objective 3 (Concurrency Management System). [Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(x), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(8), 163.3180, F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005, 9J-5.0055(1), 9J -5.006(3)(b)1. and 9., 9J -5.006(3)(c)3, 9J -5.011(2)(b)2., 9J -5.016(3)(b)3. and 5., 9J -5.019(4)(b)2., F.A.C.] All four of these objections relate to one issue; that issue is the Comprehensive Plan's lack of density/intensity standards for commercial/mdustrial areas. This is the same objection raised by the DCA during its recent review of the Horizon Outlet Mall Comprehensive Plan amendment. As with the DCA's Horizon objection, this objection does not relate to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, itself. Rather, it relates to the county's adopted plan. The analysis section of this staff report contains a response to the DCA's objections. Currently, the subject property is vacant land. To the west of the subject property, across the 24' Avenue right-of-way, are single-family homes, which are zoned RM -10, Multiple -Family Residential (up to 10 units/acre). To the south of the subject property is vacant land, which is zoned RM -10. Further to the south are neighborhood grocery stores, which are in a CL, Limited Commercial, zoning district. To the east of the subject property, across the railway tracks and Old Dixie Highway, are agricultural packing houses, which are in a CH, Heavy Commercial, zoning district. To the north of the subject property, across 45" Street is a gas station and convenience store, which are in a CG, General Commercial, zoning district. The subject property and properties to the west and south are designated M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The M-2 designation permits residential densities September 22, 1998 38 • up to 10 units/acre. Properties to the east and north of the subject property are designated C/I, a designation that permits commercial and industrial zoning districts. 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. The subject property is not within a 100 -year floodplain. The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Centralized potable water service is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater service is available to the site from the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant. Abutting the subject area on the north is 45`h Street. Classified as an urban collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 45`h Street is a two-lane road with approximately 30 feet of public road right-of-way. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of 45`h Street that abuts the subject area. The site is bounded on the west by 24`h Avenue right-of-way. While platted as a local road, 241h Avenue is unimproved, and there are no plans to improve the roadway. Along the east boundary of the subject property is the Florida East Coast (FEC) railway line. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented. Specifically, this analysis will address: • the DCA's ORC Report objections; • concurrency of public facilities; • consistency with the county's Comprehensive Plan; • compatibility with the surrounding area; and • potential impact on environmental quality. All four of the DCA's ORC Report objections are related, and therefore will be addressed together. Specifically, objections A, B, C, and D all relate to the fact that the county's Comprehensive Plan does not contain land use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Although the county's Comprehensive Plan limits residential development intensity, it does not directly limit the intensity of development for areas designated as commercial/industrial. Like most local governments, Indian River County uses density, usually reported in units/acre, as its measure of residential land use intensity. For measuring non-residential land use intensity, however, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the generally accepted standard. FAR is a measure of non-residential land use intensity expressed as the ratio of building floor space on a parcel to total parcel area. For example, a 10,000 square foot building on a 1 acre parcel has a.23 FAR (10,000/43,560 =.23). In such a case, a 5,000 square foot second story would increase the FAR to .34 (15,000/43,560 = .34). Just as density limits are usually incorporated in comprehensive plans or zoning district regulations to control residential development intensity, FAR's are often established to control non-residential September 22, 1998 39 • BOOK lg B0(11( 10 1' Pili development intensity. Although the county does not currently have an established FAR in its Comprehensive Plan, non-residential land use intensity is controlled in other ways. Through its land development regulations, the county has established standards for minimum open space, maximum building coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking, as well as setback and stormwater requirements. Together, these standards effectively limit non-residential development intensity. Because Objection A does not apply specifically to the proposed amendment, the appropriateness of that objection within an ORC Report for the proposed amendment is questionable. A clearly more appropriate opportunity to raise that objection would have been during the recently completed evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) of the entire Comprehensive Plan or subsequent EAR based amendments. Nevertheless, the county has already taken actions to address the DCA's objections. Recently, the DCA raised similar objections in regard to Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 98-D1. In response to those objections, the Board of County Commissioners instructed planning staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan text amendment during the July 1998 amendment submittal window. That county initiated amendment will establish land use intensity standards for the C/I land use designation. In a letter to Ray Eubanks, dated June 4, 1998, the DCA was informed of that action; therefore, the DCA should not have found it necessary to raise the same objections again for Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 98-2. During the July 1998 Comprehensive Plan amendment application submittal window, a county initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment was submitted. On October 8, 1998, a public hearing on that text amendment will be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following a transmittal public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, expected to be held three to five weeks after the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, the Comprehensive Plan text amendment, which will establish land use intensity standards for the C/I land use designation, will be forwarded to the DCA for its review. That should then resolve the DCA's specific commercial/industrial density/intensity standard objection. Since objections A, B, C, and D relate to the same issue, the actions taken by the county to resolve DCA's objection A will also resolve the DCA's objections B, C, and D. With specific commercial/industrial density/intensity standards, the most intensive level of development allowed for the C/I land use designation will be defined and then applied to the public facilities analysis of future staff reports. Applying those density/intensity standards to the public facilities analysis will enable staff to correctly analyze the availability of public facilities for proposed amendments, to support proposed amendments with adequate data and analysis, and to ensure that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the county's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the actions which the county is taking to resolve the density/intensity standard objection will adequately resolve DCA's objections relating to the analysis of public facilities, provision of data and analysis, and demonstration of internal consistency. Based on the analysis and the fact that the county has initiated a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to set density/intensity standards for the C/I land use designation, it is staffs position that this report addresses DCA's ORC Report objections and provides justification for the DCA to find the proposed amendment "in compliance" with state law. This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. 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 September 22, 1998 0 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 Element. 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 commercial/industrial Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, the most intense use (according to the county's Land Development Regulations) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre of land proposed for redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows: 1. Size of Area to be Redesignated: 2. Existing Land Use Designation: 3. Proposed Land Use Designation: 4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Current Land Use Designation: 5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 0. Transportation f2.1 acres M-29 Medium -Density Residential - 2 (up to 10 units/acre) C/1, Commercial/Industrial 21 Single -Family Units 21,000 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5`h 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 45`h Street and other impacted roads would not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is shown in table 1. Table 1: Site Information Existing Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Designation 1. Land Use Identified in Yh Edition ITE Manuel Single -Family Retail Shopping Center a. Average Weekday Trip Ends 10.1/unit 119/1,000 sq. ft. b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends 1.01/unit 10.87/1,000 sq. ft. C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 65% 48% i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 50% 50% ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 50% 50% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 35% 52% i. Westbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 52% 50% ii. Eastbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 48% 50% 3. Peak Direction of 45te Street from Old Dixie Highway to 43 rd Avenue. Westbound Westbound September 22, 1998 41 The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation is 212. This was determined by multiplying the 21 units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation is 2,498. This was determined by multiplying the 21,000 square feet of shopping center use (most.intense use) by ITE's shopping center fitted curve factor of 119 Average Daily Trip Ends/1,000 square feet. Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways. According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 45`h Street is westbound. Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation was calculated to be 7. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (21) under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% will be inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 50% or 7 will be westbound. To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed amendment (21,000) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 10.87 p.m. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips generated (228). Of these trips, 49% or 110 trips are new trips, which are due to the proposed land use designation. From the new trips, 48% (53) will be inbound and 52% (57) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 65% or 34 trips will originate from the east of the subject property. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 27 (34 - 7 = 27) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 7 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 September 22, 1998 42 Existing Land Use Proposed Land Use Designation Designation 4. Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips 6.89 34 Generated: 5. Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: 212.1 2,498 6. Traffic Capacity on This Segment of 45' Street, at a 760 peak hour/peak I 760 peak houripeak LOS "D" season/peak direction season/peak direction trips trips 7. Total Segment Demand (Existing Volume+ Vested 352 peak/hour/peak 352 peak/hour/peak Volume) on This Segment of 45`s Street season/peak direction seasonipeak direction trips 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 212. This was determined by multiplying the 21 units (most intense use) by ITE's single-family residential factor of 10.1 Average Daily Trip Ends/unit. The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation is 2,498. This was determined by multiplying the 21,000 square feet of shopping center use (most.intense use) by ITE's shopping center fitted curve factor of 119 Average Daily Trip Ends/1,000 square feet. Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation concurrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways. According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on 45`h Street is westbound. Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the existing land use designation was calculated to be 7. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (21) under the existing land use designation by ITE's factor of 1.01 p.m. peak hour trips/unit, to determine the total number of trips generated. Of these trips, 65% will be inbound and 35% will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 50% or 7 will be westbound. To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation, the total square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed amendment (21,000) was multiplied by ITE's factor of 10.87 p.m. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips generated (228). Of these trips, 49% or 110 trips are new trips, which are due to the proposed land use designation. From the new trips, 48% (53) will be inbound and 52% (57) will be outbound. Of the inbound trips, 65% or 34 trips will originate from the east of the subject property. Therefore, the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed land use designation would generate 27 (34 - 7 = 27) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 7 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 September 22, 1998 42 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 45" Street adjacent to this site is 760 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 45" Street is 352 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 34 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 45`h Street to approximately 386. Based on the above analysis, staff determined that 45`h Street and all other impacted roads can accommodate the additional trips without decreasing their existing levels of service. As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). The county's Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved that TIA. Information from the applicant's TIA is displayed in table 2. This table 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) Link Road From To Segment Capacity LOS "D" Existing Demand Total Segment Demand Available Segment Capacity Project Demand Positive Concurrency Deter - mination Existing Volume Vested Volume 1365N U.S. 1 410 St 451° St 2,650 1,011 80 11091 1,559 7 Y 1365S U.S. 1 410 St 451° St 2,650 785 78 863 1,787 7 Y 1370N U.S. 1 451° St 49t0 St 2,650 948 102 1,050 1,600 2 Y 13705 U.S. 1 45th St 49th St 2,650 730 123 853 1,797 2 Y 2345N Old Dixie Hwy 410 St 4511 St 880 189 28 217 663 2 Y 2345S Old Dixie Hwy 410 St 45th St 880 200 30 230 650 3 Y 2350N Old Dixie Hwy 45i° St 49f0 St 880 44 30 74 806 2 Y 2350S Old Dixie Hwy 45th St 49f0 St 880 49 31 80 800 1 Y 294ON 43"' Ave 26'h St 410 St 880 305 40 345 535 4 Y 2940S 43a° Ave 26`h St 410 St 880 338 45 383 497 7 Y 2945N 430° Ave 410 St 451h St 760 192 25 217 543 11 Y 2945S 43°' Ave 410 St 4510 St 760 167 27 194 566 17 Y 2950N 43"' Ave 45th St 49th St 760 87 16 103 657 6 Y 2950S 43'" Ave 451° St 49t0 St 760 60 21 81 679 4 Y 3035N 58th Ave 410 St 451h St 760 337 65 402 358 5 Y 3040S 581° Ave 45'° St 49t0 St 760 261 59 320 440 4 Y 4330E 451° St 58'° Ave 43id Ave 760 179 34 213 547 9 Y September 22, 1998 43 BOOK 107 PAGE 110 BOOK 107 PACE ill � Water A retail commercial use of 21,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 6.3 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,575 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 1,518,338 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 6.3 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,575 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 364,233 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. ► Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 21,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 105 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 21,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 175 cubic yards of waste/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of 840,214 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. September 22, 1998 44 Existing Demand Positive Segment Total Available Concurrency Link Road From To Capacity "D" Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Deter - LOS Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand mination 4330W 4511 St 58" Ave 430 Ave 760 151 28 179 581 5 Y Old Dixie 4340E 450 St 43'° Ave Hwy 760 280 76 356 404 28 Y Old Dixie 434OW 454 St 43'Ave Hwy 1 760 281 71 352 408 34 Y Old Dixie 4350E 451° St. Hwy IR Blvd 880 - 214 36 250 630 10 Y Old Dixie 4350W 45i° St. Hwy IR Blvd 880 199 31 230 650 10 Y 4430E 41" St 5811 Ave 43"' Ave 880 105 58 163 717 3 Y 4430W 41" St 5811 Ave 43' Ave 880 134 57 191 689 3 Y Old Dixie .1440E 41" St 430 Ave Hwy 880 188 40 228 652 7 Y Old DixieL 444OW 41" St 43' Ave Hwy 880 170 40 210 6704 - - Y Water A retail commercial use of 21,000 square feet on the subject property will have a water consumption rate of 6.3 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,575 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 1,518,338 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 6.3 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,575 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 364,233 gallons/day and can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. ► Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 21,000 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 105 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 21,000 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 175 cubic yards of waste/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of 840,214 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. September 22, 1998 44 0 D. 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 site is located within the R-4 Drainage Basin. 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 36,590 square feet, or 0.84 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm would be approximately 49,169 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level -of -service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 19,225 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject property, the estimated pre -development runoff rate is 6.69 cubic feet/second. Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level -of -service standards will be met by requiring retention of the 19,225 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 upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, wastewater, and water 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. 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: Future Land Use Policy 14.3 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 14.3. This policy requires that one of four 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; a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or September 22, 1998 45 • BOOK107 PAGE i r, BOOK 1017 PACE 113 a swap or a reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites. Staff's position is that this land use amendment request does meet the first and second criteria of policy 14.3. When the Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned a medium - density residential land use designation to the subject property. This was an oversight of that plan. At the time of plan adoption, the subject area was part of Hillcrest Subdivision, and the property was platted into five separate lots along 24`h Avenue. Being part of that residential subdivision, it was anticipated that the land would be developed for residential uses. To date, 24`h Avenue has not been constructed and the subject area remains vacant of residential uses. The proximity of the FEC railway as well as the agricultural packing houses, which are in a CH, Heavy Commercial, zoning district, have precluded residential development of the subject area. Throughout the county, much of the land adjacent to the FEC railway has a commercial/industrial land use designation. The sound and vibration of a train in motion are less intrusive on commercial or industrial uses than on residential uses. In some cases, commercial/industrial uses can even act as a buffer between residential uses and the railway. Therefore, staff s position is that the residential designation of the subject property was also a mistake of the 1990 plan. Based on the aforementioned facts, this request meets both the first and second criteria of policy 14.3 Future Land Use Policy 1.15 This policy defines the areas that are suitable for a commercial/industrial land use designation. Suitable areas must be within the urban service area and near existing urban centers. The subject property meets these criteria because it is within the urban service area and is near an existing urban center. The subject property is in Gifford, an urban area that could be serviced by various commercial/industrial uses that might locate on the subject property. Future Land Use Policy 1.18 Policy 1.18 requires that commercial/industrial nodes be located along roads with functional classifications appropriate to the level of activity. Being bordered on the north by 45" Street, an urban collector roadway, the site will have adequate access for any commercial/industrial uses that may locate on the subject property. Future Land Use Policy 1.22 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a C/I node should be developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. This policy also defines the criteria necessary to be able to expand a C/I node when less than 70% of the node is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non- residential and non-agricultural development. One such criterion allows expansion of a node if the expansion is necessary to accommodate a substantial change in circumstances affecting a property adjacent to the node, where said change has had the effect of making the property unsuitable for residential use. According to the County's Commercial/Industrial Data Source, the U.S. 1 C/I node, from 38`h Lane to 49`h Street, which is adjacent to*the subject property, is ±43.5% developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses. For this node to expand, one of the exemption criteria of Future Land Use Policy 1.22 must be met. Originally platted in 1952 as part of Hillcrest Subdivision, the subject property was intended for residential development. In 1952, the subject property was surrounded by vacant land. Since that time, a substantial change in circumstances has occurred affecting the subject property. Agricultural September 22, 1998 46 packing houses have been built on land to the east of the subject property. In fact, the area surrounding the intersection of 45`h Street and Old Dixie Highway has developed into a hub for agricultural packing houses. This change in circumstances, which has had the effect of making the subject property unsuitable for residential development, was an oversight and a mistake of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, an expansion of the U.S. 1 C/I node is warranted, since the expansion will enable the subject property to be correctly designated for non-residential uses. Future Land Use Objective 4 Redesignating the subject property to a commercial/industrial land use may reduce the length of daily automobile trips on county roadways. A reduction in trip length is the purpose of objective 4 of the Future Land Use Element. A commercial/industrial use on the subject property may eliminate the need for residents to travel to a similar use that is located further from their home. This will reduce the length of daily automobile trips generated by those residents and in turn will contribute to attaining objective 4 of the Future Land Use Element. 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 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staffs position is that a commercial/industrial land use designation and CG, General Commercial, zoning are appropriate for the site and that such development would be compatible with surrounding land uses. Since properties to the north and east of the subject property have the same land use designation as is being requested for the subject property, the request is for a continuation of an existing land use designation pattern. With the FEC railway bordering the subject property along the east property line, the proposed amendment would eliminate potential incompatibilities associated with small residential lots being located adjacent to railroad tracks. Given that a train's sound and vibration are less intrusive on commercial or industrial uses than on residential uses, a commercial/industrial land use designation for the subject property would be more compatible with the FEC railway than the current residential land use designation. In certain circumstances, land that abuts railroad tracks can be designated for residential uses. Those circumstances usually occur only with large tracts of residentially designated land. Such large tracts have the necessary area to mitigate the effects of railroad tracks through various buffering and site design techniques. Small tracts such as the subject property, however, have insufficient area to do SO. A commercial/industrial land use designation and a CG zoning district designation for the subject property will also be compatible with the agricultural packing houses located on the east side of Old Dixie Highway. Besides acting as a buffer between the FEC railway and the existing residential uses, CG zoning will provide a suitable transitional zoning between the RM -10 (up to 10 units/acre) zoning district and the CH, Heavy Commercial, zoning district. While commercial development of the subject property may affect the existing residential uses to the west, such impacts will be minimal due to factors such as setback, buffering, and site design requirements. In addition, the 24`� Avenue right-of-way, which is approximately 30 feet, will act as a buffer between the existing residential uses and any future commercial uses. September 22, 1998 47 BOOK I PAGE. il BOOK `r. PAGE For these reasons, commercial development of the site would be compatible with surrounding areas and would result in a more consistent, efficient, and logical land use designation in that area of the county. Since the subject property 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. Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested land use designation and requested zoning district are compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and meet all applicable concurrency criteria. In addition, the analysis addresses the DCA's ORC Report objections. Finally, the subject property is located in an area deemed suitable for commercial/industrial uses and meets all applicable criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the site's land use designation and zoning district. Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions: approve the attached comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance redesignating the subject property to C/I; and approve the attached rezoning ordinance rezoning the subject property to CG. 1. Land Use Designation Amendment Application 2. Rezoning Application 3. Future Land Use Location Map 4. Zoning Location Map 5. Approved minutes of the March 26, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 6. Approved minutes of the April 28, 1998 Board of County Commissioners meeting 7. DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report 8. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance 9. Rezoning Ordinance September 22, 1998 48 zoo 0031 a III ®onMANO �'� Frim lril� �I'l(•11t'J M � KME!W HIM MMU �Mu XL11 • [1� � amE] NEW f�-LJI ®�! ®Iol M Wo �m lall■�' X11 IM ® IM-liT- pit • ��© �f11lEl � - - �� . � ;>� _u :�_•t}=fir► Cumi um c� • "" oo , QOM M- DEj m© O© U J J i • • • -• 41ST ST 1 • September 22, 1998 49 BOOK 107 PAGE . fl00K FAGS it The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-023 amending the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by changing the Land Use Designation for ±2.10 acres located at the southeast corner of 45'h Street and 24' Avenue from M-2 to C/I. (Scott Perry) ORDNANCE No. 98- 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±2.10 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 2e AVENUE, FROM M-2 TO C/I, AND PROVIDING SEVER,,kBILTTY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications during its January 1998 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests on March 26, 1998 after due public notice, and «THERE AS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and V6TIEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on April 28, 1998, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review, and comments, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this Plan Amendment, and September 22, 1998 50 0 is • ORDINANCE No. 98- 2 3 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on May 11, 1998, for the State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on August 7, 1998, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained four objections to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and WHEREAS, the support documents accompanying this Compr`lensive Plan Amendment have been revised to address those objections, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on September 22, 1998, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Cnm=hensiye pian Amendment Adotrtion and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comnrehe�ive Plan The land use designation of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida to %%it: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 21, PLAT NO.4 OF HILLCREST SUBDIVISION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 47, SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Is changed from M-2, Medium -Density Residential -2 (up to 10 units/acre) to CII. Commercial/Industrial and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly. • Ca. . •Mitr=• iIN .. All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. September 22, 1998 51 BOOK 10.7 f4f 118 ORDINANCE No. 98- 2 3 SECTION 4. Ceverability 600K 10, r Pn i It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTIOIvT 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this Plan Amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the Amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this Amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the A inifttion Com.missi^n, this Aura- dment may nevertdtelms be made cffective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 10 day of September, 1998 for a public hearing to be held on the 22' day of September, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin A y e Vice -Chairman Kenneth R Macht A y e Commissioner Fran B. Adams Aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY r BY:`�'' 1, a vhn W. Tipp hairman ATTEST BY: �__A_7 Jeffrarton,F-terk Acknowledgment * ent by the Department of State of the State of Florida this2 8,of Sept eml 98- Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this,s #ay Of October , 1998, at 8 : 3 0 A.M.I. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. Rn.r c► Approved Legal u.pe lwpenord_cpa.per 3uaye! September 22, 1998 52 • ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-024 amending the Zoning Ordinance and The Accompanying Zoning Map from RM -10 to CG for the property located at the southeast comer of 45t` Street and 20 Avenue. (Scott Perry) ORDINANCE NO. 98- 2 4 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM -10 TO CG, FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 451H STREET AND 24TH AVENUE, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and 'WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: LOTS 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, AND 6, BLOCK 21, PLAT NO.4 OF HILLCREST SUBDMSION, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT IN AND FOR INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 3, PAGE 47, SAID LANDS SITUATE, LYING ANT BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. Be changed from RM -10 to CG. September 22, 1998 53 • } P BOOK( pnt i. A 800K 10'i Pw J.2 ORDINANCE NO. 98- 2 4 All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 984 3 in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10). Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 22°d day of September, 1998. This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Joumal on the 9'h day of September, 1998 for a public hearing to be held on the 22°d day of September, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , s=nag Commi:siccr Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin ay e Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht a y e Commissioner Fran B. Adams a y e Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert A y e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Aye BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BY - 4` John W"TippinZhkinan ATTEST BY: '::�� .Bart ,eter1� This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the &lowing 9-28-98 u pe lu day ord_rzoz.per Nria+Rim at —Cs AOCroved Oe Admirl Legal ' 8uaget Deal. - so Mgr _r September 22, 1998 54 is date: C 9.A.3. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE 98-025 AND 98-026 - AMENDING COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONING ±7.07 ACRES- 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND US #1 (HELEN DAVIS AND OTHERS) PRESS -JOURNAL Published Daily Vero Bleach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K. Hicks who an oath says that he is President of the Press,launel, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach MIn Irndian Riva County, Florida: that the attached copy of advertisement. being a in the matter of his firey�1 Court was pub ILahed in said newspaper in the Issues of 2 , I q --- Affiant further says that the said PressJoumai is a newspaper published at Vero Beach. to said Indian River County. Florida, and that the said has heretofore been rarmlhuously pubAshed in said Indian River County, Plaids, and has been entered as =Woad dans mall matter at the post office In Vero Beach, in saidpublication Indd�� attached ,� fa a perlod of ane year next pnrecudingast the f advertisement: and eftiaM further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or :!y rebate, comvrdssiah or refund for purpose of securing this ' ••a SNDA Sj`�.• in said newspaper. ;•• thi oro OW before ore D.119 * : [GYYtSyi1N F>i1NIFS wtwnel,zooi Coo: COM&No.Cullem September 22, 1998 RHONDA ST4(NG/ Notary Public, to of Florida MY Commission Ex . Jan. 01, 2001 Comm. No. CC B1 personally Known or Produced ID O TYpaetlDProdu ad 55 NOTICE - PUBLIC HEARING The Board of Cohmtir Commis- snorers of Indian River Couniy, Florida will consider the adoption of a ca my ordinance rezoning land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. The subject properties are owned by Helen Davis•and others:' A pub- lic hearing at which parties In Inter - go apd c8izens shall have on opportunity to be heard will be held on Tuesday,. September 22, 1"4 at US a.m, in the. Courtly Commbslon'.Chambers of the County Administration 'BuikOM located .at 1840 25th Stmel, Vero Beath, Florida At this public hear -I hV too A of euiwl„ Cin tri uants will make a final decision whether to rezone the subject properties. The proposed arch narme to rawne the subject proper, Miss is entitled:' . AN ORDINANCE OF. INDU►N .RIVER COUNTY, -FLORIDA AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOM- PANYING ZONING MAP FOR +- 7.07 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXI- MATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET, BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND U.S. 1, FROM RMA MULTIPLE -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL (UP:,, TO 4 UNITS/ACRE) TO IL,: LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. The rezoning application may be inspected by the public, at the Community Developmad ' Depart mmd located on the second floor of the County Administration Build- ing located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, betwden the honor of 8:30 am. and 5:00 pim on weekdays. For more ration i contact Peter Radke at 5674000, ext. 243. The proposed ordinance may be . impacted by the public between 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m. at t"a otfloe of the Clerk to tiro Board of Courtly Cammbslonsrs, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. • The Board of Cawdy Commb- 1 ,loners may adopt anotiror z=hV "rid,, other than: the district requested, provided .that the =,V dishid'b'.aansb- ,miy's comprehern- appeal anyedecision which may be :made of this meeting will need to' ,or we that a .verbatim record of tis prooeedbW b ' made, which 'hnchides the testimony ord evi-, dam q= w}ddn, the appeal Is �Anyone. who' needs a. spa"; naeommodatian. for -chis mgbNng CAW comfud :the .cnxndy's Amgrl saru:rilh` dinator at 567-M, extorsion 223, at khat 48 hours In advance of the ,Indian Rhtec CauNy Board of Camaastamers I By:-s-Jolm W. fipple. Chalrawn 144�601r BOOK 107 PAGE 1.22 P.O. Box 4268 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 562-2315 all Prie's's Journal COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared Darryl K Hicks who on oath says that he is President of the Press -Journal, a daily newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that A Display ad measuring 20 col. inches at $10.62 per col. inch billed to I.R. Planning Department was published in said newspaper in the issue(s) of Monday, September 14th, 1998 on page 10 A Sworn to and subscribed before me this 14th September 1998 tiny Of A.D • President # ; f19 COWlISS10M EINKS =. IMM 81, 2001 ;* RHONDA STAND Notary Public. State of Florlda It. COt1Y. MO. CU1109Mq . My Commission Exp. Jan. 01, 2001 Comm. No. CC 6110 ` '�96'•.., . '�� `� Q '•�.r;Bt 16 ...s -RI. .•' CrT 0 PeraanaOy Known or Produced 10 Type of ID Produced September 22, 1998 56 BOOK iol P, . is 0 NOTICE OF COMPREHENSIVE PIAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AMENDMENTS - The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, will consider two proposals to amend its Comprehensive Plan and to change the use of land within the unincorporated portions of Indian River County. A public hearing on the proposals will be held on Tuesday, September 22, 1998 at 9:05 a.m. in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida. At this public hearing, the Board of County Commissioners will make a final decision whether to amend the county's. Comprehensive Plan. The proposed amendments are included in the proposed ordinances entitled: I.AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN:RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±2.10 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 45TH STREET AND 24TH AVENUE, FORM M-2, MEDIUM -DENSITY RESIDENTIAL -2 (UP TO 10 UNITS/ACRE) TO C/I, COMMERCIAL/ INDUSTRIAL; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVER- ABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE; AND 2. AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±7.07 ACRES, LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57TH STREET, BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND U.S. I, FROM L-2, LOW RESIDENTIAL -2 (UP TO 6 UNITS/ACRE) TO C/I, COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL; AND PROVIDING CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY, AND EFFECTIVE DATE. Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding the. approval of these proposed Comprehensive PIan Amendments. The plan amendment application may be inspected by the public at the Community Development Department located on the second floor of the County Administration Building locateg at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, between the hours of 8:30 am. and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays. For more information, contact Peter Radke at 567-8000, extension 243. The proposed ordinance may be inspected by the public between 8:30 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. 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 is based. Anyone who needs a special accommodation for this meeting must contact the Americans with Disabilities (ADA) Coordinator at 567-8000, extension 223, at least 48 hours in advance of the meeting. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners ��"'01P By: -s- John W. Tippin, Chairman September 22, 1998 57 BOOK 107 PAGE w I as BOOK 10p� PAGE 1,25 Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of September 14, 1998 using the land use map projected on the ELMO: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator D TMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE ,jp 4obert . Keating, THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP S . Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: Peter J. Radke V _ Economic Development Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: September 14,1998 RE: Helen Davis and Others' Request to Amend the Comprehensive Plan to Redesignate Approximately 7.07 acres from L-2 to CA and to Rezone that 7.07 acres from RM4 to 1L. PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 98-02-0011 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. This is a request to amend the Comprehensive Plan and rezone approximately 7.07 acres. The subject properties are located approximately 700 feet north of 57" Street, between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. 1. The request involves changing the land use designation from L-2, Low Density Residential - 2 (up to 6 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial/Industrial, and rezoning the properties from RM -4, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre) to IL, Light Industrial, zoning district. On March 26, 1998, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 6 to 0 to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendment and rezoning. On April 28, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners voted 5 to 0 to transmit the proposed land use amendment request to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its review. The Board of County Commissioners is now to decide whether or not to adopt the requested land use designation amendment and zoning district amendment. Consistent with state regulations, DCA reviewed the proposed amendment and prepared an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report (dated August 5, 1998), which planning staff received on August 7, 1998. The DCA ORC Report (attachment 7) contained five objections to this proposed amendment. Those objections are listed below. September 22, 1998 58 A. Density/Intensity Standards. The proposed future land use designation of Commercial/Industrial lacks density or intensity standards. Development standards for this land use designation have not been established within the County's Comprehensive Plan. Provision of development standards in local government land development regulations is not sufficient to satisfy the statutory and rule requirements regarding density and intensity standards. [Sections 163.3177(6)(a),163.3177(8), Florida Statutes (F.S.). Rules 9J5-.005(2), 9J -5.006(1)(c), 9J-5.006(3)(c)l. and 7., Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).] B. Public Facilities Analysis. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation'. the analysis of the availability of public facilities, including transportation, sewer and water, solid waste, and stormwater drainage facilities, is inadequate. [Sections 163.3177(3)(a)3., 163.3177(6)(x), 163.3177(8), F.S. .Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J -5.006(2)(a), 9J=3.006(3)(b)I., 9J -5.006(3)(c)3., F.A.C.] C. Suitability. The amendment is not supported by data and analysis which assesses the suitability of the site for the types of uses allowed under the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. In particular, the amendment is not supported by data and analysis demonstrating that the use of septic tank systems on this site at the densities or intensities allowed by the Commercial/Industrial land use category will not result in adverse impacts to environmentally sensitive resources, such as groundwater quality or water quality of the Indian River Lagoon estuarine system. The amendment proposal states that centralized wastewater service is not available to the site. The proposal indicates that the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate wastewater generated by the site, but does not commit to extending centralized wastewater service to the site. The St. Johns River Water Management District has expressed concerns over the soil limitations for septic systems, as well as potential impacts to water quality of the Indian River Lagoon. The Florida Department of Environmental Protection has recommended that central sewer service be extended to the site prior to amending the future land use designation. [Sections 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(8), F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J -5.005(5)(b), 9J -5.006(2)(b), 9J- 5.006(3)(b)l. and 4., 9J -5.012(3)(b)2., 9J -5.013(2)(b)2., 9J-5.013(2)(c)l., F.A.C.] D. Data and Analysis. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation, the proposed amendment is not supported by data and analysis appropriate to the Future Land Use Element. [Sections 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(8), F.S. Rules 9L-5.005(2), 9J -5.006(1)(c), 9J -5.006(2)(c)1., F.A.C.] E. Internal Consistency. Due to the lack of density/intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial future land use designation, and the consequent inadequacy of the public facilities analysis, the proposed amendment has not demonstrated consistency with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan, including, but not limited to, the following: Future Land Use Element Policy 2.4 (public facility capacities and intensity of future land use designations), Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element Objective 1 (sanitary sewer concurrency), Potable Water Sub -Element Objective 1 (potable water concurrency), Solid Waste Sub -Element Objective 1 (solid waste concurrency), Transportation Element Objective 1 (transportation capacity), and Capital Improvements Element Objective 3 (Concurrency Management System). [Sections 163.3177(2), 163.3177(6)(a), 163.3177(6)(c), 163.3177(8), 163.3180, F.S. Rules 9J-5.005(2), 9J-5.005, 9J-5.0055(1), 9J -5.006(3)(b)1. and 9., 9J -5.006(3)(c)3, 9J -5.011(2)(b)2., 9J -5.016(3)(b)3. and 5., 9J -5.019(4)(b)2., F.A.C.] Objections A, B, D, and E relate to one issue; that issue is the Comprehensive Plan's lack of density/intensity standards for commercial/industrial areas. This is the same objection raised by the DCA during its recent review of the Horizon Outlet Mall Comprehensive Plan amendment. As with the DCA's Horizon objection, this objection does not relate to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment, itself. Rather, it relates to the county's adopted plan. Objection C, which is an issue more suited for the site planning process, is based on the suitability of the site for September 22, 1998 59 B��R 0.7 PSGi2 6 ,27 107 PACE 1 commercial/industrial uses and the type of wastewater management that will be used by the commercial/industrial uses to be located on the site. The analysis section of this staff report contains a response to the DCA's objections. The subject properties consist of three single family homes. All three homes are oriented toward Old Dixie Highway. Properties to the north and south of the subject area are zoned IL, Light Industrial, and are currently being used for a marine repair yard and a storage facility, respectively. To the east of the subject area, across U.S. 1, are single family homes, zoned RM -3. To the west of the subject area, across Old Dixie Highway, is the FEC Railroad and the Hawks Nest Golf Club. This area is currently zoned RM -4. The subject properties and properties to the west, across Old Dixie Highway, are designated L-2, Low Density Residential -2, on the county future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential densities up to 6 units/acre. Properties to the east of the subject properties are designated L-1, Low Density Residential -1, a designation which permits residential densities up to 3 units/acre. Properties to the north and south of the subject area are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, a land use designation which permits commercial and industrial zoning districts. The subject properties are not designated as environmentally important nor environmentally sensitive by the Comprehensive Plan. No wetlands nor native upland plant communities exist on site. The subject properties are not within a 100 year floodplain. The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Centralized potable water service is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant. Wastewater service is not available to the site; however, the site could be serviced by extending existing wastewater collection lines, which are located approximately one mile west of the subject site. Abutting the subject area on the west is Old Dixie Highway. Classified as a rural major collector roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of Old Dixie Highway is a two- lane road with approximately 60 feet of public road right-of-way. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of Old Dixie Highway that abuts the subject area. The site is bounded on the east by U.S. 1. Classified as a rural principal arterial roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of U.S. 1 is a four -lane road with approximately 70 feet of public road right-of-way. No improvements are scheduled for the portion of U.S. 1 that abuts the subject area. In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented. Specifically, this analysis will address: the DCA's ORC Report objections; concurrency of public facilities; consistency with the county's Comprehensive Plan; September 22, 1998 M • compatibility with the surrounding area; and potential impact on environmental quality. In DISFIVY61C :a.•� •. K �.. Four of the five DCA ORC Report objections are related, and therefore will be addressed together. Since objections A, B, D, and E all relate to the same issue, those objections will be addressed in the first section. Objection C will be addressed in the second section. Objections A, B, D, and E Objections A, B, D, and E all relate to the fact that the county's Comprehensive Plan does not contain land use intensity standards for the Commercial/Industrial land use designation. Although the county's Comprehensive Plan limits residential development intensity, it does not directly limit the intensity of development for areas designated as commercial/industrial. Like most local governments, Indian River County uses density, usually reported in units/acre, as its measure of residential land use intensity. For measuring non-residential land use intensity, however, Floor Area Ratio (FAR) is the generally accepted standard. FAR is a measure of non-residential land use intensity expressed as the ratio of building floor space on a parcel to total parcel area. For example, a 10,000 square foot building on a 1 acre parcel has a.23 FAR (10,000/43,560 =.23). In such a case, a 5,000 square foot second story would increase the FAR to .34 (15,000/43,560 =.34). Just as density limits are usually incorporated in comprehensive plans or zoning district regulations to control residential development intensity, FAR's are often established to control non-residential development intensity. Although the county does not currently have an established FAR in its Comprehensive Plan, non-residential land use intensity is controlled in other ways. Through its land development regulations, the county has established standards for minimum open space, maximum building coverage, maximum building height, and minimum parking, as well as setback and stormwater requirements. Together, these standards effectively limit non-residential development intensity. Because Objection A does not apply specifically to the proposed amendment, the appropriateness of that objection within an ORC Report for the proposed amendment is questionable. A clearly more appropriate opportunity to raise that objection would have been during DCA's review of the recently completed evaluation and appraisal report (EAR) of the entire Comprehensive Plan or subsequent EAR based amendments. Nevertheless, the county has already taken actions to address the DCA's objections. Recently, the DCA raised similar objections in regard to Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 98-D 1. In response to those objections, the Board of County Commissioners instructed planning staff to initiate a Comprehensive Plan text amendment during the July 1998 amendment submittal window. That county initiated amendment will establish land use intensity standards for the C/I land use designation. In a letter to Ray Eubanks, dated June 4, 1998, the DCA was informed of that action; therefore, the DCA should not have found it necessary to raise the same objections again for Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment No. 98-2. During the July 1998 Comprehensive Plan amendment application submittal window, a county initiated Comprehensive Plan text amendment was submitted. On October 8, 1998, a public hearing on that text amendment will be held before the Planning and Zoning Commission. Following a transmittal public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners, expected to be held three to five weeks after the Planning and Zoning Commission public hearing, the Comprehensive Plan text amendment, which will establish land use intensity standards for the C/I land use designation, will be forwarded to the DCA for its review. That should then resolve the DCA's specific commercial/industrial density/intensity standard objection. September 22, 1998 61 728 BOOK 107 PAGE I BOOK 10"I f Since objections A, B, D, and E relate to the same issue, the actions taken by the county to resolve DCA's objection A will also resolve the DCA's objections B, D, and E. With specific commercial/industrial density/intensity standards, the most intensive level of development allowed for the C/I land use designation will be defined and then applied to the public facilities analysis of future staff reports. Applying those density/intensity standards to the public facilities analysis will enable staff to correctly analyze the availability of public facilities for proposed amendments, to support proposed amendments with adequate data and analysis, and to ensure that the proposed amendment is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the county's Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, the actions which the county is taking to resolve the density/intensity standard objection will adequately resolve DCA's objections relating to the analysis of public facilities, provision of data and analysis, and demonstration of internal consistency. Objection C Objection C relates to the suitability of redesignating the subject area for commercial/industrial uses, given the unavailability of wastewater service. This objection is based on the principle that commercial/industrial uses should not be allowed in an area if adequate infrastructure is not available. Specifically, this objection cites the possibility of groundwater impacts occurring from commercial/industrial uses not serviced by a centralized wastewater system. While objection C raises valid concerns, these issues are addressed in the county's adopted Comprehensive Plan. That plan establishes an uiban service area within which urban type uses are allowed. Recognizing that collection and distribution lines do not currently extend to all parts of the urban service area, the plan provides various policies regulating the type and timing of development within the urban service area based on availability of centralized water and wastewater service. Through its Comprehensive Plan policies and implementing LDR's, the county requires all new development, other than de -minimus uses, to connect to the county's centralized wastewater system. Often times, this requires the developer to extend sanitary sewer collection lines for a significant distance. Table 3.A.13 of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element, the Water and Wastewater Connection Matrix for New Development, is the county's standard for water and wastewater connection. As structured, the matrix establishes water and sewer connection criteria for new development. For a non-residential project, connection to the county wastewater system is required if the project: generates 2,000 gallons/day or more of wastewater, or generates less than 2,000 gallons/day and is within a '/< mile of the existing wastewater system. When the Comprehensive Plan was being developed, 2,000 gallons/day of water/wastewater demand was established as the de -minimus threshold. This amount was set based on research and input from the environmental health department. Even with de -minimus uses, however, the matrix requires connection when the centralized water/wastewater service becomes available. In addition to the connection matrix, the following policies of the Sanitary Sewer Sub -Element also address DCA's objection C. Policy 1.1 ensures that new development will be approved only when capacity is available, either on-site or off-site, to provide needed sanitary sewer service. Policy 1.6 allows septic tank systems to be utilized by non-residential development for domestic waste only, provided that the new development is not required to connect to the county wastewater system based on the connection matrix criteria. Policy 7.1 establishes criteria that must be met for a septic tank system to be used by new development. Prior to the issuance of permits, policies 7.2 and 7.3 require an applicant to demonstrate that their project complies with applicable federal, state, and local permit requirements for septic tank systems. September 22, 1998 is 0 • Since the subject properties are within the county's urban -service area, the Comprehensive Plan provides for extension of sanitary sewer lines to the area sometime in the future. As indicated in the discussion above, existing Comprehensive Plan policies will require extension of wastewater collection lines to this area prior to construction of any project other than a de -minimus use. For that reason staff feels that objection C has been adequately addressed. Based on the above analysis and the fact that the county has initiated a Comprehensive Plan text amendment to set density/intensity standards for the C/I land use designation, it is staff's position that this report addresses DCA's ORC Report objections and provides justification for the DCA to find the proposed amendment "in compliance" with state -law. This site is located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. 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 Element. 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 commercial/industrial 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: f7.07 acres 2. Existing Land Use Designation: _ L-2, Low -Density Residential - 2 (up to 6 units/acre) 3. 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 C/I, Commercial/Industrial 42 Single -Family Units 70,700 sq. Ft. of Retail Commercial (Shopping Center in the 5`" Edition ITE Manual). A review of the traffic impacts that would result from the development of the properties indicate that the existing level of service "D" or better on U.S. 1 and other impacted roads would not be lowered. The site information used for determining traffic impacts is shown in table 1. September 22, 1998 63 BOOK 10"i FACE 1"'30 BOOK 107 PAGE131 I Table 1: Site Information Existing Land Use Designation Proposed Land Use Designation I. Land Use Identified in 5`" Edition ITE Manuel Single -Family Retail Shopping Center a. Average Weekday Trip Ends 10.1/unit 77/1,000 sq. ft. b. P.M. Peak Hour Trip Ends 1.01/unit 7.05/1,000 sq. ft. C. Inbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 65% 48% i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 47% 47% ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour) - 53% 53% d. Outbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 35% 52% i. Northbound (P.M. Peak Hour) 47% 47% ii. Southbound (P.M. Peak Hour) - 53% 53% 3. Peak Direction of U.S. 1 from 49'" St.. to 651" St. Southbound Southbound 4. Number of Peak Hour/Peak Season/Peak Direction Trips Generated: 15 126 5. Number of Average Weekday Trips Generated: 424 5,469 6. Traffic Capacity on This Segment of U.S. 1, at a LOS D 2,650 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips 2,650 peak houripeak season/peak direction trips 7. Total Segment Demand (Existing Volume+ Vested Volume) on This Segment of U.S. 1 1,272 peak/hour/peak season/peak direction trips 1,272 peak/hour/peak seasonipeak direction trips The number of Average Weekday Trip Ends associated with the most intense use of the subject properties under the existing land use designation is 424. This was determined by multiplying the 42 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 properties under the proposed land use designation is 5,469. This was determined by multiplying the 70,700 square feet of shopping center use (most intense use) by ITE's shopping center fitted curve factor of 77 Average Daily Trip Ends/1,000 square feet. Since the county's transportation level of service is based on peak hour/peak season/peak direction characteristics, the transportation concunrency analysis addresses project traffic occurring in the peak hour and affecting the peak direction of impacted roadways. According to ITE, the proposed use generates more volume in the p.m. peak hour than in the a.m. peak hour. Therefore, the p.m. peak hour was used in the transportation concurrency analysis. The peak direction during the p.m. peak hour on U.S. 1 is southbound. Given those conditions, the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject area under the existing land use designation was calculated to be 16. This was determined by multiplying the total number of units allowed (42) 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, 53% or 15 will be northbound. To determine the number of peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject area under the proposed land use designation, the total square footage of shopping center allowed under the proposed amendment (70,700) was multiplied by ITE's September 22, 1998 factor of 7.05 p.m. peak hour trips/1,000 square feet to determine the total number of trips generated (498). Of these trips, 92% or 458 trips are new trips, which are due to the proposed land use designation. From the new trips, 48% (220) will be inbound and 52% (238) will be outbound. Of the outbound trips, 53% or 126 trips will originate from the north of the subject area Therefore, the most intense use of the subject area under the proposed land use designation would generate 111 (126 - 15 = 111) more peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips than the 15 that would be generated by the most intense use of the subject area 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 U.S. 1 adjacent to this site is 2,650 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 U.S. 1 is 1,272 trips (peak hour/peak season/peak direction). The additional 126 peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips created by the most intense use of the subject area under the proposed amendment would increase the Total Segment Demand peak hour/peak season/peak direction trips for this segment of U.S. 1 to approximately 1,398. Based on the above analysis, staff determined that U.S. 1 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) Existing Demand Positive Segment Total Available Concurrency Link Road From To Capacity LOS "D" Existing Volume Vested Volume Segment Demand Segment Capacity Project Demand Dem_ mination 11505 IR Blvd 21° St. SR 60 11890 1,308 - 117 1,425 465 15 Y W VB City _ 1160S IR Blvd SR 60 Limits 1,890 1,315 138 1,453 437 22 Y W VB City US 1 @ 1170S IR Blvd Limits 53d St. 1 1,890 336 145 481 1,409 22 Y 13205 U.S. 1 8" St 121° St 2.270 1,366 161 1,527 743 11 Y S. VB City 1325S U.S. 1 12i° St Limits 2.370 1,509 180 1,689 681 19 Y S VB City 1330S U.S. 1 Limits 170 St 2.270 1,509 218 1,727 543 19 Y 13355 I U.S. 1 I Ir St SR 60 2.270 1.199 227 1,426 844 30 Y September 22, 1998 CE, 900K l� R PAGE.L02t BOOK 10 7 FAGE i3 September 22, 1998 66 Royal Atlantic Existing Demand - Positive 13455 U.S. 1 Palm PI Segment Total Available 154 Concurrency 1,070 96 Y Capacity Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Deter - Link Road From To LOS "D" Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand mination 1350N U.S.I Royal Limit 2,300 1,581 120 1,701 599 15 1340N U.S. 1 SR 60 Palm PI 2,300 1,095 157 1,252 1,048 7 Y Royal City 1340S U.S. 1 SR 60 Palm PI 2,300 800 192 992 1,308 78 Y Y Royal Atlantic Old 1345N U.S. I Palm PI Blvd 2,300 840 127 967 1,333 11 Y September 22, 1998 66 Royal Atlantic - 13455 U.S. 1 Palm PI Blvd 2,300 1,076 154 1,230 1,070 96 Y N VB _ Atlantic City 1350N U.S.I Blvd Limit 2,300 1,581 120 1,701 599 15 Y N VB Atlantic City 1350S U.S.1 Blvd Limit 2,300 1,090 157 1,247 1,053 104 Y N VB Old City Dixie 1355N U.S.I Limit Hwy 2,300 1,222 77 1,289 1,011 15 Y N VB Old City Dixie 13555 U.S.I Limit Hwy 1 2,300 •976 105 1,081 1,219 115 Y Old Dixie 1360N U.S. 1 Hwy 41" St 2,300 1,035 111 1,146 1,154 15 Y Old Dixie 1360S U.S. I Hwy 41° St 2,300 779 102 881 1,419 115 Y 1365N U.S. 1 41" St 45i° St 2,650 1,011 79 1,090 1,560 15 Y 13655 U.S. 1 41° St 450 St 2,650 785 77 862 1,788 115 Y 1370N U.S. 1 45'h St 49ih St 2,650 948 102 1,050 1,600 15 Y 13705 U.S. 1 4510 St 49t0 St 2,650 730 125 855 1,795 115 Y 1375N U.S. I 49th St 651° St 2,650 1,161 111 1,272 1,378 52 Y 1375S U.S. 1 49ih St 65'0 St 2,650 800 116 916 1,734 126 Y 1380N U.S. I 65th St 69t0 St 2,650 1,159 69 1,228 1,422 52 Y 13805 U.S. 1 65th St 69" St 2,650 783 70 853 1,797 7 Y Old Dixe 1385N U.S. 1 69t0 St Hwy 2,650 1,100 97 1,197 1,453 52 Y Old Dixe 1385S U.S. I 69th St Hwy 2,650 710 -- 101 811 1,839 7 Y Old Dixe Schuma 1390N U.S. 1 Hwy nn Dr 2,370 1,030 106 1,136 1,234 48 Y Old Dixe Schuma 13905 U.S. 1 Hwy nn Dr 2,370 771 132 903 1,467 7 Y Schuman 1395N U.S.I nDr CR 512 2,370 1,149 112 1,261 11109 33 Y Schuman 13955 U.S. 1 n Dr. CR 512 2,370 863 124 987 1,383 4 Y N Seb. City 1400N U.S.I CR 512 Limit 2,300 1,012 1 60 1 1,072 1,228 IS Y N Seb. City Roselan 1405N U.S. 1 Limit d Rd 2.300 1,012 133 1,145 1,155 3 Y September 22, 1998 66 Link Road `. From To Segment Capacity LOS "D" Existing Demand _ Total Segment Demand Available Segment Capacity Project Demand Positive Concurrency Deter. mination Existing Volume Vested Volume Dixie S Seb. 195OW SR 60 Schuma City 2,328 11010 199 1,209 1,119 41 Y 1955E 15205 nn Dr Limit U.S.1 680 263 10 273 407 15 y SR 60 10'h Ave U.S. 1 N Seb 610 217 827 11501 41 Y 1960E SR 60 Roselan IR Blvd City 472 138 610 1,718 7 Y 1960W 1610W d Rd CR 512 Limit 680 247 19 266 414 7 Y SR 60 IR Blvd Roseland 1,640 1,064 159 1,223 417 7 Y 175OW CR 512 Rd U.S. 1 820 468 39 507 313 7 Y 1830W CR 510 58th Ave U.S. 1 820 515 72 587 233 7 Y 1930W S.R. 60 581° Ave 43"' Ave 2,840 1,253 684 1,937 903 11 Y 1935W S.R. 60 43"' Ave 27th Ave 2,840 1,299 414 1,713 1,127 16 Y 194OW S.R. 60 27" Ave 20" Ave 2,510 1,048 311 1,359 1,151 41 Y Dixie Old _ 2260W 12" St Hwy U.S. I Dixie 524 59 583 1,307 7 y 1945W SR 60 20'h Ave Hwy 2,328 955 257 1,212 1,116 41 Y September 22, 1998 67 BOOK �U PAGE JL3,11 Old Dixie 195OW SR 60 Hwy 10"' Ave 2,328 11010 199 1,209 1,119 41 Y 1955E SR 60 10'h Ave U.S. 1 2,328 1,244 231 1,475 853 7 Y 1955W SR 60 10'h Ave U.S. 1 2,328 610 217 827 11501 41 Y 1960E SR 60 U.S. 1 IR Blvd 2,328 472 138 610 1,718 7 Y 1960W SR 60 U.S. I IR Blvd 2,328 563 127 690 1,638 7 Y 1965E SR 60 IR Blvd ICWW 1,640 1,064 159 1,223 417 7 Y 16" Old St/17th Dixie 2060E St Hwy U.S.I 970 540 132 672 298 7 Y 2110E 17" St US 1 IR Blvd 1,990 516 82 598 1,392 4 Y Old Dixie 2260W 12" St Hwy U.S. I 1,890 524 59 583 1,307 7 y Old Dixie 2345S Hwy 41" St 45" St 880 200 30 230 650 7 Y Old Dixie 2350N Hwy 45" St 49" St 880 44 30 74 806 4 Y Old Dixie 2350S Hwy 45" St 49" St 880 49 31 80 800 15 Y Old Dixie 2355N Hwy 49" St 65" St 880 61 14 75 805 19 Y Old Dixie 2355S Hwy 49" St 65" St 880 74 14 88 792 22 Y Old Dixie 236ON Hwy 65" St 69" St 880 69 6 75 805 11 Y Old Dixie 23605 Hwy 65" St 69" St 880 73 6 79 801 4 Y Old DixieF 2365N I Hwy 69" St CR 510 880 5610 66 814 4 Y September 22, 1998 67 BOOK �U PAGE JL3,11 r BOOK 10 � � PAGE Z3 5 -1 Water A retail commercial use of 70,700 square feet on the subject area will have a water consumption rate of 21 Equivalvent Residential Units (ERU), or 5,250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level -of - service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1,518,338 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. ► Wastewater Currently, wastewater services are not available to the subject properties. When the wastewater collection system is extended to the area, the subject properties will be served by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment' Plant. This plant has a remaining capacity of approximately 364,233 gallons/day. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the properties will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 21 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 5,250 gallons/day. Therefore, the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. September 22, 1998 68 40 0 Existing Demand Positive Segment Total Available Concurrency Capacity Existing Vested Segment Segment Project Deter_ Link Road From To LOS "D" Volume Volume Demand Capacity Demand mination Old Dixie 2365S Hwy 691° St CR 510 880 58 10 68 812 4 Y 2470S 27t° Ave 16'° St SR 60 880 397 45 442 438 7 Y Atlantic 2480N 27t° Ave SR 60 Blvd 880 88 13 101 779 7 Y 2860S 20t° Ave 16d' St SR 60 1,890 318 27 345 1,545 7 Y Atlantic 287ON 20" Ave SR 60 Blvd 880 _. 156 14 170 710 7 Y 29305 43nd Ave 16t' St SR 60 880 625 64 689 191 4 Y 2935N 43"' Ave SR 60 261° St 880 347 80 427 453 4 Y Old Dixie 3730W 691° St 58b Ave Hwy 1,230 41 _ 12 53 1,177 7 Y Old Dixie 384OW 651° St Hwy U.S. 1 1,230 48 5 53 1,177 7 Y Old Dixie 4250W 491° St Hwy U.S. 1 760 101 12 113 647 7 Y Old Dixie 4350W 45i° St. Hwy IR Blvd 880 199 31 230 650 7 Y Old Dixie 4450W 419 St. Hwy IR Blvd 880 70 8 78 802 7 Y Old Dixie 487OW 8" St Hwy U.S. 1 880 452 127 579 301 7 Y Atlantic 5820W Blvd 201 Ave U.S. 1 1 880 1 239 8 247 633 7 Y Royal 6110W 1 Palm Pl U.S. 1 IR Blvd 880 243 25 268 612 7 Y Water A retail commercial use of 70,700 square feet on the subject area will have a water consumption rate of 21 Equivalvent Residential Units (ERU), or 5,250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level -of - service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Water lines extend to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant which currently has a remaining capacity of approximately 1,518,338 gallons/day and therefore can accommodate the potable water demand associated with the proposed amendment. ► Wastewater Currently, wastewater services are not available to the subject properties. When the wastewater collection system is extended to the area, the subject properties will be served by the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment' Plant. This plant has a remaining capacity of approximately 364,233 gallons/day. Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed amendment, development of the properties will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 21 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 5,250 gallons/day. Therefore, the Central Regional Wastewater Treatment Plan can accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the proposed amendment. September 22, 1998 68 40 0 Solid Waste Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. For a 70,700 square foot commercial development on the subject site, solid waste generation will be approximately 354 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 70,700 square feet of commercial development would be expected to generate 590 cubic yards of waste/year. A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates the availability of 840,214 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. The site is located within the R-5 Drainage Basin. In this case, the minimum floor elevation level -of -service standards do not apply, since the properties do 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 123,188 square feet, or 2.83 acres. The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 hour design storm would be approximately 190,571 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level -of - service, the applicant would be required to retain approximately 43,855 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With the soil characteristics of the subject properties, the estimated pre -development runoff rate is 2,302 cubic feet/second. Based upon staffs analysis, the drainage level -of -service standards will be met by requiring retention of the 43,855 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 upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency -mandated facilities, including drainage, roads, solid waste, wastewater, and water, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject properties under the proposed land use designation. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request. 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. September 22, 1998 BOOK 107 PAGE .L. J"O _I BOOK 107 FACE A7 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: Future Land Use Policy 14.3 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 14.3. This policy requires that at least one of four 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; • a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or • a swap or a reconfiguration of land uses at separate sites. Staff's position is that this land use amendment does meet the second criterion of policy 14.3 When the current Comprehensive Plan was approved on February 13, 1990, the plan assigned a residential land use designation to the subject properties. At the time of plan adoption, the existing uses on the subject properties were single family homes. At that time, the land owners expressed interest in retaining a residential designation on the properties. For those reasons, the subject properties were not designated for commercial/industrial uses and not included in the commercial/industrial node. While the existing use of the properties is single family residential, the location of the subject properties between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. 1, as well as the character of the surrounding uses, indicates that these properties should have been designated for commercial/industrial uses when the plan was originally adopted. The residential designation of the subject properties was an oversight of the approved plan; therefore, this request meets the second criterion of policy 14.3. Future Land Use Policy 1.15 This policy defines the areas that are suitable for a commercial/industrial land use designation. Suitable areas must be within the urban service area and near existing urban centers. The subject properties are within the urban service area and are near existing urban centers. Both Gifford and Grand Harbor are existing urban centers that are near the subject properties and could be serviced by various commercial/industrial uses that might locate on the subject properties. P. Future Land Use Policy 1.18 Policy 1.18 requires that commercial/industrial nodes be located along roads with functional classifications appropriate to the level of activity. Being bordered on the east by U.S. 1, a rural principal arterial roadway, and on the west by Old Dixie Highway, a rural major collector roadway, the subject properties have adequate access to accomodate any commercial/industrial uses. Additionally, both roadways are appropriate to handle traffic that may be generated by a commercial/industrial land use. Future Land Use Policy 1.22 Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a C/I node should be developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion. The intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C/I designated land. September 22, 1998 • This policy also defines the criteria necessary to be able to expand a C/I node when less than 70% of the node is developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses, or approved for non- residential and non-agricultural development. One such criterion allows expansion of a node if the expansion is necessary to accommodate a substantial change in circumstances affecting a property adjacent to the node, where said change has had the effect of making the property unsuitable for residential use. According to the County's Commercial/Industrial Data Source, the U.S. 1 C/I node, from 491h Street to 57" Street, which is adjacent to the subject properties, is ±53.2% developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses. For this node to expand, one of the exemption criteria of Future Land Use Policy 1.22 must be met. At the time of plan adoption in 1990, the subject properties were designated for residential uses even though industrial uses bordered the subject area to the north and south. Since that time, a substantial change in circumstances has occurred affecting the subject area. The industrial uses both to the north and south of the subject area have expanded, and thereby decreased the compatibility between the existing residential uses and the existing industrial uses. This decreased compatibility has had the effect of making the subject area unsuitable for residential use. Since the change of circumstances was not anticipated at the time of plan adoption, the current land use designation is an oversight of the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, an expansion of the U.S. 1 C/I node is warranted, since the expansion will enable the subject properties to be correctly designated for non-residential uses. Future Land Use Objective 4 Redesignating the subject properties to a commercial/industrial land use may reduce the length of daily automobile trips for residents in this part of the county. A reduction in trip length is the purpose of objective 4 of the Future Land Use Element. A commercial/industrial use that locates in the subject area may eliminate the need for residents to travel to a similar use that is located further from their home. This will reduce the length of daily automobile trips generated by those residents and in turn will contribute to attaining objective 4 of the Future Land Use Element. 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 consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Staff s position is that development under the proposed land use designation and zoning would be more compatible with surrounding areas than development under current conditions. The subject properties are part of a large strip of land between Ord Dixie Highway and U.S. 1, which stretches from CR 510 to 4l' Street. Except for the subject properties, that entire stretch of land between Old Dixie Highway and U.S. 1 has a commercial/industrial land use designation. Additionally, properties to the north and south of the site have the same zoning as being requested for the subject properties. Therefore, the request is for a continuation of an existing land use designation and zoning pattern. By eliminating that break in the 'commercial/industrial land use designation along that stretch of land, the proposed amendment would result in a more consistent, efficient, and logical land use designation and zoning pattern in that area of the county. The subject properties' site characteristics suggest that a residential land use designation is not appropriate, and the following facts support that suggestion. First, the site is narrow in size, being only ±335 feet wide. With Old Dixie Highway bordering on the west and U.S. 1 bordering on the September 22, 1998 71 • BOOK 0 � F�tiGE .23 BOOK M Nr'E ,'), east, that 335 -foot width may not allow for sufficient buffering for any residential land uses to mitigate the various effects of traffic from both roadways. Second, the proposed amendment would eliminate potential incompatibilities between the residential uses of the subject properties and the FEC railway, which is west of the subject area. Given that the sound and vibration of a train in motion are less intrusive on commercial or industrial uses than on residential uses, a commercial/industrial land use designation for the subject properties will be more compatible with the FEC railway than would be a residential land use designation. In addition, the proposed amendment would eliminate potential incompatibilities associated with residential uses of the subject properties. Potential incompatibilities associated with residential development on the site include noise, vibration, and traffic generated by uses permitted in an IL, Light Industrial, zoning district. Although those impacts can be somewhat mitigated through setbacks, buffering and site design, the fact that an IL zoning district borders the subject area both to the north and the south indicates that incompatibilities would continue. In contrast, the primary impacts of commercial/industrial development on the site would be on the single-family homes to the east, across U.S. 1. In addition to -the setbacks, buffering, and site design measures previously indicated, the 70 foot separation provided by the U.S. 1 right-of-way will be a buffer between the commercial/industrial uses and the residential uses. To the west of the subject properties, the Hawks Nest Golf Club will be sufficiently buffered from any commercial/industrial uses by the railway tracks and Old Dixie Highway. For these reasons, commercial/industrial development of the site would be compatible with surrounding areas. Staffs position is that, since the subject properties contain 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. Based on the analysis, staff have determined that the requested land use designation and requested zoning district are compatible with the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Comprehensive Plan, and meet all applicable concurrency criteria. In addition, the analysis addresses the DCA's ORC Report objections. Finally, the subject properties are located in an area deemed suitable for commercial/industrial uses. The request meets all applicable criteria. For these reasons, staff supports the request to change the site's land use designation and zoning district. Based on the analysis conducted, staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions: approve the attached comprehensive Plan Amendment Ordinance redesignating the subject property to C/I; and approve the attached rezoning ordinance rezoning the subject property to EL. September 22, 1998 72 0 0 • 1. Land Use Designation Amendment Application 2. Rezoning Application 3. Future Land Use Location Map 4. Zoning Location Map. 5. Approved minutes of the March 26, 1998 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. 6. Approved minutes of the April 28, 1998 Board of County Commissioners meeting 7. DCA's Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report 8. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Ordinance 9. Rezoning Ordinance --T_ - - - - - - 15� b � n I Col C/I - _:: + SUBJECT PROPERTY i 't:tJ :K• _ -- \ _:tea--.----•....��— _�--- — - — •_ \ i – e CASara aro [["N ' TN[aTY[NT \ _ • �..aNT[ � • Mowrr �rtit� l �w LAND USE MAP September 22, 1998 73 C BOOK 10"i" PAGE 14 0 �DD�( PA,GE..'it. The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this matter. There being none, he closed the public hearing. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 98-025 amending the Future Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan by Changing the land use designation for ±7.07 acres located approximately 700 feet north of 57'h Street, between Old Dixie Highway and US# 1 from L-2 to C/I. (Helen Davis, et al) Ordinance No. 98- 2 5 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY CHANGING THE LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR ±7.07 ACRES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57'.' STREET, BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND U.S. 1, FROM L-2 TO C/I, AND PROVIDING SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Indian River County- Comprehensive ounty Comprehensive Plan on February 13, 1990, and WHEREAS, the county received Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications during its January 1998 amendment submittal window, and WHEREAS, the Local Planning Agency held a public hearing on all Comprehensive Plan Amendment requests on March 26, 1998 after due public notice, and Nk'HEREAS, the Local Planning Agency recommended approval of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Board of County Commissioners, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Transmittal Public Hearing on April 28, 1998, after advertising pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(15)(b)(1) and (c), and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of this Comprehensive Plan Amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for their review and comment, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners announced at the transmittal public hearing its intention to hold and advertise a final public hearing at the adoption stage of this Plan Amendment, and September 22, 1998 74 • Ordinance No. 98- 2 5 WHEREAS, the Florida Department of Community Affairs received this Comprehensive Plan Amendment on May 11, 1998, for the State review pursuant to F.S. 163.3184(4), and WHEREAS, Indian River County received the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) Report from the Florida Department of Community Affairs on August 7, 1998, and WHEREAS, the ORC Report contained five objections to this Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and WHEREAS, the support documents accompanying this Comprehensive Pian Amendment have been revised to address those objections, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County held a Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption Public Hearing on September 22, 1998, after advertising pursuant to F.S.163.3184(15)(b)(2) and (c); NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that: SECTION 1. Comprehensive Plan Amendment Adoption and Transmittal The amendment to the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan identified in section 2 is hereby adopted, and five (5) copies are directed to be transmitted to the State of Florida Department of Community Affairs and one (1) copy is directed to be transmitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. SECTION 2. Amendments to the Comprehensive Plan The land use designation of the following described properties situated in Indian River Counn-, Florida to wit: Parcel "A*' --- O.R. BOOK 573, PG. 1793 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 14 OF THE NORTHEAST 14 OF SECTION 15, TOW`N'SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, RUN SOUTH 89 ° 48' 30" WEST ALONG THE EAST -WEST 1/4 SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 888.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO.1; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 716.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE NORTHIVESTER1.1' ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 266.83 FEET; September 22, 1998 75 BOOK 10_i FADE • Bou 107 m 3 Ordinance No. 98- 2 5 THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 131.54 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 218.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 397.40 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 341.09 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; PARCEL "B" --- O.R. BOOK 489, PG. 811 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, RUN SOUTH 89° 48' 30" WEST ALONG THE EAST -WEST' 1/4 SEC;iON LINE, A DISTANCE OF 888.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. I A DISTANCE OF 672.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALBERT LEE DAVIS, AS DESCRIBED IN O.R BOOK 230, PAGE 126 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM THE POINT BEGINNING CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 44.20 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15, A DISTANCE OF 341.09 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF THE NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 44.08' TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALBERT LEE DAVIS, AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 230, PAGE 126 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUN Y, FLORIDA; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALBERT LEE DAVIS, AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 230, PAGE 126 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 340.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CON-TALNT' G 0.333 ACRES OF LAND. PARCEL "C" --- O.R. BOOK 230, PG. 126 THE NORTH 128.16 FEET OF THE SOUTH 647.97 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRESENTLY EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID RIGHT OF WAY BEING 33 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTAINING 1.0 ACRES. September 22, 1998 76 0 0 • Ordinance No. 98- 2 5 PARCEL "D" --- O.R. BOOK 684, PG. 2771 THE NORTH 258.55 FEET OF THE SOUTH 519.81 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRESENTLY EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID RIGHT OF WAY BEING 33 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL "E" --- O.R. BOOK 684, PG. 2772 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 258.55 FEET OF THE SOUTH 519.81 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRESENTLY EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, AND EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID RIGHT OF WAY BEING 33 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 107.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE EAST A DISTANCE OF 75 FEET; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 32 '17-23T, THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL "F" --- O.R. BOOK 404, PG. 597 THE SOUTH 261.26 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING EAST OF THE OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND WEST OF THE NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; CONTAINTIti'G TWO ACRES OF LAND EXCLUSIVE OF RIGHTS OF WAY MENTIONED ABOVE, SITUATED AND LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 130.63 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1133, PAGE 2354 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL "G" --- O.R. BOOK 1028, PG. 2323 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1.4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, RUN SOUTH 89 ` 48' 30" WEST ALONG THE EAST -WEST 1/4 SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 888.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; FROM THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 131.54 THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 983.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15, A DISTANCE 125.00; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LI1TF OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 131.54; THENCE WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15, A DISTANCE OF 125.00' TO POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTAINING 0.363 ACRES OF LAND. Are changed from L-2, Low -Density Residential -2 (up to 6 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial/Industrial and the Future Land Use Map is hereby revised accordingly. September 22, 1998 77 • BOOK 107 PAGE A BOOK 101 FAa . � , Ordinance No. 98- 25 SECTION 3. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions All previous ordinances, resolutions, or motions of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida which conflict with the provisions of this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4. Severability It is declared to be the intent of the Board of County Commissioners that if any provision of this ordinance and therefore, the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan Amendment is for any reason finally held invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be deemed a separate, distinct and independent provision and such holding shall not affect the validity of the remaining provisions. SECTION 5. Effective Date The effective date of this ordinance, and therefore, this plan amendment, shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the Amendment in compliance with Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this Amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this Amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption at a public meeting after public notice of a resolution aff ening its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100. This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Joumal on the 14`, day of September, 1998 for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of September, 1998 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner E g g e r t , seconded by Commissioner A d a m s , and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin a y e Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Macht a y e Commissioner Fran B. Adams a y e Commissioner Carolvn K. Eggert aye Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn a y e BOARD OF COUNTY COIN MSSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Bi ATTEST BSC': Jeffrey K. �Ba otto Acknowledgment by the Department of State of the State of Florida this t emWA& Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 1stlay of October , 1998, at 8: 3 pA.MJR JA. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida. u•,pe\lu\dav\ord cpa.dav September 22, 1998 78 Indin r'bvw Ca A;ff*ved 0;1e Admin Legal Budget Deo t. n RiskMgr ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Adams, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinand 98-026 amending the Zoning Ordinance and the accompanying Zoning Map from RM -4 to IL for the properties located approximately 700 feet north of 57th Street, between Old Dixie Highway and US# 1. (Helen Davis, et al) ORDINANCE NO. 98- 2 6 AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FROM RM4 TO IL, FOR THE PROPERTIES LOCATED APPROXIMATELY 700 FEET NORTH OF 57"' STREET, BETWEEN OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY AND U.S. 1, AND DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDLNTG SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters. has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described properties; and IN'HEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance %vith the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and WHEREAS. the Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties in interest and citizens were heard; NOW. THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED, by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the zoning of the following described properties situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: Parcel "A" --- O.R. BOOK 57' . PG. 1793 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNIER OF THE SOLMMAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1:4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, RUN SOUTH 89- 48' 30" WEST ALONG THE EAST -WEST 1/4 SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 888.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHINTAY NO. 1; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD L.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 716.48 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGLNI'ING; FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. I. A DISTANCE OF 266.83 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 125.00 FEET; September 22, 1998 79 4 BOOK � i PAGE 14br' r BOOK 10 i PAGE 147 ORDNANCE NO. 98- 2 6 THENCE NORTHWESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 131.54 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 218.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 397.40 FEET; THENCE WESTERLY AND PARALLEL Wrii THE NORTH BCrvNDARY Ok THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, A DISTANCE OF 341.09 FEET TO THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; PARCEL `B" -- O.R. BOOK 489, PG. 811 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, RUN SOUTH 89° 48' 30" WEST ALONG THE EAST -WEST 1/4 SECTION LINE, A DISTANCE OF 888.48 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 672.26 FEET TO THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALBERT LEE DAVIS, AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 230, PAGE 126 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND SAID POINT BEING THE TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FROM THE POINT BEGINNING CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 44.20 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST U4 OF SAID SECTION 15, A DISTANCE OF 341.09 FEET TO AN INTERSECTION WITH THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY OF THE NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1: THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG THE `RBST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF THE NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. I _A DISTANCE OF 44.08' TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALBERT LEE DAMS, AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 230. PAGE 126 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE WESTERLY ALONTG THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THAT CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND CONVEYED TO ALBERT LEE DAVIS, AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 230, PAGE 126 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. FLORIDA, A DISTANCE OF 340.79 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; CONTALNffiNG 0.333 ACRES OF LAND. PARCEL "C" — O.R. BOOK 230, PG. 126 THE NORTH 128.16 FEET OF THE SOUTH 647.97 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1,4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRESENTLY E)aSTING U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID RIGHT OF WAY BEING 33 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONTAINING 1.0 ACRES. PARCEL -D" — O.R BOOK 684, PG. 2771 THE NORTH 258.55 FEET OF THE SOUTH 519.81 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRESENTLY EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID RIGHT OF WAY BEING 33 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID OLD U.S. HIGHWAY N0.1, SAID LAND LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. September 22, 1998 80 ORDINANCE NO. 98- 2 6 PARCEL "E" — O.R. BOOK 684, PG. 2772 COMMENCING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE NORTH 258.55 FEET OF THE SOUTH 519.81 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING WEST OF THE WEST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF PRESENTLY EXISTING U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, AND EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, SAID RIGHT OF WAY BEING 33 FEET EITHER SIDE OF THE CENTERLINE OF SAID OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; THENCE EAST A DISTANCE OF 107.47 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE CONTINUE EAST A DISTANCE OF 75 FEET; THENCE NORTH A DISTANCE OF 32 FEET; THENCE WEST A DISTANCE OF 75 FEET; THENCE SOUTH A DISTANCE OF 32 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; SAID LAND LYING AND BELtiG IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL "F" --- O.R. BOOK 404, PG. 597 THE SOUTH 261.26 FEET OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15. TOIXNISHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING EAST OF THE OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 AND WEST OF THE NEW U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; CONTAINING TWO ACRES OF LAND EXCLUSIVE OF RIGHTS OF WAY MENTIONED ABOVE, SITUATED AND LYING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. LESS AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 130.63 FEET THEREOF AS DESCRIBED IN O.R. BOOK 1133. PAGE 2354 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. PARCEL "G" --- O.R. BOOK 1028, PG. 2323 FROM THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE SOLTHE AST V4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SECTION 15, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. RUN SOUTH 890 48' 30" 'WEST ALONG THE EAST -FEST 1,4 SECTION LUNE, A DISTANCE OF 888.48 FEET TO AN LNTERSECTION WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINT- OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1; FROM THE SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTINUE NORTHWESTERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 131.54; THENCE NORTHNNT-STERLY ALONG THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OLD U.S. HIGHWAZ' NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 983.29 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE EASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15, A DISTANCE 125.00; THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE EAST RIGHT OF WAY LINE OF OLD U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 A DISTANCE OF 131.54; THENCE WESTERLY AND PARALLEL WITH THE NORTH BOUNDARY OF THE SOUTHEAST 1/4 OF THE NORTHEAST 1/4 OF SAID SECTION 15, A DISTANCE OF 125.00' TO POINT OF BEGINh1VG; CONTAINING 0.363 ACRES OF LAND. Be changed from R -M-4 to IL. All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and described in said Land Development Regulations. September 22, 1998 81 BOOK �� Ei'48 i' BOOK 10,-1 PAGE 140 ORDLtiA'v'CE NO. 98- 2 6 Effective Date: This ordinance shall become effective upon the issuance by the State Department of Community Affairs of a Notice of Intent to find the related Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment contained in Ordinance No. 98-2in compliance in accordance with s. 163.3184(9) or the issuance of a final order by the Administration Commission finding the referenced amendment in compliance with s. 163.3184(10). Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 22' d day of September, 1998. This ordinance was advertised in the Press -Journal on the 9' day of September, 1998 for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of September, 1998 at which time it «vas moved for adoption by Commissioner Eggert , seconded by Commissioner Adams and adopted by the following vote: Chairman John W. Tippin Aye Vice -Chairman Kenneth R. Machty-- Commissioner Fran B. Adams A y e Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Ay e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn Ay P BOARD OF COUNTY CO.'1MISSIO'NERS OF L\�LA`\ Rn7ER COUN-EY BY: '' r John" tib'. Ti in, a an ATTEST BY. Jeffrep.. Barton, C1Ei c� 7 This ordinance was filed with the Department of State on the folios •inc date: upe:u dav'ord rzon.dav 1n•" &VW Wkpe Oat AdminLegalBudget Oect i '0 � / i n' -� -7- , RISit Mgr r�a i ��+.-i September 22, 1998 82 • 9.C.1. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - WINDSOR PROPERTIES. INC. - REOUEST FOR AN ADDITION TO WINDSOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PARAMETERS (QUASI-JUDICIAL) Chairman Tippin read aloud a Memorandum of September 15, 1998: TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: Obert M. Keating, AIC Community Development Dire or -A " THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director FROM: John McCoy1a� Senior Planner, Current Development DATE: September 15, 1998 SUBJECT: Notice of Scheduled Public Hearing It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. Please be advised that the following public hearing has been scheduled for Board consideration at its October 6, 1998 meeting: 1. Windsor Properties Inc.'s request for an addition to the Windsor Planned Development and modification to the development parameters. (Quasi-judicial) The above referenced public hearing date is provided for the Board of County Commissioners information. No action is needed. NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. September 22, 1998 83 • BOOK 107 PAGE 150 BOOK[,. PAGE �.�. 9.C.2. PUBLIC NOTICE ITEM - CONSIDERATION OF LOCAL OPTION GAS TAX DISTRIBUTION FORMULA Chairman Tippin read aloud a Memorandum dated September 14, 1998: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E. Public Works Director` J SUBJECT: Public Hearing for Consideration of Local Option Gas Tax Distribution Formula DATE: September 14, 1998 Section 209 of the County Code requires that the Board of County Commissioners conduct a Public Hearing bi-annually for the purpose of reviewing the method of distribution with the municipalities for the Local Option Gas Tax Revenue (64, -per gallon). Staff has received updated data from all five municipalities regarding formula parameters (population, number of equivalent lane miles of roadway, and transportation expenditures during the past five years). If the existing distribution formula is retained, the attached chart contains the distribution percentages. The chart has been sent to all five municipalities. At this time, staff is recommending that a public hearing date of October 27, 1998 be established. The County Attorney's office will arrange advertising, etc. Local Option Gas Tax Distribution.Chart NO ACTION REQUIRED OR TAKEN. 11.A.1. PARKS AND RECREATION_ USAGE SURVEY -FLORIDA SURVEY RESEARCH CENTER OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA - GLATTING JACKSON KERCHER ANGLIN LOPEZ AND RINEHART. INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 15, 1998: September 22, 1998 84 TO: James E. Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE TWIT M. Keating, APCPI Community Development Ditec THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP 5� W Chief, Long -Range Planning FROM: John Wachte A ) Senior Planner, Long -Range Planning DATE: September 15, 1998 RE: Parks and Recreation Usage Survey It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting of September 22, 1998. This is a request from planning staff for authorization to initiate a Parks and Recreation Usage Survey. Total expenditures for this project would be up to $9,790.00 ($8,470.00 to design and administer the survey to a random sample of county households, and up to $1,320.00 for consultant services). The Planning Division's proposed budget for the 1998-99 fiscal year includes sufficient funding for this project. This project was identified as necessary in the county's recently revised comprehensive plan. Because quality parks and recreational facilities are key components in maintaining the county's quality of life, it is important to accurately assess the county's need for new parks and recreational facilities. Not only must the county determine how much new parkland is needed; the county must also determine where that parkland should be located, and what facilities are needed on that parkland. Although national standards provide a guide, they do not take into account unique local characteristics. This project will address those issues. On March 17, 1998, the county adopted substantial amendments to its comprehensive plan. A new policy adopted with those amendments is Recreation and Open Space Element Policy 1.6. That Policy commits the county to completing an analysis of park and recreation needs. There are many techniques, including household surveys, public workshops, focus groups, and task forces, that can be used to determine local recreation needs. After researching this issue and coordinating with several parks and recreation planning experts, planning staff and recreation staff determined that a household survey would be the most effective and efficient technique to pursue at this time. September 22, 1998 85 BOOK 10"i PAGE 1.32 F, BOOK d r1� PAGE 1 To accurately measure needs, a survey must be appropriately designed and adequately administered. It also must be statistically valid. For those reasons, it is important to obtain assistance from an organization having experience in designing and administering surveys. Staff s analysis indicates that the Florida Survey Research Center (FSRQ of the University of Florida offers the best combination of price, service, and experience with this type of survey. The purpose of the proposed survey is to identify park and recreational facility needs both countywide and for geographic sub -areas in the county. -This is done by comparing recreational facility supply and demand within specific geographic areas of the county. The proposed survey is a means to estimate the level of demand. A properly designed and administered parks and recreation usage survey will provide the necessary information to estimate, with a high degree of accuracy, expressed demand on a per capita basis for park types and recreational facilities. Using information from the same survey, latent demand can also be estimated, although with a lesser degree of accuracy. Additional details about the survey methodology are contained in Attachment 3. While researching this project, staff determined that outside assistance would be needed in the following areas: • designing the survey instrument; • generating or obtaining a scientifically valid sample; • administering the survey; and • analyzing the results. While obtaining the needed assistance will involve contracting with a consultant, that consultant may be either a public institution, a private firm, or a non-profit organization that is involved in market research and surveying the public. Based on cost, service, and expertise, staff determined that the best alternative is to work primarily with a public institution, while using a private sector firm on a limited basis. That arrangement frees the county from the costly and time consuming consultant selection requirements of Section 287.055, FS (The Consultants' Competitive Negotiation Act). Staff proposes a random sample telephone survey of county households, including both incorporated and unincorporated areas. A survey sample size of 600 households will provide a f4% margin of error with a 95% confidence level. In other words, there is a 95% chance that the margin of error will be f4% or less. - As noted previously, the organization conducting the survey charges $8,470.00. Specifically, that organization would provide the following services: 1. Work with the county to develop the survey instrument. The county will provide final approval of the instrument prior to the implementation of the survey. The instrument is intended to take approximately 10 minutes to administer, 2. Pretest the survey instrument prior to the implementation of the survey; 3. Obtain approvals for conducting the survey from the University of Florida Institutional Review Board; September 22, 1998 86 0_ 0 - 4. Obtain a random sample of Indian River County households from a commercial sampling firm; 5. Train interviewers to administer the survey; 6. Administer the survey; 7. Monitor the demographic characteristics of the respondents to ensure that key groups are proportionately represented in the survey; 8. Prepare a database on an IBM compatible microcomputer, and analyze the results; and 9. Prepare a report that summarizes the results of the survey. The report will include: a. A summary of key findings; b. A master questionnaire that provides countywide responses to all survey questions; C. A narrative analysis with tables; and _ d. A series of tables that provide survey results by key demographic and geographic subgroups. A timeframe of eleven weeks is anticipated for the entire survey process from design of the instrument to completing the final report. Services 1 through 5 typically require approximately six weeks to complete. Actually administering 600 surveys is anticipated to take approximately two weeks. Completing the final report usually takes another 3 weeks. Both planning and recreation staffrecognize that demographic characteristics such as age and wealth are related to recreation choices, and that demographic differences between certain areas of the county do exist. Therefore, an area of the county with a high concentration of retirees may prefer recreational facilities such as tennis courts, while an area of the county with a high concentration of families with children may prefer playgrounds and multiple -purpose ballfields. With that in mind, the survey will be designed to estimate demand on a countywide basis and in six geographic districts. The districts were developed by staff such that each district has similar demographic characteristics. The six districts are depicted on Attachment 4 and are listed below. 1. West County 2. South County 3. Southeast Mainland 4. Vero Beach/Indian River Shores 5. Gifford/Central County 6. North County A minimum of 100 households will be surveyed from each district. That will provide a ±10% margin of error with a 95% confidence level for each -district. To ensure the usefulness of the survey, staff proposes to use the planning firm of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart, Inc. (Glatting Jackson) on an "as needed" basis. This firm has substantial experience in all phases of parks and recreation planning, including surveys and analysis of usage and need. Staff does not anticipate that Glatting Jackson's services will exceed eight hours. Based on an hourly fee of $165.00, Glatting Jackson's services may cost up to $1,320.00. Because Glatting Jackson's total fee would be less than $5,000.00, Chapter 105 of the Indian River County Code allows the county to use its Sole Source Authority. Tasks for which Glatting Jackson's expertise would be particularly useful include evaluation of the survey instrument and evaluation of survey results. September 22, 1998 87 BOOK 10 7 PAGE .g.� F, BOOK l i PAGE 1,35 As structured, the survey should provide an accurate estimate of actual expressed demand, as opposed to perceived demand. As detailed in Attachment 3, the numbers and information generated by the survey can be inputted into mathematical formulas to determine recreation facility needs. Those needs, in turn, can be compared to existing facilities to determine if there is a surplus or deficit of recreation facilities. Other tools/techniques, however, may be necessary in the future to corroborate and/or expand the survey's results. Besides surveys, complete Parks and Recreation Program Analyses should include a visible public participation process including any combination of the following tools/techniques. • Public Workshop • Focus Groups • Steering Committee/Task Force • Comparison to State and National Standards • On-site Surveys The comprehensive plan has identified the need for a parks and recreation usage survey. To meet that need staff has developed a study methodology and determined how the survey results will be used to estimate demand. Additionally, staff has researched consulting firms and negotiated proposed contracts. In order to initiate this project at the beginning of the 1998-99 fiscal year, staff requests that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to expend up to $9,790.00 to complete the survey, and that the -Board approve the attached agreements. Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners take the following actions: • Authorize staff to initiate a Parks and Recreation Usage Survey; • Authorize the expenditure of up to $9,790.00 to complete the survey; and • Approve the attached agreements with the Florida Survey Research Center of the University of Florida and the planning firm of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez and Rinehart, Inc. ATTACHMENTS 1. Agreement between the Florida Survey Research Center of the University of Florida and Indian River County - 2. Agreement between Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez and Rinehart, Inc. and Indian River County 3. Planning for New Recreation Facilities 4. Parks and Recreation Districts September 22, 1998 • 88 0 MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, to approve staff's recommendation. (to authorize staff to initiate a Parks and Recreation Usage Survey; and to authorize expenditure of up -to $9,790 to complete the survey; and to approve agreements with Florida Survey Research Center of the University of Florida and the planning firm of Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez and Rinehart, Inc., as recommended in the Memorandum.) Under discussion, Commissioner Adams commended Community Development Director Bob Keating, Senior Planner John Wachtel, Public Works Director James Davis, and Recreation Department Director Pat Callahan for the very good job for over a year in bringing this matter to this point. Chairman Tippin commented on the high rates for private sector assistance in this contract. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried unanimously. AGREEMENTS WITH UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA AND GLATTING JACKSON KERCHER ANGLIN LOPEZ AND RINEHART, INC. ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.A.2. RESOLUTION 98-097 SUPPORTING COMMUNITY INITIATIVES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S PROPOSED 100 - UNIT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT Community Development Director Bob Keating reviewed a Memorandum of September 11, 1998: September 22, 1998 89 BOOK 10 .� FACE �' -I ,BOOK�.' TO: James Chandler County Administrator HEAD CONCURRENCE: Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development FROM: Sasan Rohani, AICP S -W Chief, Long Range Planning DATE: September 11, 1998 SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF A RESOLUTION OF SUPPORT FOR THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S PROPOSED 100 UNIT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of September 22, 1998. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On July 24, 1998, Mr. Curtis Musgrove of the Community Initiatives Development Corporation (CIDC) sent the attached letter to County Commissioner Carolyn Eggert, requesting a resolution of support for the CIDC's proposed moderate income housing project in Indian River County. According to Mr. Musgrove, CIDC is a non-profit corporation (501(c)(3)) located in Hudson, New York. As part of its charter, CIDC may develop affordable housing projects for moderate income families. In Indian River County, CIDC is planning to develop a 100 unit project, consisting of 3 bedroom, 2 bath homes. The project's location is not finalized as of yet. As proposed, CIDC will provide these units on a "lease to own" basis to households that meet regular mortgage standards, but do not have sufficient savings for a downpayment. The lease payment will be approximately $865.00 per month. The CIDC proposes to finance the project through the sale of taxable bonds. Although these bonds will be "unconnected to the county in any way", CIDC is requesting that the county adopt a non- binding and liability free resolution supporting the project, to provide proof to the IRS that they are fulfilling their charter purpose by lessening the burdens of local governments. ANALYSIS Overall, the County, through its Local Housing Assistance Plan and the housing element of the County's comprehensive plan, supports increased home ownership and the provision of affordable housing for low and moderate income persons. As proposed, this project would be consistent with those obiectives. September 22, 1998 As of this time, CIDC has not formally applied for project approval. In fact, the applicant has attached only a general concept sketch of the proposed project to his July 24`x, 1998 letter. For that reason, staff cannot comment on any aspect of site development. Because planning staff, attorney staff and budget staff were not familiar with the Community Initiatives Development Corporation, staff did limited background checking of the applicant. The background check did not identify any problems relating to CIDC. In assessing the CIDC request, planning staff coordinated with the county attorney's office and the budget office. Based on that coordination, it was determined that the Board of County Commissioners could provide a non-binding and liability free statement of support for the proposed project. Therefore, staff has drafted the attached draft resolution. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners consider the attached conditional resolution. ATTACHMENT 1. A copy of Mr. Musgrove's letter dated July 24, 1998 2. A copy of Mr. Britt Hamill's letter dated August 27, 1998 3. A copy of Mr. William Collins, H's letter dated September 9, 1998 4. A copy of Mr. Britt Hamill's letter dated September 9, 1998 5. A copy of Mr. Nicholas Petragnani, Jr's letter dated September 10, 1998 6. A copy of the support resolution (CLERK'S NOTE: Affordable Housing Program Profile from Community Initiatives Development Corporation is on file with the backup of the meeting.) MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Macht, to adopt the proposed conditional resolution. Under discussion, Commissioner Ginn felt that $865 per month rent did not represent affordable housing and spoke against adoption of the resolution. George Lewis, a representative of CIDC's from Atlanta, advised that CIDC did not favor the term "affordable housing". He explained that their housing program was geared toward helping people on a moderate income acquire housing by leasing a unit to them for three years in order to build up a down payment, which they might not be able to do any September 22, 1998 91 BOOK 10'7 RGE.'50 7 1 BOOK_; other way. He confirmed that CIDC was not seeking any financial assistance from the County and their construction would be backed by private financing. In response to County Attorney Vitunac's inquiry, Mr. Lewis advised that CIDC needed a resolution of support from a local entity to satisfy the Internal Revenue Service; they could do it with the support of a local church. He added that they have done this kind of construction program in Leon County, Georgia, New York, and Las Vegas in the past. The Chairman CALLED THE QUESTION and the motion carried 4-1 (Commissioner Ginn opposed). (Adopted Resolution 98-097 supporting the Community Initiatives Development Corporation's proposal to build a 100 -unit moderate income housing project within Indian River County. RESOLUTION NO 98- 97 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA SUPPORTING THE COMMUNITY INITIATIVES DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION'S PROPOSAL TO BUILD A 100 UNIT MODERATE INCOME HOUSING PROJECT WITHIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY. WHEREAS, the county population has increased from 90,208 in 1990 to 106,675 in 1998, and it is projected to increase to 154,200 in 2020; and WHEREAS, this population growth creates a need for additional housing in general and additional moderate income housing in particular; and WHEREAS, the Community Initiatives Development Corporation (CIDC), a non-profit Corporation, is planning to construct an affordable housing project consisting of approximately 100 three bedroom, two bath housing units within Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the CIDC indicated that the proposed units will be available on a "lease to own" basis to individuals who meet standard mortgage underwriting standards with the exception of not having sufficient funds for a downpayment; and WHEREAS, the CIDC indicated that the project will be financed and owned during the lease period by the Community Initiatives Development Corporation, September 22, 1998 0 of Hudson, New York; and .11 WHEREAS, financing will be provided through the sale of taxable bonds, unconnected to the County; and WHEREAS, the County is not financially or otherwise connected to this project; and WHEREAS, the County has not received a formal application nor detailed plans for the project and therefore cannot endorse the project design nor location, but has determined that the program as described by the applicant would benefit Indian River County; and WHEREAS, the CIDC needs this resolution of support to provide proof to the IRS that CIDC is fulfilling its charter purpose by lessening the burdens of local governments. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida that: Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners supports the concept of the program proposed by CIDC to construct a lease - to - own affordable housing project for low and moderate income persons in the county. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners hereby declares that the county, through this resolution, is not approving the project design, location nor endorsing the project management. Section 3. The Board of County Commissioners declares that the Board is not associated with and is not liable for the sale of any taxable bonds associated with this project. Section 4. This resolution will not bind the County to provide any financial support to the project. September 22, 1998 93 BOOK 10,E PAGE IOU r� A BOOK t� FAGE,LUj The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Eggert , and seconded by Commissioner Macht and being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman, John W. Tippin aye Vice Chairman, Kenneth R. Macht aye Commissioner, Caroline D. Ginn nay Commissioner, Carolyn K. Eggert aye Commissioner, Fran B. Adams aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 22nd day of September, 1998. Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County By: John W. Tippi , airman Attest by: Jeffrey K. Barton, Cler�t� APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY: C�C�-teti William G. Collins, II Deputy County Attorney u\v\h\cidc.res September 22, 1998 0 94 Ince► Rivw Ca Approved Date Admin �G Legal Budget Dept. Risk Mgr. 40 11.B.1. RENEWAL OF CLASS E CERTIFICATE OF PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND NECESSITY TO PROVIDE WHEELCHAIR TRANSPORTATION SERVICES - ABLE HEALTH SERVICES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 14, 1998: TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director Emergency Services DATE: September 14, 1998 SUBJECT: Approval of Renewal of a Class E Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Able Health Services to Provide Wheelchair Transportation Services On August 31, 1995, during the regular meeting of the Transportation Disadvantaged Local Coordinating Board, the Board recommended to the County Commission that an ordinance be adopted to require a Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity (COPCN) for the regulation of wheelchair transportation services. On Tuesday, September 19, 1995, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved regulations governing wheelchair services as noted in Chapter 304, Life Support and Wheelchair Services, and more specifically in Part H, Wheelchair Vehicle Services. A Class "E" Certificate is described in the Indian River County Code referenced above as "Any person who provides wheelchair vehicle services where said services are paid for in part or in whole either directly or indirectly with government funds shall be required to have a Class "E" Certificate. " Able Health Services was one of several applicants for a Class E Certificate and subsequent to meeting the provisions of Chapter 304, Able was granted a Class E Certificate on September 24, 1996, which expires on September 24, 1998. Able Health Services is not under contract with the Transportation Coordinator and currently operates with the Board stipulation as a private pay only service. The service has recently undergone an inspection of vehicles, facilities, and records by the State EMS Office and staff from the Department of Emergency Services. The Indian River County Code provides for routine renewal of certificates of public convenience and necessity on application by the certificate holder. This can be accomplished without a public hearing if the Board has no reason to believe that the public health, safety, and welfare require it. Staff submits that there is no reason at this time to hold a public hearing and absent that requirement, requests the Board issue and renew the certificate routinely. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the renewal of a Class E Certificate of Pubic Convenience and Necessity for Able Health Services to provide wheelchair transportation services for two years pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances. ATTACHMENTS: Copy of renewal application. List of current COPCN providers (all classes) and copy of Chapter 304. September 22, 1998 BOOK 107 PAGE !2 r� Fr -7 1 BOOK 1-U_ G PAGE 10t9 In response to Commissioner Eggert's inquiry, Emergency Services Director Doug Wright advised that all the vehicles had been inspected and there were no problems. ON MOTION by Commissioner Adams, SECONDED BY Commissioner Grin, the Board unanimously approved the renewal of a Class E Certificate of Public Convenience and Necessity for Able Health Services to provide wheelchair transportation services for two years pursuant to Chapter 304 of the Code, as recommended in the Memorandum. 11.B.2. CONTRACT RENEWAL - ANIMAL SHELTER SERVICES - HUMANE SOCIETY OF VERO BEACH The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 11, 1998: TO: Honorable Board of County Commissioners THROUGH: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: Doug Wright, Director'` Emergency Services DATE: September 11, 1998 SUBJECT: Renewal of Contract with the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, Inc., for Providing Animal Shelter Services On August 22, 1995, the Board of County Commissioners approved a three year contract with the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, Inc., to provide animal shelter services to the County with an effective date of October 1, 1995. The Contract, which expires on September 30, 1998, included a Scope of Services and other pertinent clauses as well as the amount and method of compensation. The existing contract provided for compensation as follows: YEAR 1 (1995/96) AND YEAR 2 (1996/97) $30 per animal for the first 3,000 animals $35 per animal for the next 1,500 animals $40 per animal for the remaining animals received YEAR 3 (1997/98) $40 per animal September 22, 1998 0 0 The County compensated the Humane Society as follows for the current contract: YEAR # ANIMALS COMPENSATION FY 1995/96 5026 $165,660 FY 1996/97 5039 $164,805 FY 1997/98 4660* $186,440* *Estimated The Humane Society is seeking to renew the contract with the County for another three (3) year term and after meetings and negotiations with staff, is requesting compensation as follows: YEAR 1 (1998/99) $40 per animal for each animal received, excluding requested euthanasia, foster pets, and out of county animals YEAR 2 (1999/00) $42.50 per animal for each animal received, excluding requested euthanasia, foster pets, and out of county animals YEAR 3 (2000/01) $45 per animal for each animal received, excluding euthanasia, foster pets, and out of county animals The Humane Society has provided the County with financial statements as of March 31, 1998, which was prepared by Rebecca B. Colton, P.A. Certified Public Accountants. The documents are attached for review and informational purposes. In the FY 1998/99 proposed budget, $202,500 has been allocated for expenses related to the Humane Society contract for animal shelter services. Staff submits that this amount is sufficient and appropriate given past history for the number of animals received at the shelter. The alternative to the contract with the Humane Society for animal sheltering services is for the County to build and staff a shelter to provide these same services or contract with a private entity other than the Humane Society for the services. In 1995, the County released an RFP for a private entity to provide a shelter and services, but no proposal was received. Staff does not propose that the County build and staff an animal shelter since the expenses related to this type of operation would substantially exceed the amount currently being paid to the Humane Society. There are some minor operational issues not included in the Contract that staff will handle with a memorandum of understanding between Animal Control and the Humane Society. There has been an excellent working relationship between the two agencies and there is no reason to believe that will change in the future. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends the Board approve the Contract for Providing Animal Shelter Services with the Humane Society of Vero Beach and Indian River County, Inc. ATTACHMENT: Proposed Humane Society Contract September 22, 1998 97 BOOK BOOK 107 PAGUE X105 ON MOTION by Commissioner Macht, SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved the Contract for Providing Animal Shelter Services with the Humane Society of Vero Beach under the terms and conditions as set forth in the Memorandum, as recommended in the Memorandum. CONTRACT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.1. DONALD MACDONALD PARK BOAT RAMP REPLACEMENT - SPECIAL WATERWAY PROJECTS GRANT AGREEMENT - FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 14, 1998: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.Ei ' Public Works Director FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Capital Projects Manage SUBJECT: Special Waterway Projects Grant Agreement Boat Launching Facilities Replacement for Donald MacDonald Park DATE: September 14, 1998 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The Department of Environmental Protection has approved the County's application to replace the boat ramp at Donald MacDonald Park. The existing ramp is too short and in disrepair. The attached grant agreement for Donald MacDonald Park Boat Ramp Replacement in the amount of $80,000.00 provides for replacing the existing boat ramp and adjacent dock. Indian River County is exempt from a match requirement because it is one of 23 eligible counties with the least number of registered boats. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Chairman be authorized to execute the attached grant agreement for Donald MacDonald Park Boat Launching Facilities Replacement. Grant Agreement September 22, 1998 98 ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized the Chairman to execute the grant agreement with Florida Department of Environmental Protection for Donald MacDonald Park Boat Launching Facilities Replacement, as recommended in the Memorandum. CY X GRANT AGREEMENT IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.G.2. FAIRGROUNDS AGRICULTURAL ARENA BUILDING - NEGOTIATIONS AUTHORIZED WITH BARTH CONSTRUCTION IN ASSOCIATION WITH EDLUND AND DRITENBAS FOR DESIGN/BUILD PROFESSIONAL SERVICES The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 15, 1998: TO: James E. Chandler, County Administrator FROM: James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director. SUBJECT: Design/Build Professional Services Selection - Fairgrounds Agricultural Arena DATE: September 15, 1998 On July 29, 1998, staff advertised in the Vero Beach Press -Journal for Professional Services to design/build the Fairgrounds Agricultural Arena Building. On August 26, 1998, the following two design/build teams submitted qualifications/proposals: Barth Construction, Inc. in association with Edlund & Dritenbas Architects - Vero Beach, F1. Mach III Design • Build, Inc. - Melbourne, FL. Since only two firms submitted a response, the Selection Committee, composed of James Davis, Sean McGuire, and Terry Thompson, received oral presentations and interviewed the firms on Sept. 10, 1998. September 22, 1998 . • BOOK 107 PAGE.' Ir 'I BOOK 107 PAGE i0V The Selection Committee was impressed with the qualifications of both firms. After the presentations/ interviews, the Committee ranked the firms in the following.order: 1) Barth Construction, Inc. in association with Edlund & Dritenbas. 2) Mach III Design • Build, Inc. RECOMKENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends that the Board authorize contract negotiation with the first ranked firm, Barth Construction in association with Edlund and Dritenbas. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously authorized contract negotiations with the first -ranked firm Barth Construction, in association with Edlund and Dritenbas, for professional services to design/build the Fairgrounds Agricultural Arena Building, as recommended in the Memorandum. 11.G.3. 37TH STREET, 41ST STREET, AND 45TH STREET IMPROVEMENTS - CHANGE ORDER #1- DICKERSON FLORIDA The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 15, 1998: TO: James Chandler County Administrator THROUGH: James W. Davis, P.E. Director Public Works r Don Hubbs Director, Utility � �Irtnt FROM: Terry B. Thompson, P.E. Capital Projects Manage SUBJECT: Change Order No. 1 37'h Street, 41'" Street and 45'hStreet Improvements DATE: September 15, 1998 September 22, 1998 100 DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS Construction of referenced project is substantially complete. The attached Change Order balances final quantities to date. A final Change Order and Release of Retainage will be brought to the Board after the punch list is complete. RECOMMENDATIONS AND FUNDING Staff recommends approval of the attached Change Order No. 1 in the amount of $15,003.45. This added to the current contract amount of $1,809,086.45 results in a new contract amount of $1,824,098.90. The division of funding for this Change Order is as follows: Hospice Driveway Utility Conflicts & Force Force Main Break Roadway & Drainage ATTACHMENT Change Order No. 1 Indian River Memorial Hospital Renewal & Replace Account Sewer Main Repair Account Account #309-215-541-067.66 NET CHANGE ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously approved Change Order No. 1 with Dickerson Florida, Inc. in the amount of $15,003.45, resulting in a new contract amount of $1,824,098.90, as set forth and recommended in the Memorandum. IS CHANGE ORDER NO. 1 IX PLED ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD W <N REC�(ED $ 7,836.16 $17,976.23 $ 7,686.00 ($-18.494.94) $15,003.45 11.H.1. MARTIN AVENUE SEWER PROJECT - FINAL PAY REQUEST - DRIVEWAYS, INC. The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 11, 1998: September 22, 1998 101 BOOK 10 `1 PAGE a n � BOOK 10r� _ �, PAGE .x.69 DATE: SEPTEMBER 11, 1998 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADhOMTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. \ 7�- /'i DIRECTOR OF UTII,TTY SEMCES PREPARED MICHAEL C. HOTCHKISS, P.E. AND STAFFED ENVIRONMENTAL ENGINEER BY: DEPARTMENT OF UTILITY SERVICES SUBJECT: MARTIN AVENUE SEWER PROJECT FINAL PAY REQUEST INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. US -97 -01 -CS WIP NO. 472-000-169-320.00 LABOR CONTRACT NO. 4007 BACKGROUND On May 26, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners authorized Driveways, Inc. to construct a force main to provide sewer service to the above -referenced project and to collect line extension fees from customers who wish to connect to the sewer system (see attached meeting of minutes). Construction of the project is now complete and the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) has issued clearance to begin connecting customers to the system. The Department of Utility Services is requesting approval for the attached final payment to the contractor and to begin collecting connection fees (based on the final construction costs) from customers as they connect. ANALYSIS The attached final pay request is for $3,054.27 and represents 18.7 % of the labor contract amount of $16.367.66. Utilities staff is now prepared to make final payment in the amount of $3,054.27. The original project included cost for _installing ductile iron pipe (DIP). During the construction permit review with DEP, the Utilities Department was able to obtain approval to se3stitute high density polyethylene (HDPE) pipe for the originally proposed DIP, resulting in a material cost savings of $13,446.57 (62.7%) of the $21,444.44 that was originally estimated (see attached meeting of minutes). Also, the originally estimated $1,636.77 contingency was not needed (due to favorable conditions in the field), resulting in a total project cost savings of $15,083.24 (35.2%) of the originally estimated $42,848.87. The total construction cost of the project is as follows: Labor Contract $16,367.66 Material $7,997.87 Engineering, Inspection and Permitting $3.400.00 Total Project Cost $27,765.53 During construction, one of the parcels in the Phase 2B area was subdivided. The new lot is adjacent to the force main constructed during the Phase 2A project. As a result, the total area to share in the cost of construction of Phase 2A increased from 81,151 GSF to 84,157 GSF (30% of .23 acres or 3,006 GSF-see attached Property Appraiser's summary sheet of new lot). 'The revised cost-sharing summary is as follows: September 22, 1998 0 102 • 'A Phase 1 & 2 Phase 2A Liftstation Coll. Svst. Phillipson Equivalent Building 307.500 84,157 11.892 Area - (square feet) Project $90,120.00 $27,765.53 Cost Phillipson's 3.87% 14.13% Share Phillipson's $3,487.64 $3,923.27 Total -$7,410.91 Cost RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the above-described cost recovery from connecting customers, approve final payment to Driveways, Inc. in the amount of $3,054.27 and authorize chairman to execute same, as presented. ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED BY Commissioner Ginn, the Board unanimously approved the cost recovery from connecting customers as set forth; approved final payment to Driveways, Inc. in the amount of $3,054.27; and authorized the Chairman to execute same, as recommended in the Memorandum. FINAL PAY REQUEST IS ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD 11.H.2. RESOLUTION 98-098 - US#1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (391H STREET TO HARBOR DRIVE) - FINAL ASSESSMENT (RESOLUTION IVB The Board reviewed a Memorandum of September 4, 1998: September 22, 1998 103 BOOK 107 PAGE VO DATE: SEPTEMBER 4, 1998 TO: JAMES E. CHANDLER COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR FROM: DONALD R. HUBBS, P.E. '. P.E. DIRECTOR OF UTILITY PREPARED JAMES D. CHAST _ AND STAFFED MANAGER OF ASSE PROJECTS BY: DEPARTMENT O ITY SERVICES SUBJECT: IIS 1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39= STREET TO HARBOR DRIVE) RESOLUTION IV - FINAL ASSESSMENT INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW -96 -18 -DS BACKGROUND At the public hearing on June 10, 1997, the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners approved Resolution III (97-61) for the preliminary assessment roll on the above -referenced project. Construction of the project has been completed. We are now ready to begin customer connections and request the Board of County Commissioners' approval of the final assessment roll. (See attached minutes and Resolution III.) ANALYSIS The preliminary assessment was for an estimated cost of $223,299.89, which equated to $0.176227 per square foot of property assessed. The final assessment (see attached Resolution IV and the accompanying assessment roll) is in the amount of $191,737.97, which equates to a cost of $0.152460 (rounded) per square foot. The final a,5sessment and project cost is 14.13% less than originally estimated. RECOMMENDATION The staff of the Department of Utility Services recommends that the Board of County Commissioners approve the adoption of Resolution IV as outlined above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Ginn, SECONDED BY Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 98-098 certifying "as -built" costs for installation of water service to the east side of US#1 (39 h Street to Harbor Drive) and such other construction necessitated by such project; providing for formal completion date and date for payment without penalty and interest. September 22, 1998 104 As Built (Final Reso.) 9/98(resolasbuilt)Vk/DC RESOLUTION NO. 98-98 A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CERTIFYING "AS -BUILT" COSTS FOR INSTALLATION OF WATER SERVICE TO THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. 1 (39TH STREET TO HARBOR DRIVE) AND SUCH OTHER CONSTRUCTION NECESSITATED BY SUCH PROJECT; PROVIDING FOR FORMAL COMPLETION DATE, AND DATE FOR PAYMENT WITHOUT PENALTY AND INTEREST. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County determined that water improvements for properties located within the area of the east side of U.S. 1 (39th Street to Harbor Drive) are necessary to promote the public welfare of the county; and WHEREAS, on Tuesday, June 10, 1997, the Board held a public hearing at which time and place the owners of property to be assessed appeared before the Board to be heard as to the propriety and advisability of making such improvements; and WHEREAS, after such public hearing was held the County Commission adopted Resolution No. 97-61, which confirmed the special assessment cost of the project to the property specially benefited by the project in the amounts listed in the attachment to that resolution; and WHEREAS, the Director of Utility Services has certified the actual "as -built" cost now that the project has been completed is less than in confirming Resolution No. 97-61, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, as follows: 1. Resolution No. 97-61 is modified as follows: The completion date for the referenced project and the last day that payment may be made avoiding interest and penalty charges is ninety days after passage of this resolution. 2. Payments bearing interest at the rate of 8.5% per annum may be made in ten annual installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date. The due date is ninety days after the passage of this resolution. 3. The final assessment roll for the project listed in Resolution No. 97-61 shall be as shown on the attached Exhibit "A." 4. The assessments, as shown on the attached Exhibit "A," shall stand confirmed, and will remain legal, valid, and binding first liens against the property against which such assessments are made until paid. 5. The assessments shown on Exhibit "A," attached to Resolution No. 97-61, were recorded by the County on the public records of Indian River County, and the lien shall remain prima facie evidence of its validity. The resolution was moved for adoption by Commissioner G i n n , and the motion was seconded by Commissioner. E g g e r t, and, upon being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: September 22, 1998 105 BOOK 107 PAGE 172 -BOOK PAGE, 3 Chairman John W. Tippin a y e Vice Chairman Kenneth R. Macht aye Commissioner Fran B. Adams aye Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert a y e Commissioner Caroline D. Ginn aye The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 2 2 day of September , 1998. Attest., J. K. Barton, Clerk B�P^ Deputy Clerk Attachment: ASSESSMENT ROLL BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA VN'f,1-4 By _ John W. T n Chairman FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL ind►2n riiva Ca AGproveD Data AdMA i 00, 4 Leal � I nisk Mgr. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT NO. UW - 96 -18 - DS U S 1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39 TH ST TO HARBOR DRIVE) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AUG. 25, 1968 J. D. C. US1 H20E1.WK4 September 22, 1998 106 0 0 • INDIAN RIVER COUNTY PROJECT _NO. UW -96 -18 -DS U S 1 WATER MAIN - EAST SIDE (39 TH ST TO HARBOR DR.) FINAL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY US1 H2OE2.WK4 SEPT 04, 1998 J. D. C. September 22, 1998 107 ROUNDED $0.152460 BOOK 107 FACE .774 SQUARE PARCEL NO OWNER (AC) ACRES FOOTAGE ASSESSMENT 23 32 39 00000 5000 00022.0 CRYSTAL BLUE 1.28 55,757 $8,500.71 23 32 39 00000 5000 00024.0 HIERS, BOBBY 1.14 49,658 $7,570.85 23 32 39 00000 5000 00026.0 JOBE (2.65) 2.00 87,120 $13,282.31 23 32 39 00000 5000 00027.0 SMITH (4.7 2.00 87,120 $13,282.31 23 32 39 00000 5000 00027.1 POUND 1.75 76,230 $11,622.02 23 32 39 00000 5000 00028.0 ROBERTSON 1.10 47,916 $7,30527 26 32 39 00000 1000 00007.0 SCHWERIN (29.72) 2.00 87,120 $13,282.31 26 32 39 00000 3000 00002.0 SELIGSON 1.81 78,844 $12,020.55 26 32 39 00000 3000 00012.0 MOLESTA 4.35 184,694 $28,158.44 26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.0 SCHOMMER (2.71 2.00 87,120 $13,282.31 26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.1 LABADIE 1.16 41,043 $6,257.41 26 32 39 00000 3000 00013.4 STORK 1.72 74,923 $11,422.76 26 32 39 00000 3000 00065.0 SCHWERIN REALTY 0.38 16,553 $2,523.67 26 32 39 00000 3000 00066.0 SCHWERIN REALTY 0.77 33,541 $5,113.66 26 32 39 00000 7000 00013.0 HUNTER 0.11 4,792 $730.58 26 32 39 00000 7000 00014.0 SCHOMMER 2.51 109,336 $16,669.36 26 32 39 00000 7000 00014.1 HUNTER 0.05 2,303 $351.11 26 32 39 00006 0000 00011.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.37 16,117 $2,457.19 26 32 39 00006 0000 00014.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.13 5,663 $863.38 26 32 39 00006 0000 00015.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.15 6,534 $996.17 26 32 39 00006 0000 00016.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.15 6,534 $996.17 26 32 39 00006 0000 00017.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.18 7,841 $1,195.43 26 32 39 00006 0000 00018.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.20 8,712 $1,328.23 26 32 39 00006 0000 00019.0 CRAZY WOMAN 0.22 9,583 $1,461.02 26 32 39 00006 0000 00020.0 KEMP 023 9,825 $1,497.91 26 32 39 00006 0000 00025.0 CRAZY WOMAN _ 0.01 436 $66.47 26 32 39 00006 0000 00045.0 EVANS 020 8,712 $1,328.23 26 32 39 00009 0000 00003.0 KNIGHT, C. REED 0.15 6,750 $1,029.10 26 32 39 00009 0000 00005.0 PAN AMERICAN 022 9,675 $1,475.05 26 32 39 00009 0000 00007.0 KNIGHT, C. REED 0.48 20,909 $3,187.78 26 32 39 00009 0000 00016.0 KNIGHT, C. REED Q, 16,268 $2,480.21 TOTAL 29.19 1,257,629 $191,737.97 TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST - $170,420.45 FINAL ENGINEERING COST $18,017.52 ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS $3.300.00 FINAL PROJECT COST AND AMOUNT TO BE ASSESSED $191,737.97 NET SQUARE FOOTAGE TO BE ASSESSED 1,257,629 ASSESSMENT COST PER SQUARE FOOT $0.15245988284 US1 H2OE2.WK4 SEPT 04, 1998 J. D. C. September 22, 1998 107 ROUNDED $0.152460 BOOK 107 FACE .774 U.S.1 EAST SIDE from 39th SL to 49th SL UW -96-1"S 473-000469-315.00 ASSESSMENT A/C # 473-000.115-337.00 CONSTRUCTION ALL AMERICAN CONCRETE CONTRACT (Approved by BCC 12-16-97) $162,665.00 Change Omer No.1 (Approved by BCC 814/98) $ 7,755.45 Adjusted Contract Amount $170,420.45 AMOUNT PAID TO DATE ENGINEERING Masteller, Molar and Reed, Inc. 12/5/96 $ 7,020.00 12/5/96 $ 4680 00 ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS D.E.P. 4/24/97 RUSSO PRINTING SVR 109541 102/97 #0231199 1021/97 ADVERTISING PRESSJOURNAL 6/12/97 6/18197 TOTAL IN GIL 8//98 AJ # (8- -98) for In-house Engineering and Administrative Costs TOTAL COST OF PROJECT TO BE ASSESSED A/C # 472-000-169-315.00 $ 1,003.80 A/C'# 473.000-169-315.01 $ 182,120.45 September 22, 1998 108 BOOK 107 FACE i ' uslE3ssTxLs 8/31/98 $ 170,420.45 $ 11,700.00 $ 11,700.00 $ 500.00 $ 500.00 $ 239.10 $ 85.40 $ 324.50 $ 49.50 $ 129.80 $ 179.30 $ 1,003.80 $ 183,124.25 $ 8,614.42 $ 191,738.67 0 0 A ILH.3. CENTRAL REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT - EXTEND ENGINEERING SERVICES WITH CAMP DRESSER AND MCKEE. INC. (AMENDMENT NO. 3) AND ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE INSPECTION SERVICES BY RICHARD KLINK Deleted. 14.A. EMERGENCY SERVICES DISTRICT The Chairman announced that the Board would convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Emergency Services District at the conclusion of the meeting. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. U.B. SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL DISTRICT The Chairman announced that the Board would convene as the Board of Commissioners of the Solid Waste Disposal District at the conclusion of the Emergency Services District meeting. Those Minutes are being prepared separately. MISCELLANEOUS COMMENTS Commissioners were reminded there would be no meeting next week. It was also announced that Chairman Tippin would be absent from the October 6' meeting and Vice Chairman Macht and Commissioner Ginn would be absent from the October 13' meeting. Items scheduled for public hearing could be postponed by the applicants if any wanted five Commissioners present. Commissioner Ginn reported that she heard from someone at the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council how well Indian River County is prepared for disasters and that all their dealings with staff have been exceptional. Chairman Tippin thought this compliment from the TCRPC was very noteworthy. Vice Chairman Macht thought it important to check to ascertain that entities the County relies upon in business dealings have made their computer systems capable of handling Year -2000 and sought assurance that the County has taken care of the problem. September 22, 1998 109 BOOK 107 PAGE DU BOOK 107 PAGE 17' Administrator Chandler assured the Board that the County has been working on this for the past two years. Commissioners agreed this was an important consideration. There being no further business, upon motion duly made and seconded, the Chairman adjourned the meeting at 10:30 a.m. ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk Minutes approved o?c) 99� September 22, 1998 110 11ohnn LW. Tippin, Chairman