PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z)

Donna A. Keys-District 1 Craig Fletcher-District 3 Gregory W. Smith-District 4 George H. C. Lawrence-District 5 Richard H. Baker-Member at Large George Hamner-Member at Large Ann Reuter – Non-voting liaison School Board

Robert E. Bruce, Chairman-District 2

The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet at 7:00 p.m. ON THURSDAY, June 28, 2007, in County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL ADJOURN NO LATER THAN 11:00 P.M. UNLESS THE MEETING IS EXTENDED OR CONTINUED TO A TIME CERTAIN BY A COMMISSION VOTE.

AGENDA

ITEM #1 CALL TO ORDER AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

ITEM #2 APPROVAL OF MINUTES

A. June 14, 2007 Meeting

ITEM #3 ITEMS ON CONSENT

A. Bella Rosa: Request for modification of a turn lane approval condition for the Bella Rosa Development (fka Village Oaks). JLW Management Corp, Owner. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, Agent. Located on the south side of 26th Street, just west of 58th Avenue. Zoning Classification: RM-8, Residential Multi-Family (up to 8 units per acre). Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density (up to 8 units per acre). Density: 7.75 units per acre. [Quasi-Judicial]

B. Diamond Court West: Request for major site plan and preliminary plat approval for a 70-unit multi-family residential development to be known as Diamond Court West. Regatta Construction, LLC, Owner. Masteller & Moler, Inc., Agent. Located at the northwest corner of Indian River Blvd/41st Street intersection. Zoning Classification: RM-6, Residential Single Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: M-, Medium Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre). Density: 4.41 units/acre. 9SP-MA- 06-12-64/SD-06-12-40/2006030269-564190 [Quasi-Judicial]

C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK347\6-28-07 Agenda.rtf 1 ITEM #4 ITEMS NOT ON CONSENT

A. Summerwalk: Request for major site plan and preliminary plat approval for a 128- unit multi-family residential development to be known as Summerwalk. VGS Homes, LLC, Owner. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, Agent. Located on the west side of 64th Avenue, north of CR 510. Zoning Classification: RM-6, Residential Multi- Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre). Density: 5.09 units/acre (SP-MA-06-07-29/SD-06-07- 24/2005020284-53780) [Quasi-Judicial]

B. Treasure Coast Montessori School: Request for administrative permit approval for a pre-school/child care facility to be known as the Treasure Coast Montessori School. Treasure Coast Montessori School, Owner. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, Agent. Located at 6320 8th Street. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural 1 (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Land Use Designation: AG-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres). (SP-MA- 07-05-23/2001060109-57712) [Quasi-Judicial]

ITEM #5 PUBLIC DISCUSSION

A. Appeal by The Polo Grounds, LLC of a decision by community development staff to deny a temporary use permit application for a real estate sales trailer at 7635 N. Polo Grounds Lane [TUP-07-07-51/2004040038-58611]

ITEM #6 PUBLIC HEARINGS

A Little Rising Star: Request for special exception use approval for a child care facility. Sally Alkayaly, Owner. W. F. McCain & Associates, Inc., Agent. Located at 2855 58th Avenue. Zoning Classification: RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre). Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units/acre). (SP-MI- 07-04-19/2006070080-57427) [Quasi-Judicial]

B. Bahia Honda Real Estate Investments IV LLC: Request to rezone ±6.67 acres located west of 90th Avenue and approximately 1,235 feet north of S.R. 60, from A-1, Agricultural-1 District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RM-8, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). Bahia Honda Real Estate Investments IV LLC, Owners. Kimley Horn and Associates, Agent. (RZON 2006060238-55223) (Quasi-Judicial)

C. Royal Professional Builders’: Request to rezone approx. 29.63 acres located south of 33rd Street and approximately 1,650 feet west of 66th Avenue from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS-3, Single-Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). Royal Professional Builders, Peter and Celia Liddell and Louie and Toby Fretwell, Owners. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, Agent. (RZON 2005070188- 54077) (Quasi-Judicial)

D. Redstick Golf Course Inc.’s: Request to Rezone ±1.11 acres located east of 58th Avenue and approximately 170 feet south of 85th Street, from A-1, Agricultural-1 District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). Redstick Golf Course Inc., Owner. Douglas Vitunac, Agent. (RZON 2007020134-57862) (Quasi-Judicial)

C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK347\6-28-07 Agenda.rtf 2 ITEM #7 COMMISSIONERS MATTERS

ITEM #8 PLANNING MATTERS

A. Planning Information Package

B. Continued Consideration of Ideas from April 25th Quality of Development Workshop

ITEM #9 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

ITEM #10 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 ON WHICH THE APPEAL IS BASED.

ANYONE WHO NEEDS A SPECIAL ACCOMMODATION FOR THIS MEETING MUST CONTACT THE COUNTY'S AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) COORDINATOR AT 772-226-1223, (TDD #772-770-5215) AT LEAST 48 HOURS IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.

Meeting may be broadcast live on Comcast Cable Channel 27 – may be rebroadcast continuously Saturday 7:00 p.m. until Sunday morning 7:00 a.m. Meeting broadcast same as above on Comcast Broadband, Channel 27 in Sebastian.

C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK347\6-28-07 Agenda.rtf 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Thursday, June 14, 2007 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.

Present were members: Chairman Bob Bruce, District 2 Appointee; Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; Greg Smith, District 4 Appointee; George H.C. Lawrence, District 5 Appointee (arrived at 8:06 p.m.; George Hamner and Dr. Richard Baker, Members-at-Large.

Absent was member: Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison (excused).

Also present were IRC staff: George Glenn, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Chris Mora, Assistant Director, Public Works; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Brian Freeman, Senior Planner, Current Development; and Darcy Vasilas, Interim Executive Aide.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Bruce called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. He proceeded to thank former member George Christopher for his service on the P&Z and gave a brief synopsis of Mr. Christopher's accomplishments.

Election of Vice Chairman

Chairman Bruce explained with the resignation of Mr. Christopher, it was necessary to elect a new Vice Chairman to serve on the P&Z for the remainder of 2007.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Ms. Keys, the members voted unanimously to elect George Hamner as the Vice Chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission for the remainder of 2007.

Approval of the Minutes

Two changes were made to the minutes:

P&Z / Unapproved 1 June 14, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc 1. On page 3, fourth paragraph, second to the last sentence should read:

"Mr. Mora stated the widening of 66th Avenue would extend north and may or may not include a left turn lane in five years."

2. On page 8, the first motion at the top of the page should read:

"ON MOTION BY Mr. Christopher, SECONDED BY Mr. Fletcher, the members voted (6-1) to deny the request to rezone ±:11.59 acres from CL, Limited Commercial District, to CG, General Commercial District. Mr. Christopher, Mr. Fletcher, Ms. Keys, Mr. .. Hamner, Dr. Baker and Chairman Bruce voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Smith voted against."

ON MOTION by Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Hamner, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the May 24, 2007 meeting minutes as amended.

Item Not on Consent (9:03)

Mrs. Vasilas administered the testimonial oath to all those present wishing to speak on any quasi-judicial items.

Chairman Bruce read the following into record.

A. Indigo: Request for major site plan and preliminary plat approval for a 116 unit multi-family residential development to be known as Indigo. LMC Development Vero, LLC, Owner. Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard, LLC, Agent. Zoning Classification: RM-6, Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density (up to 8 units/acre). Density: 5.998 units/acre. (SP-MA-06-09-51 & SD-06-09- 31/2006040206-55157) [Quasi-Judicial]

Mr. Brian Freeman, IRC Senior Planner, Current Development, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum; a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Chairman Bruce opened the public hearing at 7:16 p.m.

P&Z / Unapproved 2 June 14, 2007 F:IBCC\All Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc Discussion was held regarding:

• The possibility of switching the east and west entrances so some of the oak trees could be saved. • Mr. Jodah, Biddle, representing Schulke, Bittle, and Stoddard, LLC pointed out altho.ugh the applicant was amenable to changing the east and west entrances, most of the trees would be removed by the County any for road improvements.

Chairman Bruce closed the public hearing at 7:20 p.m.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Ms. Keys, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the request for major site plan and preliminary plat approval for a 116-unit multi-family residential development with a caveat regarding changing the east and west driveways.

Public Hearing (26:03)

Chairman Bruce read the following into the record:

A. Consideration of Proposed Amendments to the LOR Chapter 911 Table of Uses for Industrial Districts [Legislative]

Mr. Freeman reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Discussion was held regarding:

• What zoning other concrete plants were located within. Mr. Freeman reported the other plants in IRC were located within IG (General Industrial) versus the IL (Light Industrial) zoning districts.

Chairman Bruce opened the public hearing at 7:34 p.m.

The following people spoke:

Mr. Geoffrey Smith, an attorney representing the interests of Ocean Concrete, gave a PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

P&Z / Unapproved 3 June 14, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc Mr. Todd Smith, an engineer for Ocean Concrete, reviewed his PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is also on file in the Commission Office. Mr. Smith summarized the P&Z did not have a complete picture and asked to have time set aside to review the information or to not have the amendments apply retroactively.

Mr. Lawrence arrived at 8:06 p.m.

Mr. Wayne Wilco, Melrose, Florida, a faculty member at the University of Florida Department of Civil and Coastal Engineering, explained the difference between concrete batching and concrete production. He noted concrete batching involved mixing small amounts of cement with water, sand, rock or aggregate and stated all materials were kept wet so there would be very little dust.

Mr. Fred Mensing, Vero Beach, expressed IRC needed to wake up and get diversified industry to bring in high paying jobs.

Mr. Kelly Mather, Sebastian, Florida, felt all concrete plants belonged in IG zoning.

Mrs. Dale Simchick, Sebastian, asked the P&Z to honor the · City of Sebastian's character and recommended the amendment to the LOR Chapter 911.

(1 :28) Chairman Bruce called for a break at 8:28 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

Mr. Baxter Coston, Sebastian, was against a concrete plant being located in the IL zoning and supported approving the LOR amendments.

Ms. Deb Robinson, Vero Beach, stated there was much discussion regarding an individual concrete plant and felt the issue was not the individual plant, the issue was the planning across the County. She opined there was a lot of work needing to be done to the Comprehensive Plan.

Mr. Rex Nelson and Ms. Betty McWiggin, Sebastian, were in favor of the amendments.

Mr. Jeff Kracht, Sebastian, thought the buyer of the property for Ocean Concrete should have researched the IG zoning for all other concrete plants.

P&Z / Unapproved 4 June 14, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc Mr. Ralph Brown, Jacksonville Beach, Florida, explained his family owned property in Sebastian and felt the zoning in IL should not allow concrete plants.

Mr. Chris Pontello, consulting engineer with W.F. McCain and Associates, indicated a concrete plant should be allowed along railroads and felt the County should be held to the integrity of the LDR's. He felt this decision should be a staff only approval.

Mr. George Maib, President of Ocean Concrete, related he did his research when purchasing the property and a concrete plant was allowed on the property in the current zoning. He relied on the laws and the codes and would like to be grandfathered if the amendments were approved.

Mr. Jay Bumpers, Vero Beach, stated he was a developer and he had done his homework when he bought his property also. He felt the Ocean Concrete people should have their project grandfathered if the LOR amendments go into effect because the rules were changed after-the-fact.

Ms. Wilma Cox, Sebastian, had concerns with environmental health involving heavy industry.

Ms. Carol Barry, Sebastian, stated she was against heavy industry in the area being discussed.

Chairman Bruce closed the public hearing at 8:58 p.m.

Discussion was held regarding whether or not the applicant could request the grandfathering-in clause when going before the Board of County Commissioners.

ON MOTION BY Ms. Keys, SECONDED BY Mr. Hamner, the members voted (6-1) to approve staff's recommendations of amending the Land Development Regulations of Chapter 911 as presented. Mr. Fletcher opposed.

Mr. Fletcher asked it to be made part of the record that he voted against the motion because he felt the applicants with applications submitted before the amendments went into affect should be grandfathered.

P&Z / Unapproved 5 June 14, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc ON MOTION BY Mr. Lawrence to request the Board of County Commissioners consider grandfathering Ocean Concrete. THE MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Smith to recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that all applicants that had applied before the amendments were put in place to be grandfathered. THE MOTION DIED DUE TO LACK OF SECOND.

Commissioners Matters (2:14)

A. Consideration of LDR Amendments for Mines in Agricultural Areas

Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, reviewed the LOR amendment included in the agenda packet, copies of which are on file in the Commission Office.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Hamner, SECONDED BY Mr. Fletcher, the members voted unanimously (7-0) to approve the Land Development Amendments for Mines in Agricultural Areas as presented.

B. Discussion of State Road (SR)60/58th Avenue Improvements

Ms. Keys related she had asked for this information to be presented. Mr. Chris Mora, IRC Assistant Public Works Director, gave a PowerPoint presentation, copies of which are on file in the Commission Office.

Chairman Bruce introduced new P&Z member, George Lawrence and welcomed him to the committee.

Planning Matters (3:01)

Mr. Boling reviewed the revised matrix which was generated from the April 25, 2007 Quality of Development Workshop, copies of which are on file in the Commission Office.

P&Z / Unapproved 6 June 14, 2007 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc Attorney's Matters

. There were none.

Adjournment

Mr. Lawrence noted he would not be in attendance at the June 28, 2007 P&Z meeting, and Mr. Hamner indicated he would be absent for the July 12, 2007 meeting.

The meeting adjourned at 10:16 p.m.

Bob Bruce, Chairman Date

Darcy Vasilas, Interim Executive Aide Date

P&Z / Unapproved 7 June 14, 2007 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2007 Ag&Min\Minutes 6-14-07.doc

3A CONSENT AGENDA (QUASI-JUDICIAL)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

NT HEAD CONCURRENCE:

obert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director M THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director

FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP---S:: \)t-J\ Senior Planner, Current Tuvelopment

DATE: June 22, 2007

SUBJECT: JLW Management Corp' s Request for Modification of an Approval Condition for the Bella Rosa Development (fka Village Oaks) [AA-07-08-133/2003050252-59080]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007.

BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:

Bella Rosa is an SO-unit townhome development located on the south side of 26th Street, just west of 58th Avenue. The approved project development plan allows construction of SO townhome units in 10 buildings, consisting of 8 units each. The project is presently under construction.

At its regular meeting of August 26, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Village Oaks (now known as Bella Rosa) site plan, with conditions. One of those conditions requires construction of a left tum lane on 26th Street at the project entrance. The condition specifies that the tum lane be constructed prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for any portion of the project. The applicant is now requesting that the left tum lane condition be modified such that the tum lane not be required until issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the 9th unit, rather than the first unit. Since this is a change to a condition established by the Planning and Zoning Commission, it takes action by the Planning and Zoning Commission to modify the condition.

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z:<2.007\BellaRosamodificationstaffreport.rtf 1 ANALYSIS:

The proposed turn lane on 26th Street will serve the 80 units within the Bella Rosa development. Because the original developer anticipated that all of the buildings would be completed at approximately the same time, the turn lane condition was tied to the certificate of occupancy for the first unit. The present developer, however, anticipates a slower build-out, with units being completed over an extended period of time. Accordingly, the developer is requesting that the turn lane condition be modified to allow 8 units ("Building 1") to be CO' d without the tum lane being completed and to require that the left turn lane be completed prior to issuance of a CO for the 9th unit. Staff has verified that 8 units do not trip the LDR turn lane requirement and has re-confirmed that the LDRs do require a left tum lane for all 80 units.

Currently, the engineer for Bella Rosa is designing the turn lane in coordination with public works and has explored the possibility of escrowing funds for the turn lane and having the county construct the turn lane with the 26th Street widening project. In this case, however, public works staff and the applicant have determined that the 26th Street widening project will not be completed before the entire 80 unit project is completed. Therefore, escrowing is not an option. Therefore, Public Works staff and the applicant have agreed that completion of the left tum lane prior to CO of the 9th unit is acceptable. Approval of the proposed modification will allow the developer to close on some of the units in his first building, and require him to complete the design and construct the turn lane prior to CO ofhis second building (units 9-16).

Based on the approved traffic impact analysis for the project and applicable LDR requirements, a left turn lane is not needed prior to CO of the 9th unit. Therefore, planning and public works staff support the request.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission modify the condition for the Bella Rosa left tum lane improvement to be as follows:

1. Prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy (CO) for the 9th unit, a left tum lane shall be constructed on 26th Street at the project entrance.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Request Letter 2. Location Map and Plan 3. 2004 StaffReport APPROVED AS TO FORM 4. Traffic Summary AND LEGAi.SUFFiCiENCY BY~~ WILLIAM G, COLLINS 11 COUNTY ATTORNEY

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2007\BellaRosamodificationstaffreport.rtf 2 JOSEPH W. SCHULKE, P.E. SCHULKE, BITTLE & STODDARD, L.L.C. JODAH B. BITTLE, P.E. WILLIAM P. STODDARD, Ph.D., P.E. CIVIL & STRUCTURAL ENGINEERING • LAND PLANNING • ENVIRONMENTAL PERMITTING June 20, 2007

John McCoy Planning Dept. Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

Re: Bella Rosa FKA Village Oaks SP-MA-04-04-14/2003050252-38408 Request to Modify Condition of Site Plan Approval

Dear John,

Please accept this as a formal request to be heard by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its next available meeting date. We would like to present a request to change and modify condition no. 2b of the site plan approval for Bella Rosa, dated August 30, 2004 (see copy attached):

The condition reads:

2. "Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall: b. Construct the east bound left turn lane on 26th Street at the project entrance. "

We propose to modify the condition as follows:

th 2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy on the 9 unit, the applicant shall: b. Construct a west bound left turn lane on 26h Street at the project entrance to conform substantially to the conceptual design attached hereto.

Upon your rev· w, if you have any questions or need additional information, please do not hes· a e contact my office .

. Schulke, P.E.

cc: ou Weitman Chris Mora

1717 INDIAN RIVER BLVD., SUITE 201, VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 TEL 772 / 770-9622 FAX 772 / 770-9496 EMAIL [email protected] u ' " iir" "ti Cl 0 "H 0 " C. Ill I: ' ' u ii .... I • !1l-· --C.

I I I I I N l en ::r"' . . . ' . . . ;..;.::-.'..:'-·...:_ ~ en ~ "'a ,Cl '_[(j]\! "' • , •• · ... ·., n

-• -• -~- +-'.c._...J:I. ? .. •

• I'

'• -= 6BthA " " "::~i " " " ' " " "II

/

'°"" i~ :,i. 1~ .,,·>a i" ·".>a ,2 CJ) I l! C z ii ~ 0 IJJ >~ '~:1 ~ :1: ol fn ~fg ., ~!:? I 0~ ~- "oz,. ~ =I z a0 . ~ ~o ~~ I ~ C} ur ~ ii ,,r

t. MAJOR SITE PLAN (QUASI-JUDICIAL)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:

Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director

THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director

FROM: John W McCoy, AICP Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: August 20, 2004

SUBJECT: Shiva Holding, LLC's Request for Major Site Plan Approval to Construct a Multi-Family Residential Development to be known as Village Oaks [SP-MA-04-04-14] 2003050252-38402

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of August 26, 2004.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

W. F. McCain & Associates, Inc. has submitted a major site plan application on behalf of Shiva Holding LLC to construct a 80 unit multi-family residential development. The subject site is located on the south side of 26th Street just west of 58th Avenue, and is subject to the SR60 corridor special development regulations. This project will consist of 80 dwelling units in 10 buildings, a cabana, and a swimming pool. The proposed multi-family use is a permitted use in the RM-8 zoning district, the district in which the site is located.

ANALYSIS

1. Project Site Area: 10.32 acres

2. Zoning Classification: RM-8, Residential Multi-Family (up to 8 units per acre)

3. Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density (up to 8 units per acre)

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2004\Village Oaks 082604.rtf 4. Number of Buildings: 10 multi-family buildings I cabana

5. Number of Units: 80 multi-family units

6. Density: Permitted: 8.0 units/acre Proposed: 7.75 units/acre

7. Phasing: All site improvements are to be constructed in one phase. The buildings may be constructed on a building by building basis.

8. Proposed Impervious Area: 239,422 sq. ft. or 5.49 acres

Note: This includes 48,259 sq. ft. oflake area.

9. Open Space: Required: 30.0% Provided: 46.74% Note: This open space figure does not include any lake area.

10. Traffic Circulation: Access to the proposed project will be provided by 1 two way driveway on 26th Street at the east end of the development. There will be an emergency access at the west end of the site, which will connect to 26th Street.

Within the project site, a proposed east/west roadway will provide access to all of the driveways and parking spaces as well as the proposed clubhouse. Traffic Engineering has reviewed and approved the project's traffic impact statement (TIS), driveway connection, and internal circulation plan. As a result of the TIS, an east bound left tum lane on 26th Street at the project entrance is required.

11. Off-Street Parking: Required: 160 spaces Provided: 166 spaces

12. Stormwater Management: The preliminary stormwater management plan has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. The proposed plan provides two wet stormwater management tracts (lakes) in the southern portion of the site that will also serve as aesthetic amenities to the development. Pursuant to Chapter 930 of the LDRs, a County Type "A" Stormwater Permit will be required prior to site plan release.

13. Utilities: The proposed development will be served by the County Utility Services Department for potable water and sewer services. Connection to public water and sewer services has been approved by the Utility Services Department and the Department ofHealth.

14. Environmental Issues:

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2004\Village Oaks 082604.rtf • Uplands: Since the site is over five acres, the native upland set aside requirement ofland development regulation section 929.05 potentially applies. Based on an inspection ofthe site, staff has determined that no native uplands exist. Therefore, no native uplands set­ aside criteria applies.

• Wetlands: Staff has verified that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on site. Therefore, no wetlands regulations apply.

• Tree Preservation: The applicant will be preserving a significant number of trees along the site's 26th Street frontage and around one of the retention areas in the rear. The trees will be used for landscape credit.

15. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan has been reviewed by Planning Division staff. Staff has determined that the plan meets the requirements of the SR 60 corridor plan and Chapter 926 requirements for perimeter, interior, roadway, and non-vehicular open space landscaping areas. Where the site abuts single-family zoning along its south property line, a Type "C" buffer with a 3-foot opaque feature is required and proposed. To meet the 3-foot opaque feature requirement, the applicant is proposing a low berm with hedging. An S.R. 60 landscape strip with a 6' opaque feature is required along the site's 26th street frontage. The applicant is proposing a wall with landscape on both sides to meet the opaque feature.

16. Dedications and Improvements:

• Easement Release: There is a private access easement that runs along the south property line. Prior to site plan release, the applicant will need to document that this easement has been released.

• Unity ofTitle: The project site is a combination of two parcels. To unify the parcels for development purposes, the applicant will need to execute and record a unity of title. Prior to site release, the applicant must provide a recorded copy of the unity of title.

17. SR 60 Corridor Plan Criteria: Since the site is located within the SR 60 Corridor Plan area, the SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements apply. The plan conditionally meets the SR 60 Corridor Plan requirements.

• Architectural: The multi-family buildings will be combination of one and two story, concrete block and frame structures with stucco over the block and frame. The roofs will be a modified hip design with a 5: 12 pitch and a tile roof.

• Lighting Plan: The applicant will need to submit a detailed lighting plan prior to site plan release.

• Landscape: The increased tree height (12') in the S.R. 60 Corridor Plan applies to this project.

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2004\Village Oaks 082604.rtf ,3 18. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:

North: 26th Street, Sub-lateral Canal, Single-Family Residential/ RS-3 South: Vacant, Mall/ RS-6, RM-8 East: Single Family Home/ RM-8 West: Vacant/ RM-8

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant site plan approval with the following conditions:

1. Prior to site plan release, the applicant shall:

a. Obtain a release of the access along the south property line.

b. Obtain approval of a site lighting plan.

c. Provide a copy of a recorded unity of title.

d. Obtain approval from Traffic Engineering for the design of the east bound left turn lane on 26th Street. ·

2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall:

a. Complete the 6' opaque feature along the site's 26th Street frontage and the Type "C" buffer along the south property line.

b. Construct a left turn lane on 26th Street at the project entrance.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Aerials

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2004\Village Oaks 082604.rtf Summary of Trip Generation Calculation For 80 Dwelling Units of Residential Condominium/ Townhouse June 20, 2007

Average Standard Adjustment Driveway Rate Deviation Factor Volume

Avg. Weekday 2-Way Volume 6.64 0.00 1.00 531

7-9 AM Peak Hour Enter 0.09 0.00 1.00 7 7-9 AM Peak Hour Exll 0.45 0.00 1.00 36 7-9 AM Peak Hour Total 0.54 0.00 1.00 43

4-6 PM Peak Hour Enter 0.42 0.00 1.00 34 4-6 PM Peak Hour Exit 0.21 0.00 1.00 17 4-6 PM Peak Hour Total o. 63 0.00 1.00 50

Saturday 2-Way Volume 8.97 0.00 1.00 718

Saturday Peak Hour Enter 0.44 0.00 1.00 36 Saturday Peak Hour Exit 0.38 0.00 1.00 30 Saturday Peak Hour Total 0.82 0.00 1.00 66

Note: A zero indicates no data available. The above rates were calculated from these equations:

24-Hr. 2-Way Volume: LN(T) .85LN(X) + 2.55, RA2 0.83 7-9 AM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) .8LN(X) + .26 R"2 = 0. 76 , 0.17 Enter, 0.83 Exit 4-6 PM Peak Hr. Total: LN(T) . 82LN (X) + . 32 RA2 - 0.8 , 0.67 Enter, 0.33 Exit AM Gen Pk Hr. Total: LN(T) .82LN(X) + .17 RA2 0.8 , 0.18 Enter, 0.82 Exit PM Gen Pk Hr. Total: T - . 34 (X) + 38. 31 RA2 0.83, 0.64 Enter, 0.36 Exit Sat. 2-Way Volume: T - 3.62(X) + 427.93, RA2 0.84 Sat. Pk Hr. Total: T - .29(X) + 42.63 RA2 0.84 , 0.54 Enter, 0.46 Exit Sun. 2-Way Volume: T - 3.13(X) + 357.26, RA2 0.88 Sun. Pk Hr. Total: T - .23 (X) + 50.01 RA2 0.78 0.49 Enter, 0.51 Exit

Source: Institute of Transportation Engineers Trip Generation, 7th Edition, 2003.

TRIP GENERATION BY MICROTRANS roNSENT AGENDA 1)1AJOR SUl'E PEAN I P/l,ELIMINARY PLAT ' (QUASI-JUDICIAL) I ' INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning ,md Zoning Commission

elopment Director

THROUGH:

FROM: Brian Freeman~iicP; Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: June 19, 2007

SUBJECT: Regatta Construction, LLC's Request for Major Site Plan and PreliminaryPlat Approval for a Multi-Family Residential Development to be Known as Diamond Court West [SP-MA-06-12-64 & SD-06-12-40 / 2006030269-56419]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007,

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Masteller and Moler, Inc, has submitted an application for major site plan and preliminary plat approval on behalf of Regatta Construction, LLC for a 70-unit multi-family residential development to be known as Diamond Court West, The subject site is a former citrus grove located at the northwest corner of the Indian River Blvd,/ 41 st Street intersection, The subject site is zoned RM-6, Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre), and has an M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre), land use designation,

The proposed Diamond Court West project consists of 35 multi-family residential duplexes containing a total of 70 townhome residential units, This project is a "plat over" site plan project, whereby individual lot lines will be established around each townhome unit Thus, each unit will be conveyed to a future owner on a fee-simple lot

The Plam1ing and Zoning Commission is now to consider granting major site plan and preliminary plat approval for this project

F:\Community Developmcn\Users\Brian F\spma\Diamond Court Westpzc staffreport.rtf 1 ANALYSIS

1. Size of Development: 15.89 acres

2. Zoning Classification: RM-6; Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre)

3. Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium Density Residential (up to 8 units/acre)

4. Density: Maximum Allowed: 6.00 units/acre Proposed: 4.41 units/acre

5. Building Area: 174,973 square feet

6. Impervious Area: 323,572 square feet

7. Open Space: Required: 40.0% Proposed: 54.3%

Note: Open space includes all green areas and a portion of water bodies on the subject site.

8. Traffic Circulation: Access to the proposed project will be provided by a two-way driveway connection to 41 st Street. The proposed internal project streets will be privately maintained by and dedicated to a property owners association. The project's driveway connection, traffic circulation plan and roadway design have been approved by the county's Traffic Engineering Division. No off-site traffic improvements are required or proposed.

9. Off-Street Parking: As required by county parking standards, each residential unit is to be provided at least two parking spaces. As proposed, each unit will be provided with four parking spaces (two in each unit's driveway plus a two-car garage for each unit). In addition, 17 parking spaces are provided at the project's recreation tract.

10. Required Improvements:

a. Perimeter Sidewalks: Five-foot wide sidewalks are required and proposed along the site's Indian River Blvd. and 41 st Street frontages. The applicant will be required to construct the sidewalk improvements prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

b. Internal Sidewalks: A 5-foot wide sidewalk is proposed along one side of the project's internal loop street. In addition, a pedestrian sidewalk through the middle of the site connects individual units to the project's recreation amenities. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building, the applicant shall construct all internal sidewalks in the vicinity of that building and connect such sidewalks to the overall sidewalk system depicted on the site plan.

F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\spma\Diamond Court Westpzc staff report.rtf 2 c. Indian River Blvd Buffer: A 25-foot Type "B" buffer with a 6-foot opaque feature is proposed along the project's Indian River Blvd. frontage. The opaque feature will consist of a combination berm/hedge that will be located within a separate tract and will not be part of any lot. The applicant will be required to install the buffer improvement prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

d. 41'' Street Buffer: A 25-foot Type "B" buffer with a 6-foot opaque feature is proposed along the project's 41 st Street frontage. The opaque feature will consist of a combination berm/hedge that will be located within a separate tract and will not be part of any lot. The applicant will be required to install the buffer improvement prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

e. North and West Perimeter Buffers: A 25-foot Type "B" buffer with a 6-foot opaque feature is required and proposed along the project's north and west boundaries. The opaque feature will consist of a combination berm/hedge that will be located within a separate tract and will not be part of any lot. The applicant will be required to install the buffer and opaque feature improvements prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

f. Streetlights: Streetlights are required and will be maintained by a property owners' association.

g .. Green Space and/or Recreation Area Set-Aside: At least 7.5% of the total site area must be set-aside as dedicated common recreation area and/or green space. For this project, the applicant proposes to provide 1.58 acres, which is 9.9% of the site. These areas include the project's swimming pool, clubhouse, and adjacent green areas. Staff has verified that these common green space and recreation facilities are located and designed as conveniently accessible amenities. Therefore, the project will satisfy the county's recreation area/green space requirement for multi-family projects.

11. Stormwater Management: The site plan proposes a mpdified miami curb street design and one wet stormwater management tract to manage runoff generated from the project. Through the final plat process, the stormwater tract will be dedicated to a property owners' association. The Public Works Department has approved the conceptual drainage design. Prior to site plan release, the applicant must obtain a Type "B" Stormwater Permit from the Public Works Department.

12. Utilities: The proposed development will be served by the County Utility Services Depruiment for potable water and sewer services. Connection to public water and sewer services has been approved by the Utility Services Department and the Department of Health.

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spma\Diamond Court Wes~pzc staffreport.rtf 3 13. Environmental Issues:

a. Wetlands: County Environmental Planning staff has determined that no jurisdictional wetlands exist on the subject site. Therefore, no wetlands criteria apply to the proposed development.

b. Uplands: Since the site is over five acres, the county's native upland set-aside requirement potentially applies. Because the site is a former grove, there are no existing native uplands, and no set-aside requirement applies.

c. Tree Preservation: The site is a former citrus grove and contains no protected or specimen trees.

14. Plat Over Site Plan: The applicant is proposing to plat over the proposed site plan to create a lot for each unit, with the remainder of the site to be common area. The county land development regulations require that residential lots created through the plat over site plan process be large enough to contain only the unit and the area immediately around the unit ( e.g. patio, pool, small private yard area). The submitted plat complies with this and all requirements applicable to plat over site plan projects. All driveways, landscaping, open space, stormwater, roadway, and non-lot areas will be platted as common space to be owned and maintained by a property owners association.

15. Concurrency: As required under the county's concurrency regulations, the applicant has applied for and obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project. The concurrency certificate was issued based upon a concurrency analysis and a determination that adequate capacity was available to serve this project at the time of the determination. The developer will be required to obtain final concurrency certificates prior to issuance of building permits, in accordance with county concurrency regulations.

16. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: ...... •• "_'. /·,_:-._. Direction Lfod Use . •••• •• . Z

South 41 st Street Abandoned citrus grove MEU West Casa Bella (3.5 units/acre)* RM-S(PD)

* Note: Both Laguna of Vero Beach and Casa Bella are part of the Indian River Courts PD that was approved in 2000. The overall density of the Indian River Courts PD is 7.98 units/acre.

F:\Community Deve!opmenmsers\Brian F\spma\Diamond Court Westpzc staffreport.1tf 4 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FORM (PLTP)

CORRESPONDING PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME AND IRC ASSIGNED FILE NUMBER: SD- 0(o - /::). - 40 OWNER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) JDC Florida Inc. Regatta Construction, LLC NAME NAME P.O. Box 2587 P.O. Box 2587 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32961 ( 772) 564 - 9220 32961 (772) 564 -~9~2_20~_ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE (772) 5 64-9 822 (772) 564-9822 FAXNUMBER FAXNUMBER [email protected] [email protected] EMAIL EMAIL Dennis Witherow CONTACT PERSON

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) ..______., PROJECT SURVEYOR: (PRINT) Masteller & Moler Inc. Carter & Associates Inc. NAME NAME 1655 27tll Street Suite 2 1708 21 st Street ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL ·vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 ( 772 ) 567 -__,5=3-"-00"---­ =32""9-"-60.e_(,___,7'-'-7"'-2 __,)_ -"5=62,:.__-_4-"'1""9..e.1 ___ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE (772) 794-1106 (772) 562-7180 FAXNUMBER FAXNUMBER [email protected] EMAIL EMAIL Stephen E. Moler, P.E. John Blum CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

H:\Projects\0568\ADMIN\Permits & Correspondence\Indian River County\Permits\NEW PRE·plat(PLTP).doc Revised June 2006 Page I of3 r

• PROPOSED PROJECT USE FOR ZON1NG DISTRICT IS: ( check one)

[X]PERMITTED [ ]ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT

! AMOUNT OF NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: .,s,,,,_,,.FuTlJ----______:__ __ _ ! SITE ADDRESS: 1450 41" Street. Indian River County

! SITE TAX ID#(S): 25-32-39-00000-3000-00004.0 / 3000-00005.0/ 3000-00008.0

! IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA AS DESIGNATED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ADDRESSED IN A PRE-APP CONFERENCE? _YES _.X_NO

! ZON1NG: RM-6 . CLUP:_~M~-1.__ _

! TOTAL (GROSS) ACREAGE OF PARCEL: ___~1=6-=20~A~cr=es~------~

! AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE: 16.20 Acres ______

! PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (IF APPLICABLE}:

A. NUMBER OF UNITS: FROM.______UNITS -TO. ______UNITS

B. DENSITY: FROM.______UNITS PER ACRE - TO ____UNITS PER ACRE

! USES BY SQUARE FEET GROSS BUILDING AREA RESULTING FROM MODIFICATION (E.G. RETAIL; 5,000)

USE:. ______-'---- SQ. FT.: ______

USE:. ______SQ. FT.: ______

COMPLETE CHECKLIST ON PAGE 13

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

DATE RECEIVED: __/ / ___

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE:·__ / __/ ___

REVIEWING PLANNER: ______

H:\Projects\0568\ADMlN\Perrnits & Correspondence\Indian River County\Pennits\NEW_ Major site plan.doc Revised June 2006 Page2 of3 ~---J .. , '

MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION FORM (SPMJ)

COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#: j!JD&D3 ();!_& '7

PROPOSED PROJECT USE: 90 Multi-family Units w/Accessory Clubhouse and Pool

PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME: Diamond Court West Multi-Family

OWNER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) JDC Florida, Inc. Regatta Construction LLC NAME NAME P.O. Box 2587 P.O. Box 2587 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL Vero Beach FL CITY STAIB CITY STATE 32961 ( 772 ) 564 ------9~2=20"------32961 ( 772 )564-~9~2=20~--~- ZIP PHONE ZlP PHONE

(772-564-9822) (772-564-9822) [email protected] FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL

CONTACT PERSON

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT ARCHITECT:(PRINT) Masteller & Moler Inc. NAME NAME 1655 27th Street Suite 2 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL CITY STAIB CITY STATE 32960 ( 772) 567- 5300 ___L_j __ - _____ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

(794-1106)[email protected] FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL Stephen E. Moler. P.E. CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

H:\Projects\0568\ADMJN\Pennits & Correspondence\Ind.ian River County\Pennits\NEW _Major site plan.doc Revised June 2006 Page I of3

ATTACHll£NT 1

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant major site plan and preliminary plat approval with the following conditions:

1. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall: a. Construct the Indian River Blvd. and 41 st Street sidewalks. b. Install all perimeter buffers and opaque features.

2. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building, the applicant shall construct all internal sidewalks in the vicinity of that building.

APPROVED AS TO FOAM Attachments: AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY 1. Application 2. Location Map ev,h/}<~ fer WILLIAM G. COLLINS II 3. Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summa1y COUNTY ATTORNEY 4. Site Plan/Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan/Aerial

F:\Community_ Developmen't:Users\Brian F\spma\Diamond Court Wes~pzc staff report.rtf 5

'

SITE TAX ID#'S: 25-32-39-00000-3000-00004.0 I 25-32-39-00000-3000-00005.0 25-32-39-00000-3000-00008.0

PROJECT USE: 90 Multi-family Units w/Accessory Clubhouse and Pool

IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE" AREA AS ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE? YES____ NO_.~X~_ • ZONING: RM-6 CLUP:._-=M~-..o.l ______• TOTAL (GROSS) ACREAGE OF PARCEL:_----'-'16=.2=0~A=c=re""s~------• AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE: _ __,1=6=.2=0~A=c=re"'-s ______• TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 84 DENSITY (UNITS PER ACRE):__,,5-'-'.1""8 __

**PLEASE FILL-OUT APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST**

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DATE RECEIVED: ______---'/ /___ _ DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: ______/ /__ _ SUBDIVISION FILE NUMBER: SD-__. ____ REVIEWING PLANNER: ------

H:\Projects\0568\ADMThl\Permits & Correspondence\Indian River County\Permits\NEW PRE-plat(PLTP).doc Revised June 2006 Page 2 of3 :~[~l G.E. INDIAN RIVER COURTS PD P,SJ, 16-.~9 tl , , 00000 \. - M,' 3000 STORM W,Wlc?, nooo:3.o TRAC'I' 1 ''' RM-8 Jg ill RM-8 mltr PHASE 1 16.57 AC APARTMENTS m:t: "" '° ~ q ~ 8

00000 3000 00005.0 "'~ 10.91 AC "'

filh"-\zlh I'-- :s fl! 1 "'\i ,·~t '~ 1 ,Iii - ~1, =o I" •"" '! LRAcT B I ~ (/; l m~CT E ~ ,,,;; u;, llflafl!LEI=& ,

?; n~

00000 i 5000 1ftz 00002.0 ~

:;/;.9:;i .4C N MED JfUTOHl:<·r nr>·:: \" (;j;' J!L}U~~TT'f" JS'LA.NJ)_ !;V("

'/ 1·11_ffi.c: 'F,n1.)!'.-0 pr.1'fah;:"f1. 1.-,1i1.--·11.l.itn,f:i

DlAMONl} COURT \VEST - TRAFFIC IiviP ACT SiJMJviARY

l. Location: northwest corner of 41 ·'' Street@ IRB 2. Size: 70 Town homes 3. Trip Generation: 70 dwelling units x 5.86 daily trips/unit= 410 triris/day 70 x .44 A.M. peal.hour trips/unit= 31 A.M. peak hour trips 70 x .52 P.M. peak hour trips/unit= 36 P.M. peak hour trips 4. Area oflnfluencc Boundaries: 41" Street (north), 41" Street (south), ffi[l (cast), Old Dixie (west) 5. Significant Roads: 41" Street (Old Dixie to IRU) 6. Signific.ant Intersections: 41" @, US 1 7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A 8. Internal Capture: none 9. Pass-by Capture: 0% (new trips= 100%) l 0. P.M. Peak Hour Directional % (ingress/egress): AM - 17% entering/ 83% exiting; PM - 67% entering/33°/4, exiting 1 l. Trame Conni Factors Ap))lied: 3;6% annual growth to build-oufin 2008, FDOTseasonal ad.iustment factors 12. Off-Site Improvements: none 13. Roadway Capacities (IRC Link Sheets): See Appendix B J 4. A~sumed roadway and/or intersection improvements: Traffic Signal at US 1 I 41" Street 15. Significanl' Dates a) Pre-study -conference: ,luly 24, 2006 b) Traffic counts: intersections -all based upon traffic counts that were purchased from Indian River County that were less than six months old and supplemented with counts performed by Motol'ist Design where no current ·.IRC counts were avuilablc. roads -link sheets bnsed upon yea,·2006 seasonallysad_justed traffic counts provided by Indian River County c} Study approval: ...... 16. The site is proJected to contribute 2% of the exiting traffic to the westbound section of SR 60 between 82"" Ave. and 66'" Ave. for a total of 0.2 pm trips. At the contribution rntc of $7,677 per trip, the site's rc<1liired interest contribution totals Sl,535.40.

MOTORIST DESIGN OF MERRITT ISLAND, INC., 1237 Guy Road, Orlando, Florida 32828 EBIBA#8270 - e-mail: [email protected] • voice: 321 459-2905 · fax: 321 459-2012 ATTACHMENT - r-",A_ •i--~J[7 ______MOTORIST DESIGN Traffic/Transportati,on Consultants

~ APPENDIX A ~ I\ Fi i t :

77TH ST

.~ N 69TH ST I

\ ~ 49TH ST\,\

--c~c:-t------l-'r----...-',\-,_- 45TH ST ~ \9% \ ,1131 ST 55% 6% \ I 36% I.

DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT

Motorist Design of Merritt Island, Inc,, 1237 Guy Road, Orlando, FL 32828 EB/BA #8270 - e-mail: [email protected] - voice: 321-459-2905 - fax: 321-459-2012 APPENDIX B - PROJECT LINK ASSIGNMENTS LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE

Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2120/07. IRC DJAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unitTH PROJECT

1010N SRA1A CNTY LINE CITY LIMIT 950 325 30 595 1010S SRA1A 950 396 16 538 1020N SRA1A CITY.LIMIT 17TH ST 860 830 19 11 1020S SRA1A 860 900 7 -47 1030N SRA1A 17TH ST SR 60 860 604 56 200 1030S SRA1A 860 635 6 219 1040N SRA1A SR 60 CITY LIMIT 860 836 7 17 10408 SRA1A 860 9'10 6 -56 1050N SRA1A CITY LIMIT FRED TUERK 860 836 2 22 10508 SRA1A 860 910 1 -51 1060N SRA1A FRED TUERK OLD WINTER 860 580 1 279 1060S SRA1A 860 468 0 392 1070N SRA1A OLD WINTER NIRSL 860 534 5 321 1070S SRA1A 860 472 6 382 .. 1080N SRA1A N IRSL CR 510 860 534 53 273 1080S SRA1A 860 472 38 350 1090N SRA1A CR510 COUNTY LINE 998 354 47 597 1090S SR A1A 998 513 94 391 1110N IRB 4TH ST/US 1 12TH ST 1860 740 8 1112 1110S IRB 1860 1366 33 461 1120N !RB 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1860 999 0 861 1120S IRS 1860 1425 0 435 1130N IRB CITY LIMIT 17TH ST 1860 999 10 851 1130S IRB 1860 1425 0 435 1140N IRB 17TH ST 21ST ST 1860 1024 3 833 1140S IRS 1860 1395 0 465 1150N IRS 21ST ST SR60 1860 1420 16 424 1150S IRB 1860 1661 0 199 1160N IRB SR60 CITY LIMIT 1860 1049 64 747 1160S IRS 1860 1120 30 710 1170N !RB CITY LIMIT US 1153RD 1860 588 139 1133 1170S IRS 1860 832 116 912 1210N 1-95 CNTY LINE CR 512 2740 1504 10 1226 12108 1-95 2740 1509 15 1216 1220N 1-95 CR 512 SR 60 2740 1510 29 1201 1220S 1-95 2740 1519 30 1191 1230N 1-95 SR60 OSLO RD 2890 1726 44 1120 1230S 1-95 2890 1712 31 1147 1240N 1-95 OSLO RD CNTY LINE 2890 1716 35 1139 12408 1-95 2890 1707 24 1159 1305N us 1 CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1860 1197 67 596 1305S us 1 1860 1590 54 216 1310N us 1 OSLO RD 4TH@IR SD 2790 1413 37 1340 1310S us 1 2790 1749 60 981 1315N us 1 4TH@IR SD 8THST 1860 1191 7 662 1315S us 1 1860 1477 19 364 1320N us 1 8TH ST 12TH ST 1860 1286 19 555 1320S us 1 1860 1466 38 356 1325N us 1 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1710 1219 36 455 1325S us 1 1710 1296 51 363 Traffic Counts in the "Exisiing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Colurnn are as of 2/20/07. IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

1330N us 1 CITY LIMIT 17TH ST 1710 1118 36 556 1330S us 1 1710 1325 52 333 1335N 1 us 17TH ST SR60 1510 1175 59 276 1335S US 'I 1510 1207 75 228 1340N us 1 SR60 ROYAL PALM 1510 901 86 523 1340$ 1 us 1510 1124 182 204 1345N us 1 ROYAL PALM ATLANTIC 1710 1084 108 518 1345S us 1 1710 970 158 582 1350N us 1 ATLANTIC CITY LIMIT 2010. 1508 135 367 13508 us 1 2010 1612 180 218 1355N us 1 CITY LIMIT OLD DIXIE 2010 1634 166 210 1655S us 1 2010 1298 177 535 1360N us 1 OLD DIXIE 41ST ST 2010 1712 169 129 1360S us 1 2010 1079 127 804 1365N us 1 41ST ST 45TH ST 2010 1451 187 372 1365S US1 2010 1021 156 833 1370N us 1 45TH ST 49THST 2010 1425 191 394. 1370S us 1 2010 930 163 917 1375N us 1 49TH ST 65TH ST 2010 1728 270 12 1375S us 1 2010 '1087 213 710 1380N us 1 65TH ST 69TH ST 2232 1711 174 347 1380S us 1 1860 1070 164 626 1385N us 1 69TH ST OLD DIXIE 2232 1675 166 391 1385S us 1 186:0 1034 138 688 1390N us 1 OLD DIXIE SCHUMANN 2210 1411 155 644 1390S us 1 1860 915 134 811 1395N us 1 SCHUMANN CR 512 1860 1300 84 476 1395S us 1 1860 973 100 787 1400N us 1 CR 512 CITY LIMIT 1710 1272 60 378 1400S us ·1 1710 1171 76 463 1405N us 1 CITY LIMIT ROSELAND 1860 1318 42 500 '14058 us 1 1860 1323 58 479 1410N us 1 ROSELAND CNTY LINE 1860 1158 8 694 1410S us 1 1860 965 33 862 1510N SCHUMANN CR 510166TH CITY LIMIT 860 705 11 144 15108 SCHUMANN 860 337 17 506 1520N SCHUMANN CITY LIMIT us 1 860 118 7 735 1520S SCHUMANN 860 66 12 782 1610N ROSELAND CR 512 CITY LIMIT 860 325 14 521 1610S ROSELAND 860 335 16 509 1620N ROSELAND CITY LIMIT us 1 860 301 18 541 1620S ROSELAND 860 277 6 577 171DE CR 512 SR60 1-95 860 386 87 387 1710W CR 512 860 704 14 142 1720E CR 512 1-95 CR 510 1860 655 246 959 1720W CR 512 1860 823 30 1007 1730E CR 512 CR 510 CITY LIMIT 1860 730 41 1089 '730W CR512 '1860 716 45 1099 1740E CR 512 CITY LIMIT ROSELAND 1860 952 40 868 740W CR 512 1860 732 44 1084 1750E CR 512 ROSELAND us 1 1860 611 25 1224 750W CR 512 1860 700 24 1136 1810E CR 510 CR 512 66TH AVE 1860 538 470 852 . Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2005 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2120107. IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

1810W CR 510 1860 776 104 980 1820E CR 510 66TH AVE 58THAVE 1860 512 118 1230 1820W CR 510 1860 718 120 1022 1830E CR 510 58THAVE us 1 1860 544 136 1180 1830W CR 510 1860 774 125 951 1840E CR 510 us 1 SRA1A 1900 571 191 1138 1840W CR 510 1900 1021 210 659 1905E SR 50 CNTY LINE CR 512 1810 217 11 1582 1905W SR 60 1810 254 13 1543 1907E SR 60 CR 512 100TH AVE 1810 258 1 1551 1907W SR 60 1810 257 3 1550 1910E SR 60 100TH AVE 1-95 1860 325 140 1395 1910W SR 60 1860 286 213 1361 1915E SR 60 1-95 82ND AVE 1860 1391 289 180 1915W SR 60 2000 1593 263 144 1920E SR 60 82NDAVE 66THAVE 2120 1550 467 103 1920W SR60 2120 1865 359 0 . '),_ -104 _ 1925E SR60 66THAVE 58TH AVE 2790 1641 335 814 1925W SR 60 2790 1652 386 752 193DE SR60 56THAVE 43RD AVE 2790 1399 280 1111 1930W SR 130 2790 1497 386 907 1935E SR60 43RDAVE 27THAVE 2790 1315 249 1226 -1935W SR 60 2790 1544 353 893 1940E SR60 27THAVE 20TH AVE 2790 1158 188 1444 1940W SR60 2790 1371 284 1135 1945E SR60 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 3252 1135 132 1S85 1945W SR 60 3252 1268 186 1798 1.950E SR 60 OLD DIXIE 10THAVE 3252 1258 83 1911 1950W SR60 3252 1051 116 2085 1955E SR60 10THAVE us 1 3252 1100 80 2072 1955W SR 60 3252 757 100 2395 1960E SR 60 us 1 !RB 3252 789 17 2446 1960W SR 60 3252 513 15 2724 1965E SR 60 IRB ICWW 1860 908 7 945 1965W SR60 1860 1616 3 241 1970E SR60 ICWW SRA1A 1860 911 7 942 1970W SR60 1860 979 8 873 W20E 16TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 355 49 456 !020W 16TH ST 860 279 38 543 W30E 16TH ST 43RDAVE 27THST 860 357 47 446 030W 16TH ST 860 551 38 271 W40E 16TH ST 27TH ST 20TH AVE 860 355 32 473 040W 16TH ST 860 543 53 264 '.050E 16TH ST 20THAVE OLD DIXIE 810 569 31 210 050W 16TH ST 810 730 45 35 :060E 16TH/17TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 1710 686 52 972 060W 16TH/17TH ST 1710 764 50 896 110E 17TH ST US1 !RB 1710 560 29 1121 110W 17TH ST 1710 754 23 933 120E 17TH ST IRB SRA1A 1860 1047 26 787 120W 17TH ST 1860 1296 16 548 210E 12TH ST 82ND AVE 58TH AVE 870 98 3 769 110W 12TH ST 870 98 0 772 Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2120/07. IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

2220E 12TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 190 38 632 2220W 12TH ST 860 261 29 570 2230E 12TH ST 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 860 269 16 575 2230W 12TH ST 860 390 13 457 11 2240E 12TH ST 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 860 350 '' 499 2240W 12TH ST 860 533 11 316 2250E 12TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 860 459 8 393 2250\/V 12TH ST 860 698 11 151 2260E 12TH ST OLD DIXJE us 1 1368 416 0 952 2260W 12TH ST 1368 691 10 667 2305N OLD DIXIE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 860 356 113 391 2305S OLD DIXIE 860 491 21 348 2310N OLD DIXIE OSLO RD 4THST 860 329 43 488 2310S OLD DIXIE 860 383 41 436 2315N OLD DIXIE 4THST BTHST 810 484 39 287 2315S OLD DJXIE 810 630 39 141 2320N OLD DIXIE STHST 12TH ST 810 529 21 260 .. 2320S OLD DIXIE 810 704 24 82 2325N OLD DIXIE 12TH ST CITYUMIT 810 560 7 243 23258 OLD DIXIE 810 634 8 168 2330N OLD DIXIE CITY LIMIT 16TH ST 850 382 8 460 2330S OLD DIXIE 850 387 6 457 2335N OLD DIXIE 16TH ST SR 60 850 284 33 533 2335S OLD DIXIE 850 239 22 589 2345N OLD DIXIE 41ST ST 45TH ST 860 179 49 632 2345S OLD DlXIE 860 193 34 633 2350N OLD DIXIE 45TH ST 49TH ST 860 136 61 663 2350S OLD DIXIE 860 114 42 704 2355N OLD DIXIE 49TH ST 65TH ST 860 132 108 620 2355S OLD DIXIE 860 149 92 619 2360N OLD DIXIE 65TH ST 69THST 860 218 30 612 2360S OLD DIXIE 860 87 23 750 2365N OLD DIXIE 69TH ST CR 510 860 145 17 698 2365S OLD DIXIE 860 129 12 719 2410N 27TH AVE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1068 519 314 235 24108 27THAVE 1068 800 477 -209 2420N 27THAVE OSLO RD 4THST 1068 548 209 311 2420S 27THAVE 1068 769 325 -26 2430N 27THAVE 4THST BTHST 1020 462 149 409 2430S 27TH AVE 1020 811 240 -31 2440N 27TH AVE 8TH ST 12TH ST 1020 447 106 467 2440S 27TH AVE 1020 793 174 53 2450N 27TH AVE 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1020 456 87 477 245DS 27TH AVE 1020 784 143 93 2460N 27TH AVE CITY LIMIT 16TH ST 1020 456 81 483 2460S 27THAVE 1020 784 138 98 1470N 27THAVE 16TH ST SR 6D 1020 411 40 569 2470S 27TH AVE 1020 704 70 246 '.480N 27TH AVE SR60 ATLANTIC 810 257 19 534 '480S 27TH AVE 810 439 28 343 '510N 27TH AVE ATLANTIC AVIATION 810 439 8 363 1510S 27TH AVE 810 756 14 40 :530E OSLO RD 82NDAVE 58TH AVE 870 234 5 631 ..

Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20107. IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

2530W OSLO RD 870 197 1 672 2540E OSLO RD 58THAVE 43RD AVE 1953 583 247 1123 2540W OSLO RD 1953 469 128 1356 2550E OSLO RD 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 1953 778 227 948 2550W OSLO RD 1953 635 209 1109 2560E OSLO RD 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 1953 543 173 1237 2560W OSLO RD 1953 654 143 1156 2570E OSLO RD 20THAVE OLD DIXIE 1953 595 298 1060 2570W OSLO RD 1953 805 189 959 2580E OSLO RD OLD DIXIE us 1 1953 740 75 1138 2580W OSLO RD 1953 585 81 1287 2610N 6TH AVE 17TH ST CITY LIMIT 860 312 1 547 2610S 6TH AVE 860 467 1 392 2620N 6THAVE CITY LIMIT SR60 850 330 2 518 2620S 6TH AVE 850 368 1 481 2710N 10THAVE SR60 ROYAL PALM 810 77 23 710 2710S 10THAVE 810 68 23 719 .. 2720N 10THAVE ROYAL PALM 17TH ST 810 218 24 568 2720S 10THAVE 810 372 23 415 2810N 20THAVE OSLO RD 4THST 860 432 126 302 2810S 20THAVE 860 438 154 268 2820N 20THAVE 4TH ST 8TH ST 810 364 65 381 2820S 20THAVE 810 625 85 100 2830N 2DTHAVE STHST 12TH ST 810 362 43 405 2830S 20TH AVE 810 624 59 127 2840N 20TH AVE 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1710 428 27 1255 2840S 20THAVE 1710 624 34 1052 2850N 20TH AVE CJTYLIMIT 16TH ST 1800 428 16 1356 2850S 20THAVE 1800 624 33 1143 2860N 20TH AVE 16TH ST SR 60 1800 334 23 1443 2860S 20THAVE 1800 425 42 1333 2870N 20THAVE SR60 ATLANTIC 850 193 24 633 2870S 20THAVE 850 113 58 679 2905N 43RDAVE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1068 354 208 506 2905S 43RD AVE 1068 311 323 434 2910N 43RD AVE OSLO RD 4TH ST 1068 439 375 254 2910S 43RDAVE 1068 541 284 243 2915N 43RD AVE 4THST STHST 1020 473 162 385 2915S 43RD AVE 1020 671 237 112 2920N 43RDAVE STHST 12TH ST 1071 482 ·157 432 2920S 43RDAVE 1071 653 219 199 2925N 43RDAVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 1071 502 138 431 2925S 43RDAVE 1071 658 189 224 2930N 43RDAVE 16TH ST SR60 1796 581 151 1064 2930S 43RDAVE 1796 693 197 906 2935N 43RDAVE SR 60 26THST 1796 467 137 1192 2935S 43RDAVE 1796 612 133 1051 2940N 43RDAVE 26TH ST 41ST ST 860 423 223 214 294DS 43RDAVE 860 488 220 152 2945N 43RD AVE 41ST ST 45TH ST 860 332 169 359 29455 43RDAVE 860 333 121 406 2950N 43RDAVE 45TH ST 49TH ST 860 245 155 460 29505 43RDAVE 860 180 104 576 Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20107. IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

3005N 58Tf-l AVE OSLO RD 4TH ST 1860 363 95 1402 3005S 58THAVE 1860 411 129 1320 3010N 58TH AVE 4THST 8TH ST 1710 657 72 981 3010$ 58THAVE 1710 712 96 902 3015N 58THAVE 8THST 12TH ST 1710 815 99 796 30158 58TH AVE 1710 1138 1"16 456 3020N 58THAVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 1710 944 147 619 3020S 58TH AVE 1710 1046 158 506 3025N 58TH AVE 16TH ST SR 60 1710 983 219 508 30258 58THAVE 1710 1035 246 429 3030N 58THAVE SR60 41ST ST 1860 1137 246 477 3030S 58THAVE 1860 1109 168 583 3035N 58THAVE 41ST ST 45TH ST 860 587 205 68 3035S 58THAVE 860 538 99 223 3040N 58THAVE 45TH ST 49TH ST 860 496 "187 177 3040S 58TH AVE 860 487 95 278 3045N 5BTHAVE 49TH ST 65TH ST 860 479 155 226 3045S 5BTHAVE 860 402 115 343 3050N 58TH AVE 65TH ST 69TH ST 860 432 90 338 3050S 58TH AVE 860 356 110 394 3055N 58TH AVE 69TH ST CR 510 860 367 81 412 - 3055S 58TH AVE 860 292 118 450 3120N 66TH AVE SR60 26TH ST 860 463 164 233 3120S 66TH AVE 860 432 129 299 3130N 66TH AVE 26TH ST 41ST ST 860 548 166 156 3130S 66THAVE 860 398 119 343 3140N 66THAVE 41ST ST 45TH ST 950 559 69 322 3140S 66TH AVE 950 367 58 525 3150N 66TH AVE 45TH ST 65TH ST 870 537 73 260 3150S 66TH AVE 870 331 60 479 3160N 66TH AVE 65TH ST 69THST 870 537 42 291 3160S 66THAVE 870 301 41 528 3170N 66THAVE 69TH ST CR 510 870 561 57 252 3170S 66TH AVE 870 314 47 509 3310N 82NDAVE OLSO RD 4THST 950 171 5 774 3310S 82ND AVE 950 166 8 776 3320N 82NDAVE 4THST 12TH ST 950 191 15 744 3320S 82NDAVE 950 158 20 772 3330N 82ND AVE 12TH ST SR60 860 264 64 532 3330S 82NDAVE 860 220 33 607 3340N 82ND AVE SR 60 65TH ST 410 12 5 393 3340S 82NDAVE 410 21 8 381 3350N 82NDAVE 65TH ST 69TH ST 410 17 1 392 3350S 82ND AVE 410 15 0 395 3360N 98THAVE 8THST 12TH ST 860 13 43 804 3360S 98TH AVE 860 13 79 768 3370N 98TH AVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 860 72 108 680 3370S 98TH AVE 860 50 197 613 3380N 98TH AVE 16TH ST SRG0 860 73 108 679 3380S 98TH AVE 860 48 197 615 3390N 98TH AVE SR60 26TH ST 860 24 0 836 3390S 98TH AVE 860 143 0 717 3610E 77TH ST 66THAVE us 1 820 124 11 685 Traffic Counts in the "Existing' 1 column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2120/07 IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

3610W 77TH ST 820 124 9 687 3710E 69TH ST 82NDAVE 66THAVE 410 17 18 375 3710W 69TH ST 410 15 18 377 3720E 69TH ST 66THAVE 58THAVE 870 119 13 738 3720\/V 69TH ST 870 55 18 797 3730E 69TH ST 58TH AVE OLD DIXIE 870 49 26 795 3730W 69TH ST 870 59 18 793 3740E 69TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 870 46 11 813 3740W 69TH ST 870 48 13 809 3820E 65TH ST 66TH AVE 58THAVE 870 50 21 799 3820W 65THST 870 41 4 825 3830E 65TH ST 58THAVE OLD DIXIE 870 98 30 742 3830W 65TH ST 870 64 22 784 3840E 65TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 870 62 9 799 3840W 65TH ST 870 72 10 788 4220E 49THST 66THAVE 58THAVE 860 31 35 794 4220W 49TH ST 860 123 19 718 4230E 49TH ST 58THAVE .43RDAVE 860 23 28 809 4230W 49TH ST 860 173 19 668 4240E 49TH ST 43RDAVE OLD DIXIE 810 216 113 481 4240W 49TH ST 810 144 90 576 4250E 49TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 810 221 30 559 4250W 49TH ST 810 157 21 632 4320E 45TH ST 66TH AVE 58THAVE 860 105 22 733 4320W 45TH ST 860 136 10 714 433DE 45TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 176 42 642 4330W 45TH ST 860 207 42 611 4340E 45TH ST 43RDAVE OLD DIXIE 860 352 77 431 4340W 45TH ST 860 422 82 356 4350E 45TH ST OLD DIXIE IRB 860 230 75 555 4350W 45TH ST 860 267 82 511 4420E 41ST ST 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 870 109 33 728 4420W 41ST ST 870 120 15 735 4430E 41ST ST 58THAVE 43RDAVE 860 246 55 559 4430W 41ST ST 860 227 73 560 4440E 41ST ST 43RDAVE OLD DIXIE 860 211 116 533 4440W 41ST ST 860 226 48 586 4450E 41ST ST OLD DIXIE IRB 860 109 18 13 720 4450W 41ST ST 860 128 18 7 707 4460E 37TH ST us 1 IRB 860 448 1 411 4460W 37TH ST 860 638 21 201 47220E 26TH ST 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 860 248 135 477 4720W 26TH ST 860 234 106 520 4730E 26TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 394 41 425 4730W 26TH ST 860 539 57 264 4740E 26TH ST 43RD AVE AVIATION 860 458 30 372 4740W 26TH ST 860 635 35 190 4750E 26TH ST AVIATION 27TH AVE 860 137 12 711 4750W 26TH ST 860 201 19 640 4830E 8TH ST 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 860 75 17 768 4830W 8THST 860 118 10 732 4840E 8THST 43RDAVE 27TH AVE 860 311 55 494 4840W 8TH ST 860 380 36 444 Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were coilected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20/07. IRC DIAMOND REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED COURT WEST WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 70-unit TH PROJECT

4850E 8TH ST 27TH AVE 20THAVE 860 353 14 493 4850W 8THST 860 544 13 303 4860E 8TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 810 331 86 393 4860W 8TH ST 810 632 27 151 4870E 8TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 810 327 20 463 4870W 8TH ST 810 551 29 230 4880E 8TH ST us 1 IRB 860 192 3 665 4880W 8TH ST 860 242 4 614 4910E 4THST 82NDAVE 58THAVE 870 75 25 770 4910W 4THST 870 97 7 766 4930E 4THST 58THAVE 43RDAVE 860 208 15 637 4930W 4THST 860 262 11 587 4940E 4THST 43RDAVE 27THAVE 860 277 26 557 4940W 4THST 860 341 23 496 4950E 4TH ST 27TH AVE 20THAVE 860 315 9 536 4950W 4THST 860 472 11 377 4960E 4THST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 860 320 37 503 4960W 4THST 860 479 53 328 4970E 4THST OLD DIXIE us 1 810 353 17 440 4970W 4THST 810 463 28 319 5610E FRED TUERK A1A 1\/ OF COCONU 860 110 0 750 5610W FRED TUERK 860 68 0 792 5710E WINTER BEACH A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 61 1 798 5710W WINTER BEACH 860 47 0 813 5810E ATLANTIC 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 860 141 6 713 5810W ATLANTIC 860 257 7 596 5820E ATLANTIC 20THAVE us 1 860 123 41 696 5820W ATLANTIC 860 171 104 585 5910E AVIATION BD 26TH ST 27TH AVE 1280 497 10 773 5910W AVIATION SD 1280 627 44 609 6010E ROYAL PALM BD ROYAL PALM !RB 880 263 9 608 6010W ROYAL PALM BO 880 130 9 741 6110E ROYAL PAUv'I PL us 1 IRS 880 169 20 691 6110W ROYAL PALM PL 880 349 19 512

43rd - 4L 16th to 26th - 2009 US1 - 6L 4th io Oslo Oslo - 5L 58th to US 1 CR 510·4LCR512· US 1

DIAMOND COURT WEST 70-unit T.H. V lN3WHOVUV

I iH I ,, j ~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~~~ ;~ ~ i! ·~ , , / ~ ltili!UfH~i~

:::E :::E II

I )£, ----- ,;4 al i I

MAJOR SITE PLAN I I P~ELIMINARY PLAT , . I(QUASI-JUDICIAL) , . ,

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Ro ert M. Keating, AIC ; o pment Director AV> THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director 11,i::. FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP; Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: June 20, 2007

SUBJECT: VGS Homes, LLC's Request for Major Site Plan and Preliminary Plat Approval for a Project to be Known as Summerwalk [SP-MA-06-07-29 & SD-06-07-24 / 2005020284-53780]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Schulke, Bittle, and Stoddard, LLC has submitted an application for major site plan and preliminary plat approval on behalf of VOS Homes, LLC for a 128-unit multi-family residential development to be known as Summerwalk. The subject site is located on the west side of64th Avenue, north of CR 510. The subject site is zoned RM-6, Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre), and has an L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre), land use designation.

The overall Summerwalk project contains two different residential building types. The south portion of the project consists of 17 multi-family residential buildings containing a total of 80 townhome residential units. The north portion contains 48 residential buildings, each containing a single residential unit (similar to Waterford Lakes). Both portions of the project are to be "platted over", whereby individual lot lines will be established around each residential unit. Thus, each unit will be conveyed to a future owner on a fee-simple lot.

The Planning and Zoning Commission is now to consider granting major site plan and preliminary plat approval for this project.

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spma\Summerwa!!~pzc staffreport.rtf 1 ANALYSIS

1. Size of Development: 25.15 acres

2. Zoning Classification: RM-6; Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre)

3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density Residential (up to 6 units/acre)

4. Density: Maximum Allowed: 6.00 units/acre Proposed: 5.09 units/acre

5. Building Area: 229,126 square feet

6. Impervious Area: 436,907 square feet

7. Open Space: Required: 40.0% Proposed: 57.3%

Note: Open space includes all green areas and a portion of water bodies on the subject site.

8. Phasing: The project is to be developed in 4 phases. Construction of the first phase is to commence in late 2007. Overall, construction is expected to run at least until 2012.

9. Traffic Circulation: Access to the proposed project will be provided by a two-way driveway connection to 66th Avenue. In addition, a gated emergency-only access connection is to be provided from 64 th Avenue, an existing local street in the West Wabasso area. The proposed internal project streets will be privately maintained by and dedicated to a property owners association. The project's driveway connection, traffic circulation plan and roadway design have been approved by the county's Traffic Engineering Division. Based on the volumes shown in the traffic study (17 southbound left turns and 40 northbound right turns during the PM peak hour), no turn lanes are required at the project's 66th Avenue entrance. Please see the attached turn lane requirements (Attachment #3b).

Based on the volumes shown in the traffic study, traffic engineering staff has determined that the intersection of CR 510 and 66th Avenue will fail to meet an acceptable level of service with the project's traffic. Prior to site plan release, the applicant will need to contribute its fair share of the cost of planned improvements at the CR 510166th Avenue intersection. A similar condition has been applied to numerous projects-affecting that intersection. Funds will go toward a county project to improve the functioning of that intersection.

10. Off-Street Parking: As required by county parking standards, each residential unit is · required to be provided at least two parking spaces. As proposed, each unit will be provided with four parking spaces (two in each unit's driveway plus a two-car garage for each unit). Because four parking spaces are to be provided for each unit, additional overflow parking should not be necessary.

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spma\Summerwalk\pzc staff report.rtf 2 11. Dedications and Improvements:

a. Schumann Drive (66th Avenue) Right-of-Way Dedication: The site's west boundary abuts Schumann Drive (66th Avenue), an arterial roadway. At the site, Schumann Drive has an existing right-of-way width of 80 feet and an ultimate right-of-way width ofl 36 feet. The . applicant proposes to dedicate 56 feet of right-of-way with compensation, and the site plan/preliminary plat depicts this dedication. The Public Works Dept. indicates that a tentative agreement has been reached with the applicant on the compensation amount. Prior to site plan release, the Schumann Drive right-of-way dedication must be completed.

b. 64 th Avenue Right-of-Way Dedication and Improvement: 64th Avenue is a local road with an existing right-of-way of 50 feet. As required, the applicant proposes to dedicate without compensation the remaining 10 feet necessary to satisfy the 60-foot local road right-of-way requirement. This right-of-way dedication is depicted on the preliminary plat and will need to be dedicated prior to site plan release.

Because 64th Avenue is an unpaved road, the applicant is required to escrow its fair share of the paving costs for the site's 64th Avenue frontage. Prior to issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for this project, all escrow funds for the future improvement of 64th Avenue must be paid to the county.

c. Perimeter Sidewalks: A 5-foot wide sidewalk is required and proposed along the site's entire 64th Avenue and Schumann Drive frontages. The applicant will be required to construct the sidewalk improvement prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

d. Internal Sidewalks: Five-foot wide sidewalks are proposed along both sides of the internal streets. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building, the applicant shall construct all internal sidewalks in the vicinity of that building

e. 64th Avenue Buffer: A 25-foot Type "B" buffer with a 6-foot opaque feature (solid wall) is required and proposed along the project's 64tl' Avenue frontage. A solid wall is proposed for the opaque feature. All required understory trees and shrubs will be planted on the street-side of the wall. Both the buffer and opaque feature will be located within a separate tract and will not be part of any lot. The applicant will be required to install the buffer improvement prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

f. Perimeter Buffers: A 25-foot Type "B" buffer with a 6-foot opaque feature (solid wall) is required and proposed along the other perimeters. A solid wall is proposed for the opaque feature. Required trees and shrubs will be planted on both sides of the wall. Both the buffer and opaque feature will be located within a separate tract and will not be part of any lot. The applicant will be required to install the buffer improvement prior to the

F: \Community Developmen'tU sers\B rian F\spma\Summerwal 1-.'\pzc staff report. rtf 3 issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project.

g. Streetlights: Streetlights are required and will be maintained by a property owners' association.

h. Green Space and/or Recreation Area Set-Aside: At least 7.5% of the total site area must be set-aside as dedicated common recreation area and/or green space. For this project, the applicant proposes to provide 1.99 acres, which is 7.9% ofthe site, as green space. These areas include the conservation tract and a small park area adjacent to a stormwater lake. Therefore, the project will satisfy the recreation area/green space requirement.

12. Stormwater Management: The site plan proposes a modified miami curb street design and two wet stormwater management tracts to manage runoff generated from the project. Through the final plat process, the stormwater tracts will be dedicated to a property owners' association. The Public Works Department has approved the conceptual drainage design. Prior to site plan release, the applicant must obtain a Type "B" Stormwater Permit from the Public Works Department.

13. Utilities: The proposed development will be served by the County Utility Services Department for potable water and sewer services. Connection to public water and sewer services has been approved by the Utility Services Department and the Department ofHealth.

14. Environmental Issues:

a. Wetlands: Approximately 1.0 I acres of wetlands exist on-site. The applicant proposes to fill .79 acres of wetlands along the site's east boundary. Mitigation requirements will be determined through the county and the St. John's River Water Management District (SJRWMD) permitting processes. The remaining .22 acres of wetlands will be enhanced and preserved in Tract "F." Environmental Planning has approved this proposal. Prior to site plan release, the applicant will need to obtain a county wetland resource permit.

b. Uplands: Since the site is over five acres, the county's native upland set-aside requirement potentially applies. Presently, native uplands cover 7.05 acres of the site. The project is required to set aside a minimum of 15% of the upland habitat area. In this case, the minimum set-aside is 1.06 acres. The applicant proposes to set aside 1.06 acres of upland habitat area in a coi1servation tract (Tract "F"). Therefore, the project will satisfy the set-aside requirement.

c. Tree Preservation: As proposed, the project complies with all current tree preservation requirements. A majority of the northern area ofthe site is upland scrub habitat. This area includes slash pines, cabbage palms, live oaks, laurel oaks, and wax myrtles. As discussed above, a portion of this area wiJI be set-aside in a conservation tract. The site's southern area is covered by separate areas of Brazilian peppers and Australian pines (both are invasive exotic species). All exotic trees will be removed. Mitigation is required for the removal of any native hardwood tree over 12" dbh. A preliminary tree protection plan

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spma\Summerwal~pzc staffreport.rtf 4 and a tree mitigation replacement plan for the project have been approved by Environmental Plruming staff. Prior to site plan release, the applicant will need to obtain final approval of the project's tree protection plan and tree mitigation replacement plan by Environmental plruming staff.

d. Listed Species: As indicated in the environmental survey (see Attachments #4a and 4b ), two listed species are present on the subject site: scrub jays and gopher tortoises.

The scrub jay habitat covers approximately 2.47 acres in the site's northwest comer. The scrub jay habitat largely coincides with the proposed conservation tract (Tract "F") and is part of a larger habitat area that extends to areas off-site. The scrub jay habitat area is located within the project's Phase 4 area. Prior to issuance of land clearing and tree removal permits for Phase 4, the applicant will need to obtain approval of a scrub jay habitat conservation plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCCC).

The gopher tortoise habitat area covers approximately 7.53 acres in the site's northern area and includes the area of the scrub jay habitat. The developer has agreed to relocate all tortoises to new locations within the on-site upland preserve areas discussed above. Prior to site plan release, the applicant will need to obtain FWCCC approval of a gopher tortoise relocation plan. Prior to commencement of land disturbing activities for each phase, all gopher tortoises in that phase shall be relocated to either on-site upland conservation areas or FWCCC-approved off-site locations.

15. Plat Over Site Plan: The applicant is proposing to plat over the proposed site plan to create a lot for each unit, with the remainder of the site to be common area. The county land development regulations require that residential lots created through the plat over site plan process be large enough to contain only the unit and the area immediately around the unit (e.g. patio, pool, small private yard area). The submitted plat complies with this and all requirements applicable to plat over site plan projects. All driveways, landscaping, open space, stormwater, roadway, and non-lot areas will be platted as common space to be owned and maintained by a property owners association.

16. Concurrency: As required under the county's concurrency regulations, the applicant has applied for and obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project. The concurrency certificate was issued based upon a concurrency analysis and a determination that adequate capacity was available to serve this project at the time of the determination. The developer will be required to obtain final concun-ency certificates prior to issuance of building permits, in accordance with county concurrency regulations.

F:\Community Developmentusers\Brian F\spma\Summerwall-..'\pzc staffreport.rtf 5 17. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:

North Wabasso Cemetery RM-6 East 64th Avenue Park Place Mobile Home Park City of Sebastian Single-family residences RM-6 South Undeveloped land RM-6 West Single-family residence RM-6 Undeveloped land RM-6 Schumann Drive (66th Avenue) Sebastian Highlands City of Sebastian

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Plruming and Zoning Commission grant major site plan and preliminary plat approval with the following conditions:

1. Prior to site plan release ( or issuance of a land development permit, if applicable), the applicant shall: a. Contribute its fair share of the cost of planned improvements at the CR 510166th Avenue . intersection. b. Dedicate with compensation all necessary Schumrum Drive (66th Avenue) right-of-way. c. Dedicate without compensation all necessru)' 64th Avenue right-of-way. d. Obtain a county wetland resource permit. e. Obtain final approval of the project's tree protection plan and tree mitigation replacement plan by Environmental planning staff. f. Obtain FWCCC approval of a gopher tortoise relocation plan.

2. Prior to the issuance of the first certificate of occupancy for the project, the applicant shall: a. Pay all escrow funds for the future improvement of 64th Avenue must be paid to the county. b. Construct the 64th Avenue and Schumann Drive sidewalks. c. Install all perimeter buffers and opaque features.

3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy for each building, the applicant shall construct all internal sidewalks in the vicinity of that building.

4. Prior to commencement of land disturbing activities for each phase, all gopher tortoises in that phase shall be relocated to either on-site upland conservation areas or FWCCC-approved off-site locations.

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spma\Summerwalk\pzc staffreport.rtf 6 5. Prior to issuance ofland clearing and tree removal permits for Phase 4, the applicant will need to obtain approval of a scrub jay habitat conservation plan by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCCC).

Attachments: I. Application 2. Location Map 3a. Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summary 3b. LDR Section 952.12(l)(h) Tum Lane Requirements 4a. Environmental Assessment (Dated April 5, 2006) 4b. Florida Scrub Jay Survey (Dated May 30, 2007) 5. Tree Survey/Site Plan/Preliminary Plat/Landscape Plan/Aerial

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY SY ~ 4&~ . WILLIAM G. COLLINS II COUNTY ATTORNEY

F:\Community Developmenmsers\Brian F\spma\Summerwalk\pzc staffreport.rtf 7 MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION FORM (SPMJ)

COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#:]. ODS O 2-cO"'l-@ <-j FILE# (JJ 7 g Q

PROJECT NAME (PRINT): 6::to.ss·, :D.evdopW\e.Y'\+ 6v.bd\v1~ion . PRoPosED PROJECT usE: ::rnw11hows - 11, blj5 ,1,~ 1,1,hi±s (:-1 .· . -~ PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME: 6-\gs;\ J2~Veloy,ment 6ul,,J1V1"i,1lll"\

OWNER: (PRINT) . AGENT: (PRINT) Vf;\5 ±times,, L ,L , C• zcl:)lrli(<., H,fth ¢, ~ Jlt' NAME 11 NAME 313 lod·wo7!ace., :;F 102> 1111 ltil:hn ~\kfU: t:ilvdj½c1 ADDRESS ADDRESS Weston -=fl Ve;& fMcli fk CITY STATE CITY STATE 3,3329 (_)_-____ 3211ol)(]12JT70 -_q,._,,(R._.2=2 __ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT ARCHITECJ:(PRINT) ~r()e (l~ ~111 ¼f i \\\am fl>, 2.wi1, c:.l /\sec.la-ts AME NAME r)15Y old ::ra ~i1 -tbwy ADDRESS ADDRESS \/vir:; ~lAC,h 1J CITY STATE CITY STATE __(_)_- ____ '3@-9 flJ (172 )Sb7 - --i$$'2. ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

FAX E-MAIL FAX

C:\Documents and S_ettings\webmaster.ADMIN\Desktop\MAJOR.APP.PACKET.doc ~evised 2004 11 of 14 ALL ComrnElJTS 1 '

CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

• PROPOSED PROJECT USE FOR ZONING DISTRICT IS: (check one}

·¥PERMITTED [ )ADMINISTRATNE PERMIT

! AMOUNT OF NEW™.PERVIOUS SURFACE: /SO.FT) ~id; id~~ ! SITE ADDRESS: '41@6 h1+" flve, \t\/.Q,,l,a · SO f't-.

!SITETAXID#(S): 31-3"1<21· DC)Cpo- 300C'OOoCl8.o

! IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITNE AREA AS DESIGNATED ON THE COMPREHENSNE PLAN OR ADDRESSED IN A PRE-APP CONFERENCE? _YES _NO

!ZONING: f tv\-(o CLUP: L-Z.

! TOTAL (GROSS) ACREAGE OF PARCEL: ::z5:;,93 flt..:=•'._· -~ ,,_,-______! AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE: . '7i ~]j _:aiCz cif4\';?',;, > ··

! PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT@. APPLICABLE):

A. NUMBER OF UNITS: FROM.__ _,.,O:...._ __ UNITS. TO_ __:~c....:_t)_____ UNITS

B.DENSITY: fROMc___.lL.____ UNITS PER ACRE - TO 2, l $ UNITS PER ACRE-"f'

! l/SES BY SQUARE FEET GROSS BUILDING AREA RESULTING fROM MODlflCATION (E.G. RETAIL; 5,000) ~ (\ ;,i.. 00, ,I "'1" USE:. ______/-f__ SQ. fT.: ______~_ ~~~i1Jt USE:. ______SQ. FT.:. ______3,/ ~

COMPLETE CHECKLIST ON PAGE 19

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

DATE RECENED: __/ / ___

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE:__ /

REVIEWING PLANNER:______

C:\Documents and Settings\webmaster.ADMIN\Desktop\MAJOR.APP .PACKET.doc Revised 2004 12 of 14 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FORM (PLTP)

PROJECTNAME(PRINT): 'S±o.ss·, 'Development $qhdivrsioh

COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#: 20050203.&\~i "" :;-3171

ASSIGNED FILE#: ~PL=TP~-__.5_· ~D_· _--_O_(p_-_o_r-i_-_~-~~----­

coRREsPoN:oING PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME AND IRC ASSIGNED FILE NUMBER: SD-_-__- __

OWNER: (PRINT) VC]s \:\Droes ) L- L: ·C NAME 31B \od\ao 1race :# l08 ADDRESS Weston fL CITY STATE CITY STATE . . 33329 37-~lliO ClJ2J 770 - 9lo,:22. ZIP ZIP PHOt-ffi 4ob··~g::n__.~LJ)l~~L-- ,lose.Pb w. &:rullu ) p; £ CONTACT PERSON -:f""::.Chu..\ Ke@-sbsll~inee~. corn

• PROJECT E BER: (PRINT) PROJECT SURVEYOR: (PRINT) 2Rmt as 14gw± w,u.,1·a_m B. -ie.n+1. ~ ~ssoc.iet-ks NAME NAME , tiW LiB1 Old 12'1 Kie ~1/ ADDRESS

CITY STATE CITY STATE ( ) 3:2,q(i,Z, (712- ) '5to] - ,'552., ZIP PHONE ZIP PHQNE wfl> i. (? ~ad-e ' r}e:t CONTACT PERSON CONTACTPERSON .

SITE TAX ID#'S: 31-3q- zq- DODOO- 3()(';() -MOO g .c IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN "ENVIRONMENTALLY Sl;NSITlVE" AREA AS ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE? YES ____ . NO _ _,_)(~-- 1 • ZONING: ~Mc~ I , . v CLOP: -2 • TOTAL (GROSS) ACREAGE OF PARCEL:.~~z:=6~-c...5:.,..3'--"'"-_._fr~=-c:;,~~~~~~~~~~~~ • AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE:_·...,25=·-·.,,.5~3 __ -~6~C~. ·-~~-~- • TOTAL NUMBER OF~~~n• l'22. . DENSITY (UNITS, PER ACRE): . :"p~'b **PLEASE FILL-OUT APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST**

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY: DATE RECEIVED:-,-c-,-,------~/ /__ _ DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: ______/ / ____ SUBDIVISION FILE NUMBER: SD-__- __- __ REVIEWING PLANNER: ______

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST

NOTE:"N/A" may be marked in YES column if "Not Applicable"

MATERIAL YES NO I. Formal Pre-Application Conference Held L IL Fee < or= to 10 acres: > 10 acres: 26- 53 ~0 III. Completed Preliminary Plat Application Form ':L IV. Ten (10) Copies of the Preliminary Plat ><

V. Two (2) Sealed Site Surveys y__

VI. Two (2) aerials of site with project overlaid, showing surrounding 200 feet X

VIL Two (2) copies of the Owner's Deed y

VIII. Letter of Authorization from Owner Y. OR Applicant is Owner

IX. Completed Tree Removal Permit Application OR Signed Exemption Form OR Noted as will apply 10 days prior to preliminary plat release 'X

C:\Documents and Settings\webmaster.ADMIN\Deslctop\Preplinary Plat ApP.doc REV: 04/04 • • I G 11111 lliU 1111 Ull U!Ullllll U • I ' i;I--+-.--, i ~ ' ' l. ..---, ' !

., ~ .-:-: --+-__.i._"_. __.---, I

' • • i s • ' C -· C 0 U) •a:: U) ~ e " ~ ~ ~ ; ;:: ~,m ~

a ~., :!,

';

" (/} • 0 z.,: " • ..J ;'~ <$ ~~ ,=I ~ t: • ~ !:1 .c 1':5 •

1. Location: East side of Schumann, south of Barber 2. Size: 48 single family homes & 80 townhouses 3. Trip Generation: 48 detached dwelling units x 9.57 daily trips/unit= 459 trips/day 48 x 1.01 P.M. peak hour trips/unit= 48 P.M. peak hour trips 80 townhouse units x 5.86 daily trips/unit = 469_ trips/day 80 x 0.52 P.M. peak hour trips/unit= 42 P.M. peak hour trips 4. Area of Influence Boundaries: Schumann (north), 41st St (south), US 1 (east), CR 512 (west) 5. Significant Roads: US 1 ( 49th St to Schumann), Schumann (CR 510 to City Limit), CR 510 (CR 512 to US 1), 58th Ave (69th to CR 510), and 66th Ave (41 st to CR 510). 6. Significant Intersections: Schumann@ Barber, CR 510@ 66th Ave, CR 510 @58th Ave. 7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A 8. Internal Capture: none 9. Pass-by Capture: 0% (new trips= 100%) 10. P.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): detached - 63% entering/37% exiting; townhouses - 64% entering/36% exiting 11. Traffic Count Factors Applied: 4.4% annual growth to build-out in 2008 12. Off-Site Improvements: contribution to improvements at the intersection of CR 510 and 66th Avenue. 13. Roadway Capacities (IRC Link Sheets): See Appendix B 14. Assumed roadway and/or intersection improvements: CR 510166th Ave. Intersection Improvements and CR 510 4-lane widening project. 15. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: October, 2005 b) Traffic counts: intersections - based upon current traffic counts that were purchased from Indian River County that were less than 6 months old and supplemented by counts less than 6 months old performed by Motorist Design at locations where the County did not have current counts available roads - link sheets based upon year 2006 seasonally-adjusted traffic counts provided by Indian River County c) Study approval: 7:i/s/o&,

ATTACHMENT 3 cl I I •[illl ~------MOTORIST DESIGN------. I Traffic/Transportation Consultants I I I I ~ N 18% CR 512 / 95TH ST/ FELLSMERE RD 2% I ----.---/4% 4% I 10% 5% 30% 4% 70% ~ ~ I 9% .. 45% 40% I iCR 510 / 85TH ST / 'w'AllAS D RD, 5% l 81ST ST 16% I I I I I I 73RD ST I 69TH ST / NDRTH \/INTER BEACH R•AD I I 13%

11% 61ST ST

I 57TH ST I 53RD ST 8% I 5%

3% I ..!------1- - • I DISTRIBUTION BY PERCENT I FIGURE 2 6 I Motorist Design of Merritt Island, Inc., 2755 N. Banana River Dr. Suite B, Merritt Island, FL 32952 I EB/BA #8720 - e-mail: [email protected] - voice: 321-459-2905 - fax: 321-45.9-2012 APPENDIXB • PROJECT LINKASSIGNMENTS LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE (COMPILED WITH 11/02/06 DATA) IRC Stassi REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED 48Single WITH UNK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 80 Mµlti PROJECT

1010N SRA1A CNTYUNE CITY LI.MIT 950 325 28 5B7 1010S SRA1A 950 396 16 538 1020N SRA1A CITYUMIT 17TH ST 860 830 18 12 1020S SR AtA 860 900 7 -47 1030N SRA1A 17TH ST SR60 860 604 54 202 1030S SRA1A 860 635 5 220 1040N SRA1A SR60 CJTYLIMIT 860 836 5 19 1040S SRA1A 860 910 6 ,56 1050N SRA1A CITY LIMIT FRED TUERK 860 836 2 22 10.SOS SRA1A 860 910 1 ,51 1060N SRA1A FRE'DTUERI<'. OLD WINTER 860 58d 1 279 10608 SRA1A 860 468 () 392 107DN SRA1A OLD WINTER ·NIRSL 860 534 5 321 10708 SRA1A 860 472 6 382 1080N SRA1A NIRSL CR510 860 534 53 273 1080S SRA1A 860 472 '2,7 35.1 1090N SRA1A CR 510 COUNTY LINE 99.8 354 43 601 1090S SRA1A 998 513 93 392 ·1110N JRB 4TH ST/U$1. 12THST 18.60 740 4 1116 11108 IRB l860 1366 28 466 1·120N IRB 12THST CITYLIMIT 1660 999 0 661 1120$ IRS 1860 1425 0 435 113\JN IRS CITYLIMlT 17TH ST 1860 9~9. 9 852 11·308 IRS 1860 .1425 :Q 435 1140N IRB 17TH ST 21ST ST 1860 1.024 3 1333 11408 IRS 1860 1395 0 ·46_5 t150N !RB 21STST SRBO 1560 1420 16 424 11508 IRl;l 1860 16.61 :Q 19f) 1160N IRS SR60 CITY LIMIT 1860 1:049. 72 739 11608 !RB 1860 1.120 25 715 1170N IRS CITY LlMIT US 1153RD 1860 588 134 113£ 11708 IRS 1860 832 115 913 12lDN 1.95 CNTYLINE CR 512 2740 1504 10 1226 12108 Hl5 2740 1509 15 12.16 1220N 1,95 CR 512 SR60 2740 1510 29 1201 1220S 1-95 2740 1519 30 1191 123-0N 1'95 SR6Q OSLORD 2880 1726 44 1120 1230S 1-9.5 2890 1712 31. 1147 1240N 1-95 OSLORD · CNTYLINE 2890 1716 35 1t39 12408 l-95 2890 1707 24, 1159 1305N us 1 CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1860 1197 62 601 1305S us 1 1860 1590 51 219 1310N us 1 OSLO RD 4TH@IR BO 2790 1413 30 1347 13108 us 1 2790 · 1749 54 987 1315N US1 4TH@JRBD 8THST 1860 1191 7 662. 13158 us 1 1860 1477 18 365 i320N US1 8TH ST 12THST 1860 1286 15 559 13208 us 1 1.86.0 1466 33 361 1325N us 1 12TH ST CITY.LIMIT 1710 1219 34 457 1325S us 1 i71d 1296 47 367 1330N US1 CITY LIMIT 17TH ST 1710 1118 33 559 13308 us 1 1710 1325 49 336 LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE (COMPILED WITH 11102/06 DATA) IRC -Stassi REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED 48 Single WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 80Multi PROJECT

1335N us 1 17THST SR60 1510 1175 57 2'18 13358 us 1 1510 1207 71 232 1340N US1 SR60 ROYAL PALM 1510 901 85 524 1340$ US1 1510 l124 17.5 211 1345N us 1 ROYAL PALM ATLANTIC 171'0 1084 108 518 1345S us 1 1710 970 151 589 1350N us 1 · _ATLANTIC C!TYUMIT 2010 1508 135 367 1350.S us 1 2010 1612. 173 225 1355N us1 CITY LIMIT OLD DIXIE 2010 1634 1.61 215 16553 us 1 2010 1298 177 535 13.BON .US1 OLD.DIXIE 41ST ST 2010 1712" ·t64 134 13608 US1 2010 1.079 127 804 1365N us 1 41ST ST 45TH ST 2010 145.1 186 373 13658 us 1 2010 1021 156 833 1370N us 1 45TH ST 49THST 2010 1425 191 ,394· t370S US1 .2010 930 163 917 1:375-N us 1 49THST .6(ffHST .20:):0 17$8 26S 8 {37.5$ us 1 2010· i087 213 707 'il3$0N U$1 65THST .69.'THST '2232 1711 173 340 ·. 13808 US1 t8p(j. 10.10 :163 623 .. 1i~'N llS 1 t;sr:Hst 0LDPtXlE 2232. t675 164 . 381 .1:385:S. US1 1860 1'0~4 '1'31 ·s83 . i:as&N tis'! OLDD{XJE . :SCHUMA!IIN . 22'1:0 '111J .. i,154 .. .642 1iBJJ{iS ;USi · 1iimo B'f5 '133 809 "1sstN US1 SCHUMANN GR512 1860 1300 83 477 13958 US1 1860 973. 99 788 1400N us 1 CR512 CiTYLirvilT 1710 1272 .£9 379 14008 US1 , 1710 1171. 76 463 1405N l)S 1 CITYLIM(T ROSELAND 1860 1318 41 .50.1 1.4058 US1 l860 1323 58 479 141.0N us '1. ROSELAND CNTYLINE 1860 1158 B 694 1410S us 1 1860. 965 33 862 151:0N SCHUMANN 'GR510/66TH CITY UMJT ,860 705 10. 41. 1.04 15iWS ,scHWMANI', 860' -337 15 22 486 1520N SCHUMANN CITY LIMIT us 1 860 11.S 7 735 '1520S SCHUMANN 860 66 12 782 1610N ROSELAND CR512 CITY LIMIT 860 325 14 521 1610S ROSELAND 860 335 16 509 1620N ROSELAND CITY L.IMIT us 1 860 301 18 541 1620S ROSELAND 860 277 6 577 1710E CR512 SR60 1-95 860 386 81 393 1710W CR512 860 704 14 142 1720E CR 512 1-95 CR510 186.0 655 241 964 1720W CR512 1860 .823 30 1007 1730E CR512 CR 510 .CITY LIMIT 1860 730 41 1089 1730W CR512 1860 716 45 1099 1740E CR512 CITY LIMIT ROSELAND 1860 g52 40 8.68 1740W CR512 1860 732 44 1084 1750E .GR 512 ROSELAND us 1 1860 611 25 1224 1750W CB 512 1860 700 24 1136 1810E .CR"510 ·CR•512 66THAVE 1860 '538 45!> 859 l81'0W DR510 1860 776 104 977 1820E CR'51'0 66THAVE 58THAVE 1'860 512 114 14 1220 LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE (COMPILED WITH 11/D2/06 DATA) IRC Siassi REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED 48 Single WITH LINK ON !"ROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 80 Multi PROJECT

1'82~""- · 'CR'B'1'0''' 1'8oo:·· 7Tff. f1'Et 26'. 1000 183DE CR!i10 58THAVE; US1 1850 544- 1'.33 1'3 1170 ·f8$DW . CR'Btti·· t86{Y 774-- 'f22 23'· 941 184DE CR510 us 1 SRA1A 1900 571 189 1140 1840W CR510 1900 1:021 210 669 t9D5E SR60 CNTYLINE CR 512 1810 217 11 1582 1905W SR.60 1810 254 13 1543. 1907E SR60 CR 512 100TH AVE 18JO 258 1 1551 1907W SR.60 1810 257 3 1550 t(HOE SH60 100TH AVE h95 1860 325 138 1397 1910\N SR60 1860 286 213 1361 1915E SR60 H'15 82NDAVE 1860 1391 285 184 191.pW SR.60 2000 1593 261 146 1920E SR.60 82NDAVE 66THAVE. 2120 155_0 461 109 1920W SR60 2120 18.65 357 -102 1925E SR.60 66TH.AVE 58TH AVE 2790 1..641 3:;15 814 1925W .SR6D · 2790 165:2 382 756 l930E SR60 58TH.AVE 43RDAVE 2790 1399 280 1111 1.930W SR60 2790 1497 378 915 1935E .SR.60 43RDAVE 27THAVE 279[) 1315 2.39 1136 1935\N .SR60 2790 1544 345 901 1940E SR60 27THAVE 20THAVE 279.0 1158 182 145.0 19'40W SR60 2790 1371 . .282 1137 1945E SR60. 2.0THAVE OLD DIXIE 3252 1135 131 1'986 1945\N SR60 3252 126.8 186 1798 1950E SR60· OLD PIXIE 10TH AVE 3252, 125& 79 1915 1.950W SR60 .3252 1051 112 2089 t955E SR60 10TH AVE us 1 32(52 1100 78 2074 1955W .SR60 3252 757 97 2.398 1960E SR60 US1 IRB 3252 7$9 17 2446 1960W SR60 3252 513 '15 . 2724 1965E SR60 IRB ICWW 1860 908 7 945 1965W SR.60 1880. 1616 3 241 t970E SR60 ICWW SRA1A 1860 911 5 944 t970W SR60 1.860 979 5 876 2020E 16TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE_ 860 355 47 458 2020W 16TH ST 860 279 38 .543 2030E 16TH ST 4.3RDAVE 27TH ST 860 367 47 446 2030W 16TH ST 860 551 38 271. 2040E 16TH ST 27TH ST. 20THAVE 860 355 32 473 204ow 16TH ST 860 543 53 264 2050E 16TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 810 569 31 .210 2050W 16TH ST 81.0 730 45 35 2060E 16TH/17TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 1710 686 62 972 206DW 16TH/17TH ST 1710 764 50 896 2110E 17TH ST .US1 !RB 171:D 560 29 1121 211.DW 17TH ST 171.0 754 23 .933 2120E 17TH ST !RB SRAV\ 1860 10.47 25 788 2120W 17THST 1860 1296 16 548 221.0E 12TH ST 82ND AVE 58TH AVE 870 98 2 770 2210W 12THST 870 98 0 772 2220E 12TH ST 5.8THAVE 43RDAVE 860 190 38_ 632 2220W 12TH ST 860 26.1 29 570 LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE (COMPILED WITH 11/02/06DATA) !RC Stassi REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED 48 Single WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 80 Multi PROJECT

2230E 12THST A3RD,AVE 27THAVE 8t;i0 269 13 578 2230W 12TH ST 860 390 9 461 2240E 12THST 27TH AVE. 20THAVE 860 350 11 :499 2240W 12THST 860 533 11 3i.6 ·2250E 12THST 20THAVE OLD DIXIE 860 459 2 399 2250W 12THST 860 '698 8 154 2260E 12THST OLD DIXIE. us 1 1368 416 -4 95c\ 2260W i2TH ST 1368 591 10 667 2305N OLD DIXIE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 860 356 110 394 2305S OLD DIXIE 860 491 20 349 23iON OLDDIXIE OSLO RD 4THST 860 329 39 492 2310S OLD DIXIE 860 383. 36 441 2315N OLDDIXIE 4THST 8TH ST 810 484 16 310 23158 OLODIXIE 810 630 1'5 165 2320N · OLDDIXIE 8THST '12TH ST 810 529 9 272 2320S OLDDIXIE 810 704 10 96 2325N OLDDIXIE 12TH ST CffYLIMIT 810 560 -1 251 23258 OLDDIX!E &10 6.34 -1 177 2330N OLDOIXIE CITY LIMIT 1.6TH ST 850 382. 0 468 23308 OLD0 DIXIE 850 3:87 -3 466 2335N OLDDfXlE. 1.6THST SR60 .B;'iO 284. 27 539 23358 OLUDIXIE . 850 239 14 597 2345N OLDDIXIE 41STST 45THST 860 179 49 632 23458 OLDDIXIE 860 1.93 34 633 2350N OLDDIX!E 45TH ST 49THST 860 1315 61 663 235.0S OLD DIXIE 860 114 42 704 2355N OLD DIXIE 49TH ST 6'5.THST 860 132 108 620 235~8 OLD DjXIE 860 149 92 619 2360N OLD DIXIE 65TH ST 69THST 860 218 .30 6.12 2360S OLD DIXIE 860 87 23 750 2305N OLD.DIXiE .69TH ST CR510 86.0 145 17 698 23658 OLDDlXIE 86D 129 12 719 24lON 27THAVE CNTY LINE OSLORD 1068 519 307 242 24108 27THAVE 1068 800 466 ct98 2420N 27TH AVE OSLO RD 4THST 1068 548 181 339 2420S 27TH AVE 1068 769 306 -7 2430N 27THAVE 4TH ST 8THST 1020 462 131 427 24308 27iH AVE 1020 811 228 -19 2440N 27THAVE BtH ST 12THS'.f 1020 447 94 479 24408 27THAVE 1[)20 793 166 6.1 2450N 27TffAVE 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1020. 456 81 483 2450S 27THAVE 1020 784 139 97 2460N 27THAVE CITY LIMIT 16THST 1020 456 75 489 2460S 27THAVE 1020 784 134 102 2470N 27TH AVE 16THST $R60 1020 411 40 569 2470S 27THAVE 1020 704 68 248 2480N 27THAVE SR60 ATLANTIC 810 257 18 535 2480S 27TH AVE 810. 439 27 344 25.1.0N 27TH.AVE ATLANTIC AVIATION 810 439 8 363 25i0S 27TH AVE 810 756 12 42 · 2530E OSLO RD 82ND AVE 58THAVE 870 234 5 63.1 2530W OSLO RD 870 197 0 673 2540E OSLO RD 5BTHAVE 43RDAVE 1953 583 242 1128 Lll~K SHEET SUMMARY TABLE (COMPILED WITH. 1.1/02/06 DATA) IRC Stassi. REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED. 48 Single WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC SO Multi PROJECT

2540W OSLORb 1953 469 122 1352 2550E OSLO RD 4:JRDAVE 27TH AVE 1953 778 217 958 2550W bSLORD 1953 635 194 112.4 2560E .OSLO RD 27TH.AVE 20THAVE 1953 543 163 1247 2560W OSLO.RD 1953 654 135 1164 2570E OSLO RD 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 1953 595 287 1071 2570W OSLORD 1953 805 184 964 2580E OSLO RD OLD.DIXIE US1 19.53 740 75 1138 2580W OSLO RD 1953 585 81 1287 2610N 6THAVE 17THST CITY LIMIT 860 312 1 547 25·1os 6THAVE 860 467 1 392 2620N 6THAVE CITY LIMIT SR60 S:50 330 1 519 2620S 6THAVE 850 .368 2 480 2710N 10TH AVE. SR60 ROYAL PALM 810 77 23 7i0 2710S 10TH AVE 810 68 23· 719 2720N 10TH AVE ROYAL PALM 17THST 810 218 24 568 27208 1DTHAVE 810 372 23 4t5 2810N 20THAVE .OSLO RD 4THST 860 432 122 306 2S10S 20THAVE 8.60 438 151 271 2820N 20THAVE 4THST BTH.ST 81o. 364 64 382 2820S 20TH AVE 810 625 85 100 :

3010N 58THAVE 4THST BTHST 1710 657 72 981 3D10S 58THAVE 1710 712 96 902 3015N 58THAVE BTHST 12THST 1710 815 98 797 3015S 5!ffHAVE 1710 1138 .116 456 3020N ,58THAVE 12TH ST 16THST 1710 944 147 619 3020S 58THAVE 1710 1046 158 506 3025N '58THAVE 16TH ST SR60 1710 98.3 216 511 30258 58THAVE 1710 1035 245 430 3030N 58THAVE SR60 41'STST 1860 H37 244 479 30308 58THAVE 1860. 1109 167 584 3035N 58THAVE 41STST 45TH ST 860 587 205 6.8 3035S 58THAVE 860 538 99 223 3040N 58THAVE 45TH ST 49THST 860 496 229 135. 3040S 58THAVE 860 487 117 256 3045N 58'rHAVE. 49THST 65'rH ST 860 479 146 23"5 30458 58THAVE 860 402 114 344 3050N 5i3Tf-i.AVE 65THST 69'.THST 860 432 89 339 3050S 5.BTH AVE 8.60 .356 106 398 3055N &BTHAVE 6$THST CR.510 860. 367 76 3055$ 5STHAVE. 414. 860 292· 154 452 3120N 66THAVE SR60 26THST 860 463 162 235 3120$ 66THAVE 860 432 128 300 3130N 66TH.AVE 26'rHST 41STST 860 548 '153 159 M3DS 66THAVE 860 398 117 B45 ,314.QN 66THAI/E 41STST 45T;HST 950 559 59. 319 "3:1406 .:l?!fl}+A,\lp 95.0 36? 5.8 523 ;451ws:r .·:s4so~ 56THAVE .i55THS'r li7iJ :&31 73 254 ..... $1$0$ {56THAVE 870 3$1 $$ 4T7 :e6TH,A\JE 65THST 316QN ·q9THST !>70 531 41 JI 284 $6THAVE, '::3160$ li10. ·3,0j 40 525 :'BW.Ufi,AME: . ORi510 B'f.JThLST :avo ,5w1 '56. .9 244 . ~~"~:: 661ilA>ZE .;c. ,, ·,qJt-1:)''''• '''13'if'>I''· ' . . .· ii'&• . 505 3310N 82ND AVE OLSORD 4TH ST 950 171 5 774 3310$ 82NDAVE 950 166 8 776 3320N 82NDAVE 4THST 12TH ST 950 191 14 745 3320$ 82NDAVE 950 158 20 772 3330N 82NDAVE 12THST SR60 860 2[34 64 532 333(]3 82ND AVE 860 220 33 607 3340N 82NDAVE SR 60 65TH ST 410 12 5 393 3340S B2NDAV'c 410 21 8 381 3350N 82ND AV'c 65THST 69TH ST 410 17 1 392 33508 82NDA\/t 410 15 0 3S5 3360N 98T.H AVE 8THST 12TH ST 860 13 0 847 33608 98TH AVE .860 13 0 847 3370N 98TH AVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 860 72 0 788 3370S 98TH AVE 860 50 0 810 3360N. 98TH AVE 16THST SR60 860 73 0 787 3380S 98THAVE 860 48 0 812 3390N 98THAVE SR6D 26THST 850 24 0 836 3390S 98TH AVE 860 143 0 717 361GE 77TH ST ; 66THAVE US1 820 124 11 685 3610W 77THST 820 1.24 9 687 3710E 69TH ST 82NDAVE 66TH AVE 410 17 18 375 LINK SHEET SUMMARYTABLE (COMPILED WITH 11-/02/06 DATA) !RC Stassi REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED 48 Single WITH UNK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC 80 MUiti PROJECT 3710W 69TH ST 410 15 18 377 3720E 69TH ST 66THAVE 58THAVE 870 11,9 13 738 3720W 6.9THST 870 55 18 797 3730E 69TH ST 58TH AVE OLD DIXIE 870 49 26 795 3730W 69TH ST 870 59 1.8 793 3740E 69TH ST OLD DIXIE US1 870 46 11 813 3740W 6.9TH ST 870 48 13 809 3820E 65TH ST 66THAVE 58TH.AVE 87.0 50 21 799 3820W 65TH ST 870 4.1 4 825 3830E 65TH'ST 58THAVE OLD DIXIE .870 98 28 744 3830W 6.5THST 870 64 22 784 3840E 65THST OLD DIXIE us 1 870 62 9 799 3840W 65TH ST 870 72 10 788 4220E 49THST 66THAVE 58THAVE 860 31 34 795 4220\N 49TH ST 860 123 19 718 4230E 49TWST 58THAVE 43RD AVE 860 23 28 809 42S0W 49THST 860 173 1.9 668 424.0E 49THST 43RDAVE OLDDIXIE 810 216 113 481 4240W 49TH ST '810 144 90. 576 425.0E 49TH ST OLDD!XfE us 1 810 221 30 559 4250W 49THST 810 157 21 6,32 4320E 45THS't 66THAVE 58Tf:IAVE 860 105 21 ,734 4320W 45THST .860 136 10 714 4:i30E 45THST 58THAVE 43RDAVE 860 176 43 641 4330W 45THST 860 207 42 611 4340E 45THST 43RDAVE OLDDIXJE 860 ,352 75 433 45THST 4340iN 860 422 79 359 4350E 4.5TH ST OLD DIXIE !RB 860 230 74 556 4350W 45TH ST 860 267. 81 512 4420E 41ST ST 66THAVE 58'fHAVE 870 109 3:i 728 4420W 41ST ST 870 120 12 738 4430E. 41STST 58THAVE 43RD.AVE 86.0 246 52 562 4430W 41ST ST 860 227 68 5.65 4440E 41ST S'f 43RDAVE OLD DIXJf 860 211 110 .539 4440W 41STST B60 226 46 588 4450E. .41STST OLD DIXIE !RB 860 109 18 733 4450W 41.STST 860 128 17 715 44605 37TH ST 1 us !RB 860 448 1 411 4460W 37TH ST 860 638 20 202 47220E 26THST .66TH AVE 58THAVE 860 248 130 482 4720W 26THST 860 234 103 523 4730E 26TH.ST 58THAVE 43RDAVE 860 394 41 425 473.0W 26THST 860 539 56 265 4740E 26THST 43RDAVE AVIATION 860 458 30 372 4740\N 26THST 860 635, 34 191 4750E 26TH ST AVIATION 27THAVE 860 137 12 711 4750W 26THST 860 201 '18 641 4830E 8TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 75 16 769 4830W BTHST 860 118 10 732 4840E 8THST 43RD AVE 27THAVE 860 311 54 495 4840W 8THST 860 380 36 444 4850E 8THST 27TH AVE 20THAVE B.6.0 353 14 493 4850W 8TH ST 860 544 13 303 LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE (COMPILED WITH 11/02/06 DATA) !RC Stassi REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED 46 Single ·WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC BO Multi PROJECT

4860E BTHST 20THAVE OLDDIXJE 810 331 83 396 4860W 8THST 810 632 25 153 4870E 8TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 810 327 16 4EF 4870W 8THST 810 551 24 235 4880E 8TH ST us 1 IRB 860 192 3 685 4880\/V BTHST 860 242 4 614 4910E 4TH ST 82NDAVE 58THAVE 870 75 23 772 4910W 4THST 870 97 7 766 4930E 4TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE. 860 208 15 637 49SOW 4TH ST 860 262 11 587 4940E 4THST 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE 860 277 26 557 4!q40W 4THST 660 341 23 49o 4950E 4Tl'I ST 27THAVE 20THAVE 86.0 3i5 4 541 49.50\/V 4THST 860 472 7 3.81 4960E 4THST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE .860 320 30 ,no 4960W 4THSJ 860 479 46 335 4970E 4THST OLD DIXIE US1 S:10 353 6 45.1 4970W 4THST 810 · 463 16 331 5610E. FRED TUERK A1A 1\1 OF COCbNH 860 HO 0 750 5610W FRED TUERK 860 68 {} 792 5710E WlNTERB'EA.CH A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 6i 1 798 5710\/1/ WINTER.BEACH 8.60 47 Q 813 B81DE . ATLANTIC 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 141 5 7'l4 58.10W ATLANTIC 8:60 257 7 596 5820E ATLANilC 20THAVE us 1 860 123 4:1 696 5820\/1/ ATLANTIC 860 171 104 5/i35 5910E AVIATIONBD 26THST 27THAVE 1280 497 9 774 59tOW AVIATlONBD 12130 627 27 626 6010E ROYAL PALM 13D ROYAL PALM !RB 880 263 9 608 6010W RbYAL PALMBD 880 130 s 741 61lOE ROYAL PALM PL us 1 fRB 880 169 19 692 6'110\/1/ ROYAL PALM PL 880 349 19, 512

43rd - 4L. 16th to. 26lh - 2009 US1 • BL 4th. to Oslo Oslo - 5L58th to US 1 CR 510 - 4L CR 512 c US 1 Stassi TRAFFIC § 952.12

Egress Ingress thousand (10,000) vehicles per day, permitted roadway speeds exceed Type (feet) (feet) thirty-five (35) miles per hour, and Bus 45 42 driveway volume exceeds one thou­ Tractor-trailer (40 45 40 sand (1,000) vehicles per day with at feet) least forty (40) right-tum move­ Tractor-trailer (50 45 45 ments during peak periods. For any feet) project, a right-turn lane as de­ Tractor-trailer (60 45 45 scribed in this subparagraph shall feet) be provided at each driveway where Driveway entrances off collector and arte­ right-turn ingress volumes exceed rial routes shall conform with the provi­ seventy-five (75) vehicles per peak sions of section 952.12(5) Driveway width hour. and radii. (2) Number and spacing of driveways. (f) Loading and unloading activities must in (a) One driveway shall be permitted for in­ no way hinder vehicular ingress or egress. gress and egress purposes to any project. (g) All driveways shall maintain adequate (b) The approving body may either increMe sight distance, as provided in this code. or reduce the following separation dis-. @rngress lanes: tances based upon a recommendation by the public works director after an analy­ 1. Ingress left-tum lane requirements: sis of street frontage trip generation, or A twelve-foot wide left-tum lane with other factors, as deemed appropriate. appropriate storage and transition shall be provided at each driveway (c) A joint access driveway shall be consid­ when the average annual daily traf­ ered as adequate access for any two (2) fic (AADT) volume projected at the adjacent parcels and shall be encouraged. time of project buildout and peak For a project where more than one drive­ hour left-turn rates meet the follow­ way is requested, the applicant shall sub­ ing thresholds: mit a traffic report justifying the need, describing the internal circulation and Projected AADT Peak Hour Left parking system, and identifying the im­ Volume Turns pact of development of the project and its Less than 8,000 35 or more proposed access facilities on the operation 8,000-9,000 30 or more of the street system. 9,001-10,000 25 or more More than 10,000 20 or more (d) These standards shall not apply to single­ family dwellings and duplexes. 2. Ingress right-tum lanes: For any project, a twelve-foot wide right-tum (e) Minimum spacing between two-way drive­ lane with appropriate storage and ways fronting on the same side of a street transition shall be provided at each shall conform to the table below. Distance driveway where the adjacent road­ between driveways shall be measured from way average daily traffic exceeds ten centerline to centerline.

Minimum Driveway Separation (feet)

Speed Principal Minor (mph) Arterial Arterial Collector Local 30 125 125 125 70

Supp. No. 54 952/27 AJTACHlffNT 3 b ' ~·--..l Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. i11fo@lilo-techconsumn1u:0111 Environmental and Permitting Services w111w.bio-tecl!co11sumn1i.com

April 5, 2006

Mark Brackett Brackett & Company 1307 19th Place Vero Beach, FL 32961

Project: Stassi Subdivision Site, Indian River County, Florida Section 32, Township 31 South, Range 39 East (BTC File #106-21.05) Re: Environmental Assessment

Dear Mr. Brackett

Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. (BTC) conducted an environmental assessment of the Stassi Subdivision Project Site. The subject property is located immediately west of 64 th Avenue and south of the Wabasso cemetery, within Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida (Figures 1 and 2). The environmental assessment conducted included the following elements:

• review and analysis of general topography; • review of soil types mapped within the site boundaries; • evaluation of land use types/vegetative communities present; and, • field review for occurrence of protected species of flora and fauna.

TOPOGRAPHY

Based upon a review of the USGS Topographic Map presented in Figure 3, the property drains to the center of the site and then easterly to Broxton Road. Though the USGS Topographic Map indicates that a wetland system is located within the subject site, this is a historic condition that no longer exists today. Due to the intrusion of the australian pine community, any hydrologic or vegetative indicators no longer exist in this portion of the property.

• 315 !!Orlil ferncreel! AVilllllll Orlando H 32803 !Iii 401.11!14.5!16!1 IX 4111.11!!4.5!11!1 • 1111 lnll!an mver lloulevar!I, Sime 2112-ll ll11rn ileacll n il2!1611 1111772.563.0344 Ix 712.503.11345 J, ! I '' Stassi Subdivision (BTC File #106-21.05 Page2of6 · I .

OILS ' -- - ,,. tccording\o the Soil Survey of Indian River County, Fl rida, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Se ice (NRCS), three (3) soil types occur ithin the subject prope: boundaries (Figure 4). These s ii types include the following:

• EauGallie fine sand (#3) • Myakka fine sand (#5) r ' · ' • Archbold fine sands, 0-5.% slopes (#1 • Myakka fine sand, depressional (#45)

EauGallie fine sand (#3) is a deep, nearly level, poor! drained soil found on broad flatwoods. fypically, the surface layer of this soil type is black grad' g to dark,gray fine sand about 15 inches . µiick. During most years, the water table for this soil type is at a dept}i- of less than 10 inches of the turface for 2 to 4 months during the wet season and wit in a dept~- of 40 inches for more than 6 months. The permeability of this soil type is rapid in the urface and subsurface layers, moderate to µioderately rapid in the subsoil and substratum.

j\1yakka fine sand (#5) is a nearly level, poorly drained oil found on broad flatwoods. Typically, ~he surface layer of this soil type is black fine sand about 5 inches thick. During most years, under hatural conditions, the water table for this soil type is at depth of 10 to 40 inches for more than 6 i;nonths and at a depth of less than 10 inches for 1 to 3 months during the wet season. The ~ermeability of this soil type is rapid in the surface and s bsurface layers and substratum, and it is inoderate to moderately rapid in the subsoil.

Archbold sand, 0 to 5 pe1fcent slopes (#12) is a mode tely well drained soil found in elevated • knolls on flatwoods. Typically, the surface layer of this s ii is gray sand about 2 inches thick. The water table for this soil type is at a depth of 40 to 6 inches for more than 6 months. The ~ermeability of this soil type are excessively drained.

j\1yakka fine sand, depressional (#45) is a nearly level poorly drained soil fouri\:I on broad, low flats and in poorly defined drainageways. Typically, the urface layer of this soil type is very dark gray and dark grayish brown fine sand about 12 inches thi k. The water table for this soil type is at a depth of 10 inches of the surface for 2 to 6 months of e ch year. It is above the surface for short periods after heavy rainfall. The permeability of this soil pe is rapid in the surface and subsurface ayers and is moderately rapid in the subsoil.

2 I ' '' I . r-~ f>tassi Subdivision (ETC File #lU6-21.05 , "" , . age 3 of6

[ he Florid~ Associatio~ <'lf Environm~ntal Soil Scientists considers Myakka fine sand, depressional '/ . /1.S a hydr~c soil type. Furthermore, the. association cons ders inclusions present in EauGallie fine ~and as hydric. This information may be found in the Hy ic Soils of Florida Handbook. I

LAND USE TYPES/VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

The Stassi Subdivision Project Site currently supports fiv (5) land use type/vegetative communities M>ithin its bp_imdaries. The uplands which exist on the su ~ect property consist of Open Land (190), Brazilian Pepper (422), Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwo ds (436) and Australina Pine (437). The ' etlands/surface waters include Freshwater Marsh ( 41). These land use types/vegetative ommunities were identified utilizing the Florida Land Us , Cover and Forms Classification System, ( eve! III (FLU CFCS, FDOT, January 1999) (Figure 5). T e following provides a brief description of ~he land use type/~egetative communities identified on the site: :·~ I , I /plands:

i190 Open Land

Asmall area in the northern portion of the subject prope would best be described as Open land per the FLUCFCS. Vegetative species identified on thi portion of the site include bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), Bermuda grass (Coelorachis sp.), c mmon ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), ,ind caesar weed (Urena lobata) ..

422 Brazilian Pepper

(w The majority of the southern" area of uplands associa ed with the subject property would be categorized as Brazilian Pepper per the FLUCFCS. Th s area is dominated by Brazilian Pepper I . (Schinus terebinthifolius), with scattered cabbage pal (Sabal palmetto), bahiagrass, common ~agweed, hairy indigo (Indigofera hirsuta), dog fennel Eupatorium capillifolium), caesar weed, rlackberry (Rubus spp.), grape vine (Viuts rotundifolia) a d shrub verbena (Lantana camarea).

(36 Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwoods I [fhe majority of the northern area of uplands associa ed with the subject property would be pategorized as Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwoods per t e FLUCFCS. This area is dominated by ~lash pine (Pinus elliottii) .and cabbage palm. Ther were also scattered live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and wax m le (Myrica cerifera). Scattered bahiagrass,

3 Stassi Subdivision (ETC File #106-21.05 ••" • Page4 o/6

ommon ragweed, 'hairy indigo, and dog fennel are also pr sent. '/

\· 37 Australian Pine

There are two areas located on-site considered Australian Pine (437) per the FLUCFCS; one in the ~outhwest corner ofthe_property and another along the sou east property boundary. These areas are 9ominated by Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifolia). Other vegetative species present include wax myrtle, . cabbage palm, bahiagrass, hairy indigo, g fennel, caesar weed blackberry and grapevine. i Wetlands:

(j41 Marsh

An isolated 0.22-acre Freshwater Marsh (641) is locate in the nohhwestern portion of the site. Vegetation present includes Brazilian pepper (Schinus ter binthifolius), primrose willow (Ludwigia peruviana), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), uttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), 9ulrush (Scirpus spp.), southern cattails (Typha sp.), and itchgrass (Panicum virgatum). A small portion of this wetland extends off-site to the north. ! fROTECTED SPECIES

Utilizing methodologies outlined in the Florida Fish d Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC's) Wildlife Methodology Guidelines, an assess ent for listed floral and fauna! species occurring within the subject,property boundaries was con ucted. This survey covered I 00% of the subject property. Particula~ attention was given to thos listed species that have the potential to occur in Indian River County. The review included dir t observations, as well as evidence of a particular species' presence such as tracks, burrows, tree markings and birdcalls. The listed plant ~nd wildlife assessment conducted as part of this qualitaf e review was conducted during April of 2004 and October 2005. No plant species listed by either he Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Se ice (USFWS) were identified on the site during the assessment conducted. The following is a list f those wildlife species identified during ie evaluation of the site:

Reptiles and Amphibians Brown Ano le (Anolis sagrei) Black Racer (Coluber constrictor)

4 ~---,' -· Stassi Subdivision (BTC File #!Uo-21.05 . " , rage 5 o/6.

Six-lined Raceruiiner,, (Cnemidophorus sex ·neatus sexlineatus) Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) '· Southern Toad (Bufo terrestris) Pig Frog (Rana grylio) Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

Birds Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos Rufous-Sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophth Imus) Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) .,., Fish Crow (Corvus ossifragus) Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) Great Egret (Casmerodius a/bus) Florida Scrub.Jay (Aphelocoma coerulesce s coerulescens)

Mammals Pocket Gopher (Geo mys pineatus) Nine-banded A1madillo (Dasypus novemci ctus) Raccoon (Procyon lo tor)

Two (2) of the above identified species are listed in the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threa~ned Species and Species of pecial Concern (January 2004). The two listed species are t_he gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphem s) and the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma ' roerulescens coerulescens). The permitting will be co rdinated through FFWCC for the gopher fortoises.' Several other protected species known to occ in Indian River County have a possibility pf occurring in this area, as they are gopher tortoise co ensal species. These species include the Fastem indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi}, Flo da mouse (Podornys jloridanus) and the ~opher frog (Rana capita). However, none of these pecies were observed during the survey ponducted.

Florida Scrub Jays and their territorial limits were reco ized and delineated in two formal Florida Scrub Jay surveys (2004 and 2005). These Florida Scrub · ays were found in the northeast comer of the property. An upland buffer along the northeastern mer of the project has been provided in order to preserve any potential habitat that the Scrub Jays ay utilize.

5 ,.• Stassi Subilivisio11 (ETC File #]06-21. 05 'fage 6 of6

,; n additio11 to the on-site review for listed species, B C . conducted a review for any FFWCC ecorded Bald Eagle nest sites on or in the vicinity of the ubject property. This review revealed no ~ctive nest sites through the 2004 nesting season on or within one mile of the subject property boundaries. I Erosion & Sediment Control

The applicant will implement and maintain erosion and s diment control measures both prior to and puring the proposed project. This practice will insure at no adverse water quality impacts to receiving waters and adjacent lands will occur during t proposed work. Control measures will retain sediment on-site and help prevent violations of Stat standards. Practices incorporated will be in accordance with Chapter 6 of the Florida Land Develo ent Manta!: A guide to Sound Land and ,Water' Management. i !rhe environmental limitations described in this docume are based on observations and technical fnformation available on the date of the on-site evalua on. This report is for general planning purposes only. The limits of any on-site wetlands can e determined and verified through field delineation and/or on-site review by the pertinent regulato I ~hould you have any questions or require any addition I information, please do not hesitate to ~ontact our office at (772) 563-0344. Thank you. '

~ttachments

c: Mark Brackett Joe Schulke

6 [email protected] ,Tech Consulting Inc. www.bio-techconsultinu.com ,vironmental and Permitting Services

May 30, 2007

Ken Oristaglio Indian River County Environmental Planning 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

Proj: Stasi Project Site -Indian River County, Florida Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East Re: Florida Scrub Jay Survey and Report BTC Project No. 106-21.05

Dear Mr. Oristaglio:

Please find enclosed the requested Florida Scrub Jay survey. This survey was conducted in accordance to USFWS guidelines.

Considering the location of the estimated territorial limits, the project has been divided into three phases. Phase III of the project site contains the territorial limits of the scrub jay habitat. We request that the site be approved with a condition that limits development in Phase III without an approved USFWS HCP plan.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (772) 563-0344. Thank you.

Regards, ~~ Stephanie Salvilla Project Manager

Attachments

cc: Trish Adams, USFWS Joseph Schulke, P .E., Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard Romano Stasi ATTACHME.NT 4b

Main Office Vero Beach Office Pensacola Office 315 N. Ferncreek Ave 1ltl lndfan River BIVd, Ste 301 1312 E. Cervantes SI Orlando fl 32803 Vero Beaeb FL 32960 Pensacola fl 32501 407.894.5969 712.563.0344 850A69.1100 407.894.5970 fax 112.563.0345 lax 850.469.1104 lax ' [email protected] Bio-Tech Consulting Inc. www.bio-techconsumnu.com Environmental and Permitting Services

May 30, 2007

Ken Oristaglio Indian River County Environmental Planning 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

Proj: Stasi Project Site - Indian River County, Florida Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East Re: Florida Scrub Jay Survey and Report BTC Project No. 106-21.05

Dear Mr. Oristagli o:

Bio-Tech Consulting, Inc. (BTC) conducted a formal Florida Scrub Jay survey on the Stasi Subdivision Project Site from May 9th to May 13th, 2007. This± 26-acre property is located immediately west of 64th Avenue and south of the Wabasso cemetery, within Section 29, Township 31 South, Range 39 East, Indian River County, Florida (Figures 1 and 2). This survey was conducted in order to determine the approximate extent of the Florida Scrub Jay territorial limits on the subject site. The following presents an assessment of the subject site, as well as a description and the results of the Florida Scrub Jay survey:

• review and analysis of general topography; • review of soil types mapped within the site boundaries; • evaluation of land use types/vegetative communities present; and, • field review for occurrence of protected species of flora and fauna.

TOPOGRAPHY

. Based upon a review of the USGS Topographic Map presented in_ Figure 3, the property drains to the center of the site and then easterly to Broxton Road. Though the USGS Topographic Map indicates that a wetland system is located within the subject site, this is a

Main omce Vero Beach Olllce Pensacola omce 315 N. Ferocreek Ave 1111 Indian River Blvd. Ste 301 1312 E. Cervantes SI Orlando Fl 32803 Vero Beach Fl 32960 Pensacola FL 32501 401.894.5969 112.563.0344 850.469.1100 401.894.5910 , •• 112.563.0345 fax 850.469.1104 Jax Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Si;e-(BTC File #106-21.05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 2 of I 0)

historic condition that no longer exists today. Due to the intrusion of the australian pine community, any hydro logic or vegetative indicators no longet exist in this portion of the property.

SOILS

According to the Soil Survey of Indian River County, Florida, prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), three .(3) soil types occur within the subject property boundaries (Figure 4). These soil types include the following:

• EauGallie fine sand (#3) • Myakka fine sand (#5) • Archbold fine sands, 0-5% slopes (#12) • Myakka fine sand, depressional (#45)

EauGallie fine sand (#3) is a deep, nearly level, poorly drained soil found on broad flatwoods. Typically, the surface layer of this soil type is black grading to dark gray fine sand about 15 inches thick. During most years, the water table for this soil type is at a depth of less than 10 inches of the surface for 2 to 4 months during the wet season and within a depth of 40 inches for more than 6 months. The permeability of this soil type is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers, moderate to moderately rapid in the subsoil and substratum.

Myaldrn fine sand (#5) is a nearly level, poorly drained soil found on broad flatwoods. Typically, the surface layer of this soil type is black fine sand about 5 inches thick. During most years, under natural conditions, the water table for this soil type is at a depth of 10 to 40 inches for more than 6 months and at a depth of less than 10 inches for I to 3 months during the wet season. The permeability of this soil type is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers and substratum, and it is moderate to moderately rapid in the subsoil.

Archbold sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (#12) is a moderately well drained soil found in elevated knolls on flatwoods. Typically, the surface layer of this soil is gray sand about 2 inches thick. The water table for this soil type is at a depth of 40 to 60 inches for more than 6 months. The permeability of this soil type are excessively drained.

Myakka fine sand, depressional (#45) is a nearly level, poorly drained soil found on broad, low flats and in poorly defined drainageways. Typically, the surface layer of this soil type is very dark gray and dark grayish brown fine sand about 12 inches thick. The water table for this soil type is at a depth of IO inches of the surface for 2 to 6 months of each year. It is above the surface for short . , Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #I 06-21. 05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 3 o/10)

periods after heavy rainfall. The permeability of this soil type is rapid in the surface and subsurface layers and is moderately rapid in the subsoil.

The Florida Association of Environmental Soil Scientists considers Myakka fine sand, depressional as a hydric soil type. Furthermore, the association considers inclusions present in EauGallie fine sand as hydric. This information may be found in the Hydric Soils of Florida Handbook.

LAND USE TYPES/VEGETATIVE COMMUNITIES

The Stasi Subdivision Project Site currently supports five (5) land use type/vegetative communities within its boundaries. The uplands which exist on the subject property consist of Open Land (I 90), Brazilian Pepper (422), Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwoods (436) and Australina Pine (437). The wetlands/surface waters include Freshwater Marsh (641). These land use types/vegetative communities were identified utilizing the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System, Level III (FLU CFCS, FDOT, January I 999) (Figure 5). The following provides a brief description of the land use type/vegetative communities identified on the site:

Uplands:

190 Open Land

A small area in the northern portion of the subject property would best be described as Open land per the FLUCFCS. Vegetative species identified on this portion of the site include bahiagrass (Paspalum notatum), Bermuda grass (Coelorachis sp.), common ragweed {Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and caesar weed (Urena lobata).

422 Brazilian Pepper

The majority of the southern area of uplands associated with the subject property would be categorized as Brazilian Pepper per the FLUCFCS. This area is dominated by Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), with scattered cabbage palm (Sabal palmetto), bahiagrass, common ragweed, hairy indigo (Indigo/era hirsuta), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), caesar weed, blackberry (Rubus spp.), grape vine (Viuts rotundifolia) and shrub verbena {Lantana camarea). Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #106-21. 05) Florida Scrub Jay_Survey (page 4 o/10)

436 Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwoods

The majority of the northern area of uplands associated with the subject property would be categorized as Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwoods per the FLUCFCS. This area is dominated by Slash pine (Pinus elliottii) and cabbage palm. There were also scattered live oak (Quercus virginiana), laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia), and wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Scattered bahiagrass, common ragweed, hairy indigo, and dog fennel are also present.

437 Australian Pine

There are two areas located on-site considered Australian Pine (437) per the FLUCFCS; one in the southwest corner of the property and another along the southeast property boundary. These areas are dominated by Australian pine (Casuarina equisetifo/ia). Other vegetative species present include wax myrtle, cabbage palm, bahiagrass, hairy indigo, dog fennel, caesar weed blackberry and grapevine.

Wetlands:

641 Marsh

An isolated 0.22-acre Freshwater Marsh (64 I) is located in the northwestern portion of the site. Vegetation present includes Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius), primrose willow (Ludwig/a peruviana), cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidenta/is), bulrush (Scirpus spp.), southern cattails (Typha sp.), and switchgrass (Panicum virgatum). A small portion of this wetland extends off-site to the north.

PROTECTED SPECIES

Utilizing methodologies outlined in the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's (FFWCC's) Wildlife Methodology Guidelines, an assessment for listed floral and fauna! species occurring within the subject property boundaries was conducted. This survey covered 100% of the subject property. Particular attention was given to those listed species that have the potential to occur in Indian River County. The review included direct observations, as well as evidence ofa particular species' presence such as tracks, burrows, tree markings and birdcalls. No plant species listed by either The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (FDACS) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) were identified on the site during the assessment conducted. The following is a list of those wildlife species identified during the evaluation of the site: t!~!:!!:!~l~~'!!!~!t~~e~!: Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #106-21.05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 5 of IO)

Reptiles and Amphibians Brown Anole (Ano/is sagrei) Black Racer (Coluber constrictor) Six-lined Racerunner (Cnemidophorus sexlineatus sexlineatus) Fence Lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) Southern Toad (Buja terrestris) Pig Frog (Rana grylio) Gopher Tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus)

Birds Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata) Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura) Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) Rufous-Sided Towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus) Northern Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) Fish Crow (Corvus ossifragus) Turkey Vulture (Cathartes aura) Cattle Egret (Bubulcus ibis) Great Egret (Casmerodius albus) Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens)

Mammals Pocket Gopher (Geomys pineatus) Nine-banded Armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus) Raccoon (Procyon lo tor)

Two (2) of the above identified species are listed in the FFWCC's Official Lists - Florida's Endangered Species, Threatened Species and Species of Special Concern (January 2006). The two listed species are the gopher tortoise (Gopherus polyphemus) and the Florida Scrub Jay (Aphelocoma coerulescens coerulescens). The permitting will be coordinated the appropriate agencies. Several other protected species known to occur in Indian River County have a possibility of occurring in this _area, as they are gopher tortoise commensal species. These species include the eastern indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi), Florida mouse (Podornys jloridanus) and the gopher frog (Rana capita). However, none of these species were observed during the survey conducted. Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #I 06-21. 05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 6 o/10)

In addition to the on-site review for listed species, BTC conducted a review for any FFWCC recorded Bald Eagle nest sites on or in the vicinity of the subject property. This review revealed no active nest sites through the 2006 nesting season on or within one mile of the subject property boundaries.

Florida Scrub Jay Habitat

Florida Scrub Jays build their nests in dense shrubs, usually at low to mid-level heights. Usually the nest is located at the edge of a dense shrubby area, adjacent to bare ground or somewhat open areas. The nest is a bulky basket of twigs, usually taken from oak shrubs. The lining of the nest is a tightly woven cup of cabbage palm or saw palm fibers. The jays never reuse the nest or the materials. Jays will not nest in the same exact location even if the nest is removed after use. The nesting season extends from March through June. The Florida Scrub Jay is strongly associated with several Florida scrub communities, and also wili use adjacent non-scrub habitats of certain types. Please note, jays exist only in areas where one or more species of scrub oaks occur, even if only vestigially represented. Before the intrusion of humans, nearly all natural scrub communities were maintained by frequent natural fires. Florida Scrub Jays are most abundant in open, oak dominated scrub communities of the interior and Atlantic coast sand ridges of the Peninsula. Scrub Jay habitat is broken down into three types. These types are as follows:

• TYPE I HABITAT. Any upland plant community in which percent cover of the substrate by scrub oak species is 15% or more. • TYPE II HABITAT. Any plant community, not meeting the definition of Type I habitat, in which one or more scrub oak species is represented. • TYPE III HABITAT. Any upland or seasonally dry wetland within ¼ mile of any designated as Type I or Type II habitat.

In most cases, the Type I habitat is recognized as xeric oak scrub, scrubby pine flatwoods, scrubby coastal strand, or sand pine scrub. Usual classification schemes are not as useful in identifying or predicting habitat type; the presence of scrub oaks is the key indicator. The third habitat type includes many different plant communities where scrub oak. species are not represented, but that are nearby or adjacent to Type I or Type II habitat. The subject site consists of Type 1 (Upland Scrub, Pine and Hardwoods).

Florida Scrub Jay Survey Methodology

Utilizing methodologies outlined in the United States Fish & Wildlife's Scrub Jay Survey th th Guidelines, BTC conducted a formal Scrub Jay Survey from May 9 to May 13 . The monitoring transects and playback stations were strategically placed for optimum results, All stations were marked with a hand held GPS unit and flagged in the field. Within the 26-acre project site, eight transects were pre-selected (Figure 6). These transects run north to south Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #106-21.05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 7 o/10)

within the project site and east to west within the proposed entrance road on 66'h Street. Stations were marked along these transects.

Stations within the southern portion of the property which did not contain typical scrub jay habitat and were farthest south of the existing scrub are approximately 150 meters apart. The stations in the northern portion of the property where jay occurrences are more likely have been placed 50 meters apart. This spacing between stations is less than the standard survey methodology outlined in the USFWS Scrub Jay survey guidelines that calls for stations to be located between I 00 and 200 meters apart.

Our survey was.conducted on five consecutive days, beginning on May 9th and ending on May th 13 , 2007. Survey order was skewed daily to obtain accurate results. BTC traversed the site · systematically, using a digital recording of Florida Scrub Jay territorial scolds, including the female "hiccup" call. Data was collected at each station to include:

* Presence of Jays * Time * Number of Jays * Temperature * Direction jays came from * Wind * Precipitation

Survey Results The Positive Responses of the formal Florida Scrub Jay survey are listed in the following tables:

Day 1 Weather Conditions: Temp: Cloud Cover clear 70-75 F I 2% Date: 5-9-2007 Wind:

Day2 Weather Conditions: Temp: Cloud Cover clear 75-81 F I 5% Date: 5-10-2007 Wind 5-10 mph W Station Time Start 7:30 am Time End 12:30 om Observations II 1 Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west 12 I Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west I3 1 Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west 14 1 Flew from the NW direction and retreated to the west Ml 2 Flew from the W direction and retreated to the west Ken Oristaglio, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #106-21.05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 8 of!0)

Day3 Weather Conditions: Temp: Cloud Cover overcast I 70-85 F 75% Date: 5-11-2007 Wind 10mph W Station Time Start 7:30 om Time End 12:30 om Observations none

Day 4 Weather Conditions: Temp: Cloud Cover cloudy I 70-85 F 30% Date: 5-12-2007 Wind: 6-!0mph NW Station Time Start 8:00 am Time End 12:45 pm Observations 11 1 Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west I2 1 Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west I3 1 Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west I4 1 Flew from the NW direction and retreated to the west

Day 5 Weather Conditions: Temp: Cloud Cover

clear I 71-85 F . 5% Date: 5-13-2007 Wind: 3-10 mph W & NW Station Time Start 7:30 om Time End 12:00 pm Observations I3 1 Flew from the SW direction and retreated to the west I4 1 Flew from the NW direction and retreated to the west

Wednesday, May 9th

On Day One, weather conditions consisted of clear skies with little to no cloud coverage of less than 5 percent. BTC staff began the surveying along the eastern side of the project site that abuts th 64 Avenue. Positive responses were not encountered until Station I1 where one Florida scrub jay was attracted. Positive results were observed at Stations I1 and 12, where one jay was attracted. Per data received from Indian River County, the observed jay marked with White, Hot Pink and Silver tags is a male scrub jay.

Thursday, May 10th

On Day Two, weather conditions consisted of clear skies. Positive responses were not encountered until Station II where one Florida scrub jay was attracted. Positive results were Ken Oristag/io, Indian River County Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #106-21.05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 9 o/10)

observed at Stations Il, 12, I3, 14 where the male jay was attracted to the vocalizations. The male jay was observed at Station 14 aggressively defending the territory from a hawk. At Station Ml, two jays wete attracted. The second jay that was observed was marked with red, hot pink and white tags. Per Indian River County data, this is a female scrub jay. During this event, staff followed the jays and found the nest. This nest is located off-site in the southwest corner of the adjacent single-family residence, northeast of Station Ml. Of particular interest is the observation that the jays have constructed a nest in an immature slash pine (Pinus elliottii) that is approximately 10 feet in height. The nest is approximately 7 feet above the ground and was constructed in the axis of the trunk and a primary branch. Staff observed the female perching on the side of the nest and feeding young. It is unknown how many hatchlings are in the nest.

Friday, May 11th

On Day Three, weather conditions consisted of overcast skies with less than 30 percent cloud coverage. BTC staff began surveying from the east at 64th Avenue. The jays did not respond to any of the vocalizations. Staff inspected the nest and observed the jays around the slash pine. The jays did not respond to Station Ml, the closest station to the nest.

Saturday, May 12 th

On Day Four, weather conditions consisted of partially cloudy skies with less than approximately 30 percent cloud coverage. BTC staff began surveying from the west side of the project site that abuts 66 th Street. Positive responses were not encountered until Station I1 where the male jay was attracted. Positive results were observed at Stations 11, 12, I3, I4 where the male jay was attracted to the.vocalizations. At Station Ml, only the male jay was attracted. Staff inspected the nest and observed the female perching next to the nest.

Sunday, May 13 th

On Day Five, weather conditions consisted of clear skies with less than 5 percent cloud coverage. BTC staff began the survey in the northeast comer of the project along 64th Avenue. Positive responses were not observed until Station I3 and 14 where only the male jay was observed. Staff · inspected .the nest and observed the female perching on the nest.

Summary

Figure 7 depicts an Overall Positive Response Map that depicts the locations where positive responses were noted and color coded to the survey date. Responses are concentrated within the vicinity of the nest and single-family residence. During staffs nest observations, the male jay was retrieving acorns from the single-family lot property. This property consists of open land with sandy soils that is ideal for caching acorns. The male jay and female jay were observed flying west into the scrub that is located immediately west of the nest. Ken Oristaglio, Indian River Co.unty Stasi Project Site-(BTC File #106-21.05) Florida Scrub Jay Survey (page 10 of!0)

To that end, Figure 8 depicts the estimated Florida Scrub Jay Territorial Limits for Florida Scrub Jays that utilize portions of the proposed Stasi Subdivision. This area is 2.26 acres in size. However, it is apparent that the remainder of their territory consists of the single-family home and property west of the homesite.

Considering the location of the estimated territorial limits, the project has been divided into three phases, Phase III of the project site contains the territorial limits of the scrub jay habitat. We request that the site be approved with a condition that limits development in Phase III without an approved USFWS HCP plan.

Should you have any questions or require any additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me at (772) 563-0344. Thank you.

Regards,

tephanie Salvilla Project Manager

Attachments cc: Trish Adams, USFWS Joseph Schulke, P.E., Schulke, Bittle & Stoddard Romano Stasi ~ 1N3WH~11U11

1-z w 1/) 2 1/) Q_ <( 0 I- _J 1/) w >w 0

NOISIAI08ns A3Auns 33~! >llVMU]l'il'inS

0 I I I 0 I I I I I 0 I I I 0 I I I 'I I I 0 I I I 11I I I I I 0 ~1: ~~: 0 III

0 Dr:~ ,, I ,.I ,,.,.,,,. 0 I ' u-;.. , I I -' :'-;!•-' C::" ... "..- -,:;· I ' I I 0 I I I ,.~i~:i!,C ~- 111I I ',_ "~7 - - - -0 - - - -, 0 I I ---"""'----11 I 11 ' I I ' I I 0 TI I I I I I 11I - .,,.,,,,-· 0 I I ,.~, I I I 1 I 1I

0 I I I I TI I I I I 0 I I __lj__Ir ____j______-h------

J.3A~ns 33111 ' i~ ,," L. i '

'7--, l [ f I'

11rI' r I l I

S3WOHNM01 NOISIAIOBns NVld 311S )ll'tM~]WWns

I '

0

' 0 ' ~ .Ji,!,!,; !I , • i]~~-~ A 0 ;;;;i iii; u ; i Il\l,.t;H •••• ~::,~~ t !I~- t, ' 0 ~•Ii~~~;;; ~I i §

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0

0 ~~If~ 1?"' If 'i1

0 r---~' 'fid 7.

0

' ' I

u,ro-.,aao"5oo•q•@o1"!71V1'<3 OOtG-Oll/ZllX\f> 1<:9!Kllt/Ul13i 0001£ l'J3M>l NV[ONI ,,,, .. ,""'°° '"0• """-""'"'""" ,o HOUl S3~0HNM01 N0ISIAI0Bns WW/Jf/ildTt!llGIIIIOIJWU·~//IIYl•-=;,1111$¾'1,'i:, N\fld 3115 }ITl"MnnHos

! !

o,z,~1i

I' 1lr I l I

SUMMERW ALK SUBDIVISION ~111 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 31 8, RANGE 39 E, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CJ CJ u u 8 u u u u u u u (:) (:) 0 ""'"r.; I ... l'"'f"'•-:,:, I .. I I I I I I I 17 I F+ I t 1 II =-,:' ¾1:-SCHt:Jll.1_1\NNL)l'll\'!;------.I i - - -::: i· . ··• -~~--==.::==w=,fi, ~------, FT! "' w,' "' ,, ....' ,\ _.:.,.,. ,~ I l~l '"flJ~~~"'" I ~ j ,,

I 0:: g.!I 40•.,D[ ~I ill I ~ ~ 1l !it GRAPHIC SCALE ~ I ,ii~!•• -~ - .JJ..,( (/) '' i oil~ i ~! ~ - .... Ji "~,,':'.'.":I re w . ~~~ I ',]~ ,;··I, -~ 1•~/L-::i: I TRllCT'A' '~ =v ca g.J ... I OPEN SP,l;(/ \ANDS°""£ <>PLN Sl'ACe:f wg;s,"':c,~ !, o.n,r; ~ I !:iJ 111,,, ~ ~~ I 0 .. ., "'! e, °''" :c,c.;s'. ~ i ~ a" -:=.. ~~ ~r7 ~" ~~ BRISBANE (§) I ill! ST. jjj> ~z I 8rfi ~~ 5~ I ,a,m ' ll o" I I l -- _____CENTO

SCRUB JAY & GOPHER l nJRTLE HABITAT (2.47 AC.) ~

• SUMMERWALK SUBDIVISION ~li1"1 SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 31 8, RANGE 39 E, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 38

1JlACT 'J-r ' COM~ON AAC,, ' ~ O.OJ;I;; I~,.,,. ® I -~~ q ~ ., ' j I ~i =-~~-v J:X"""'™"" I 6~ 5J ' - •·1 ' ~ !1if I ~i~~ (/}g p~ ,i•! °'w ~SI!!~ ~ !'~/ ;-1§~;;1 1i; 5 i~ I 13a;; () ., ... ~ (I) g ,,

=..oo:::...,, 5 •

iiiz - -- -j~ - • ~-~ ~ ~-=----=- - •~ - !-----l------+------'·'lf&.~':'...... ,,------j _.,._~ ~-&::-''t•·r------___",0•= •" ~:&r""'" :::,r'"•• • oe~mo ""-' ~z - ·-_. .• , I' - .J....'--i"l"""'-•00 -IL ; §l .,,,,,,,.. < • = ' i ;~,w •"""

[> $CRU8 JAY & GOPHER l TURTLE HABITAT (2.47 AC.) ~

N'fld 3dVJSGN'fl NOISIA!GBns >17VMl:13NrinS

I I ,~­I I I Ii I I I

,I "I I 'I

I 11 I ,1 !II III I ,I

·: 1: .1 II I111 I 1,1 1: ,I ~l\1 !i1'1l I I~'

~IiIJ!!,1 <(11 ,!I I ,i 1: 'I :Ii II ,1 11: 1,I jJ l I I I 11 :. \ I I 1°1

iiil! !

1 , .. , ...... 1 !~nu:lH!U g ,!h, h,.,.,.,.;,;,;,;,1ili 1 I illj! 1111,: '

, , , ii r >''. AD)VU,j'll~T~'f_rn; :· : , . , . Plj:l,WIT USE , !'. , · ,, (QUA§I-JUDfCIAL) ,

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

elopment Director

THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Directo

FROM: Steven Deardenff, Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: June 22, 2007

SUBJECT: Treasure Coast Montessori School's Request for Administrative Permit Approval for a Pre-School/Child Care Facility to be known as the Treasure Coast Montessori School. [SP-MA-07-05-23 I 2001060109-57712]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007,

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Schulke, Bittle and Stoddard, LLC, on behalf of Treasure Coast Montessori School, is requesting administrative permit use approval for a pre-school/child care facility to be !mown as the Treasure Coast Montessori School. The proposed use constitutes a "child care" use under county land development regulations, Located at 6320 8th Street, between 58th Avenue and 66th Avenue, the subject 1.58 acre site is zoned A-1, (agricultural up to I unit per 5 acres), The site contains an existing single-family home that will be converted to a pre-school/child care facility, Child care uses are administrative permit uses in the agricultural districts, The subject site is a legally established, non-conforming parcel of record located in the A-1 zoning district. Therefore, the proposed use requires an administrative permit use approval.

A use that requires an administrative permit is one that normally would not have an adverse impact on surrounding properties when carefully regulated in scale, duration, or nature, Administrative permit use approval requires submittal of a site plan that meets all of the specific use criteria set forth in chapter 971 of the county's land development regulations,

ANALYSIS

I. Zoning Classification: A-1,Agricultural 1 (upto 1 unit per 5 acres.)

F:\Community Development\Users\Sleven Deardeufl\SPMA (Major)\Treasure Coast Montessori School\Treasure Coast Montessori School PZC S!affReporutf 1 2. Land Use Designation: AG-1 (up to 1 tmit per 5 acres)

3. Building Area: Existing: 3,890 sq. ft. Proposed: 3,890 sq. ft.

4. Off Street Parking: Required: 12 parking spaces Proposed: 12 parking spaces

Note: Currently, the county's off-street parking code requires 1-½ spaces for each staff person. The proposed day care will have eight (8) employees, requiring a total of twelve (12) parking spaces. Of the twelve required parking spaces, one must be designated as handicapped accessible. The applicant proposes twelve paved parking spaces, one of which is designated as handicapped.

5. Phasing: The project will be constructed in a single phase.

6. Traffic: Currently, there is an existing unpaved circular driveway providing access to the site from 8th Street. The applicant proposes to widen and pave this driveway and provide an off street parking area. In addition, the driveway will provide a passenger loading/unloading area. The internal traffic circulation plan and driveway design have been approved by the County's Traffic Engineering Division. No off site traffic improvements are required or proposed.

7. Utilities: The existing site is serviced by county water, and the proposed day care will remain connected to county water. Wastewater service will be provided by an on-site septic and drainfield system. These utility provisions have been approved by the Utility Services and Environmental Health Departments.

8. Environmental and Tree Protection Issues: The proposed facility is part of a previously developed site with no wetlands or native upland plant communities existing witl1in the area of development. Therefore, no special upland or wetland requirements apply. There are thirty six (36) existing trees of varying sizes ranging from eight inches up to twelve inches in diameter within the area of development. As proposed, the site plan and landscape design preserve thirty five (35) offuese trees in place.

9. Landscaping: The proposed site plan provides for a ten (10) foot type 'C' buffer with a six (6) foot hedge of native vegetation to provide an opaque feature along the site's 8th Street frontage. This type 'C' buffer is required by code to provide screening for the adjacent residential properties from the parking area. In addition, type 'C' buffers are required and proposed for the outdoor recreation areas. The type 'C' buffer for the outdoor recreation areas will consist of a six (6) foot vinyl fence with a landscape buffer between the fence and abutting properties. The proposed landscape plan also provides for the required interior open space and parking lot landscaping.

10. Stormwater Management: The site plan proposes two dry stormwater management tracts to manage runoff generated from the project. Public Works has approved the preliminary drainage design. The final design will be approved by Public Works via the type 'B' stormwater permit review process.

F:\Cornmunity Develop1nent\Users\Steven DeardeuffiSPMA (Major)\Treasure Coast Montessori School\Treasure Coast Montessori School PZC StaffReport.rtf 2 11. Specific Land Use Criteria for Child Care Facility. Pursuant to LDR section 971.28(1), the following criteria apply to the proposed use:

1. Chapter 901 ofthe LDR 's provides a definition ofa child care facility as follows; Child care facility: a facility which includes any duly licensed child care center or child care arrangement that provides child care for more than five (5) children unrelated to the operator and which receives a payment, fee or grant for any of the children receiving care, wherever operated, and whether or not operated for profit. The following are not included: Public schools and nonpublic schools which are in compliance with the Compulsory School Attendance Law, Chapter 232, Florida Statutes; summer camps having children in full-time residence; summer day camps, and Bible schools normally conducted during vacation periods. The provisions of this act shall not apply to a child care facility which is an integral part of a church when such child care is only associated with child care provided during services and other church activities or parochial schools conducting regular classes or courses ofstudy. Note: Under the LDR's definition of a child care facility, the proposed use constitutes a child care facility and has been reviewed and processed as that type of use. Therefore, this requirement is satisfied. 2. The site shall be located on a paved road with sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the use. The facility shall be located near thoroughfares, as designated in the county's major thoroughfare plan, so as to discourage traffic along residential streets in the immediate area;

Note: The proposed project will use an existing driveway for access and will be located on 8th Street, a designated thoroughfare road. This direct connection to 8th Street will minimize the facility's impact on residential streets in the surrounding area. Staff has determined that the facility will be located near a major thoroughfare and is designed so as to minimize traffic impacts on residential streets. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied.

3. Special passenger loading and unloading facilities shall be provided on the same site for vehicles to pick up or deliver clientele. Such facilities shall include driveways that do not require any back-up movements by vehicles to enter or exit the premises;

Not~: A passenger loading/unloading area is provided. No back-up movements for vehicles will be necessary.

4. All regulations of the State of Florida that pertain to the use as presently exists or may hereafter be amended shall be satisfied; Note: The facility operator will obtain the appropriate license from the State of Florida prior to operation of the child care use.

5. Child care facilities shall provide recreation area(s) and facilities that meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall supply to the planning division, prior to site plan approval, written acknowledgement from the state that the proposed recreation area(s) and facilities meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall provide either a six-foot opaque buffer or one hundred fifty-foot

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\SPMA (Major)\Treasure Coast Montessori School\Treasure Coast Montessori Schoo! PZC StaffReporLrtf 3 setback between all outdoor recreation areas and adjacent residentially designated properties. Note: Outdoor facilities are proposed with this project, and planning staff has verified that the proposed facilities will meet applicable state standards for recreation.

6. A Type "C" buffer will be required, acceptable to the planning department. Note: A type 'C' buffer with a six (6) foot opaque feature is proposed along the project's 8th Street frontage, between the project and adjacent residences. A type 'C' buffer with a six ( 6) foot opaque feature is also required and proposed between the outdoor recreation areas and abutting prope1ties. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied.

All specific land use criteria for the proposed child care facility are satisfied. Based upon the project design, staff finds that the project is compatible with surrounding properties.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant administrative permit use approval for the proposed pre-school/child care facility with the following conditions: I. Prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall; a. Provide a ten (10) foot type 'C' buffer with a six (6) foot opaque feature along the site's 8th Street frontage. b. Provide ten (10) foot type 'C' buffers with six (6) foot opaque features between the · proposed outdoor recreation areas and abutting properties. c. Provide the required interior open space and parking lot landscaping.

APPROVED AS TO FORM ATTACHMENTS ANO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

1. Application SY,~~ VWILLIAM G. COLLINS II --- 2. Location Map COUNTY ATTORNEY 3. Criteria for Child Care Facilities [LDR 971.28(1)] 4. Site Plan 5. Landscape Plan 6. Aerial

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeufl\SPMA {Major)\Treasure Coast Montessori School\Treasure Coast Montessori School PZC StaffReport.rtf 4 APPLICATION FORM (SPMJ)

COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#: Ubl 66,D ID :l

PROJECT NAME (PRINT):-IJ~&:l..\"1.(g2._,...ill.!.SI:...Lfil!!92:~_,_--22J~!&l"--"--­

PROPOSED PROJECT USE:._12,-"-""cJ.¥'1--'("":/1"'-'tg"'-'.e~_,~__,,gc:.,,'.,\<.L..l-'Ii'--'-nf-'1---'--'-.:...!.'..-----"----::::.. PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECTNAME:]l:W~Ut'e.. f@St}f\oo\es,sor\ · Schoo I

AGENT: (PRINT) .61 rre a..s -t:?'nj ,neeiz NAME II o':i 501-CT'h +h~h land 'Pad'.. Dr, ADDRESS ADDRESS Lo t:'.e 1,uoi\e, >n CITY STATE CITY STATE 33i9i tt.J2j../$_- $10q __(__)_- _____ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

SIG1'ATU E OF OWNER O A =.c..:c.-- PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT ARCIDTECT:(PRINT)

NAME ,I NAME 111 II) lrrlian e,ver 'Bl~ F2_o1 ADDRESS ADDRESS Ve&P 'Pecre?b , Ji, 3:).gtp6 CITY STATE CITY STATE [email protected]..::.q ..... wz=? ______(__)_- ____ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE <110~ lf

~&~;2T ~siW- •T){<, CONTACT PERSON

C:\Docurnents and Settings\webmaster\Desktop\Major SP App Packet.doc Revised June 2006 Page 11 of l3 TR.14 TR.15

QI ~ I ... ------....,.,... ~l °'~,.,i------.....

~f.$ 0••'V0 ,,~

I Section 971.28. Institutional uses. (1) Child care and adult care facilities (administrative permit and special exception). (a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.04): A-1 A-2 A-3 RFD RM-8 RM-10 RMH-6 RMH-8 ROSE-4 PRO OCR CN. (b) Districts requiring special exception approval, (pursuant to the provisions of 971.05): RS-1 RS-2 RS-3 RS-6 RT-6 RM-3 RM-4 RM-6 AIR-I. ( c) Additional information requirements: 1. A site plan which shows all adjacent paved public roads as well as the nearest major thoroughfare, all off-street parking facilities, and the location and size of all proposed buildings, structures and signs on the site and adjacent properties, pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 914; 2. Evidence shall be provided that minimum requirements to qualify for a State of Florida license have been satisfied; 3. Child care facilities shall describe the type of playground equipment and playground area, if any, which is to be utilized. ( d) Criteria for child care or adult care facilities: 1. The site shall be located on a paved road with sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the use. The facility shall be located near thoroughfares, as designated in the county's major thoroughfare plan, so as to discourage traffic along residential streets in the immediate area; 2. Special passenger loading and unloading facilities shall be provided on the same site for vehicles to pick up or deliver clientele. Such facilities shall include driveways that do not require any back-up movements by vehicles to enter or exit the premises; 3. All regulations of the State of Florida that pertain to the use as presently exists or may hereafter be an1ended shall be satisfied; 4. Child care facilities shall provide recreation area(s) and facilities that meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall supply to the planning division, prior to site plan approval, written acknowledgement from the state that the proposed recreation area(s) and facilities meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall provide either a six-foot opaque buffer or one hundred fifty-foot setback between all outdoor recreation areas and adjacent residentially designated properties. 5. A Type "C" buffer will be required, acceptable to the plam1ing department.

wa,~U""lG©

PARca w ADJACENT 00001 i:-1 ZONING: A-1 0\40 LAND USE: AG-1 00002.T .,:~ llml"'1'00l

~ •~

• . z @z

PARCEL I.D. PARCEL I.O. 00001 00001 0140 0140 00001.0 00003.0

---eee

70' 63RD ENUE R/W 7 $1 1$ " I I I I t) 50' R/W w I ::, I I z I w $ I I >1'-,: 0:

LOT 1 n ------1LOT 1 BLOCK A " Bl OCJ( B B~g~/A7 "

.AHI\Ci-!ME/H 4

L.1 rnos~31NOl'I 1svo::i: 3Hnsvm

PARCEL 1.0 00001 µ'l 0140 ...:, 00002.1 ..: u • rn ~o" u " " ~ ~ II ;I: P-. " '3 ..: '-' .s 0:: • (j "

~ ~ ~""'-"'"""' • --,,,

PARCEL 1.0 PARCEL 1.0. 00001 00001 OHO 0140 00001.0 00003.0

~~·ii·~-~~; __ __,L ______S.•

LOT 1 LOT 1 BLOCK A BLOCK A ~1R ------,BLOCK B lK 3, PAGE'°"7 38

ATTACHMENT 5

APPEAL PUBLIC DISCUSSION (QUASI-JUDICIAL)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Ro ert M. Keating, elopment Director 4fs FROM: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director

DATE: June 22, 2007

SUBJECT: Appeal by The Polo Grounds, LLC of a Decision by Community Development Staff to Deny a Temporary-Use Permit Application for a Real Estate Sales Trailer at 7635 N. Polo Grounds Lane [TUP-07-07-51/2004040038-58611]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

LDR (land development regulation) Section 972.08(3) regulates the use of temporary real estate sales offices and requires issuance of a temporary use permit (TUP) for such uses. Those regulations differentiate between sales operations in sales trailers and sales operations in permanent buildings. According to the LDRs, temporary real estate sales office uses are allowed only if associated with the marketing of 10 or more contiguous lots with a development.

The Polo Grounds at Pointe West is a 46-lot subdivision located on the south side of 12th Street, west of 7 4th Avenue. It appears that a temporary real estate sales trailer has been located on the property for some time, although no TUP for the sales trailer had been applied for until recently. On April 17, 2007, Dolf Kahle, on behalf of The Polo Grounds, LLC, applied for a TUP for the sales trailer. Staff then reviewed the request and inspected The Polo Grounds subdivision. On April 30, 2007, staff issued a written denial of the TUP application. As stated in the April 30th denial letter, staffs finding was that, contrary to the requirements of 972.08(3), there are fewer than 10 contiguous lots for sale in the Polo Grounds subdivision. The applicant, Dolf Kahle, has appealed staffs decision to the Planning and Zoning Commission and requested that the PZC consider the appeal at its June 28, 2007 meeting.

This appeal has been filed pursuant to land development regulations section 902.07. Consistent with those regulations and procedures, staff has reviewed and analyzed the appeal, scheduled the appeal for Planning and Zoning Commission (PZC) consideration and notified adjacent property owners and The Polo Grounds, LLC regarding the PZC' s scheduled consideration. The PZC is now to consider the appeal under guidelines provided in section 902.07. The PZC may reverse, affirm wholly or partly, or modify staffs decision.

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2007\pologroundtupappealstaffreport.rtf 1 ANALYSIS

The existing sales trailer is located on Lot 1 of the Polo Grounds subdivision, at the project entrance off 12th Street. The Polo Grounds subdivision is a separate portion of the Pointe West PD. In addition to 46 lots, the Polo Grounds subdivision contains large common areas and facilities for equestrian aud polo­ related uses. When the Polo Grounds plat was approved on February 13, 2001, the subdivision had more thau 10 contiguous lots for sale aud could have met all applicable 972.08(3) criteria. At the time of the TUP application in April 2007, however, the subdivision had no more thau 3 lots for sale that were contiguous. Consequently, the TUP application was denied.

The applicant agrees that there are not 10 contiguous lots for sale. The applicant contends, however, that strictly applying the 10 contiguous lot criterion does not allow aud support " ... the efficient sale of property... " in the subdivision, given that the subdivision contains only 46 lots aud is partially sold-out. Staffs response is that the 10 contiguous lot provision is intended to allow temporary sales offices for a limited time within residential subdivisions, aud is structured to apply to the earliest stage of subdivision build-out, when 10 or more contiguous lots are for sale aud fewer permanent residents live within the subdivision. For larger subdivisions, 10 or more contiguous lots may remain for sale for a longer time period. Within larger subdivisions, however, real estate sales offices are usually located in phases or areas that are separated from initial permanent residents. Limitations on real estate sales offices in residential subdivisions are intended to ensure that sales office uses terminate as the subdivision builds-out to avoid potential nuisances aud conflicts between sales offices and permanent residents. Terminating sales office uses ensures a timely transition from a new project under development to a more settled, strictly residential subdivision.

Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the PZC's review of an appeal of a staff decision. Under Section 902.07(5), the PZC is to review the staff decision aud make findings in the following four areas. In accordance with 902.07(4), the PZC may make additional findings of fact.

1. Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures?

Staff's Response: Upon receipt of the TUP application, staff conducted a review aud site inspection in a timely manner and notified the applicant in writing of its decision and the basis of its decision. There appears to be no contention with respect to review procedures. Therefore, staff did not fail in regard to review procedures.

2. Did the reviewing official act in an arbitrary or capricious manner?

Staff's Response: Staff followed normal procedures, applied the appropriate LDRs as demonstrated in the preceding analysis, aud made its determination consistent with county regulations. Staffs justification for the determination is based on a site inspection aud straight­ forward reading of 972.08(3). Therefore, staff did not act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

3. Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety.and welfare?

Staff's Response: Staffs determination is based on au LDR requirement that was established to· address impacts of sales offices upon surrounding residential properties. In this case, those impacts

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&ZX2007\pologroundtupappealstaffrep01i.rtf 2 relate to a real estate sales office use in a partially built-out subdivision. Therefore, staff adequately considered the effects of the proposed use on surrounding properties by applying an LDR provision that addresses neighborhood impacts.

4. Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations of Indian River County?

Staff's Response: The analysis section ofthis report addresses the county regulation applicable to the subject site and the proposed use. Staff correctly evaluated the proposed use with respect to the "facts in the field" and the appropriate regulations and rendered a decision based on a straight­ forward reading of the regulation. The applicant contends that strictly applying the requirements of 972.08(3) to the subject TUP application results in an unintended inefficiency in property sales within the Polo Grounds subdivision. The applicant's appeal seems to argue for a regulatory approach that uses the percentage of total subdivision lots for sale instead of the 10 contiguous lot standard contained in the existing regulation. Such an argument may form the basis of an LDR amendment but is not relevant to interpreting the existing law. The applicant agrees that the 10 contiguous lots requirement cannot be met and so agrees that 972.08(3) cannot be satisfied by the TUP application at issue. Therefore, staff properly denied the TUP application based on 972.08(3), and did not fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations.

In summary, staff and the applicant agree that the subject TUP application does not meet the 10 contiguous lots for sale criterion clearly stated in LDR section 972.08(3). Accordingly, staff had to deny the application due to its failure to meet all the requirements of section 972.08(3). In regard to the decision to deny the application, staff did not fail with respect to any of the four appeal criteria referenced above. Therefore, the Planning and Zoning Commission should uphold staffs decision to deny the TUP application.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning & Zoning Commission:

1. Make a finding that staffs determination did not fail any ofthe 4 areas outlined in LDR section 902.07, and

2. Deny the appeal and wholly affirm staffs decision to deny the TUP application.

Attachments: 1. Location Map APPROVED AS TO FORM 2. Subdivision Layout ANO LEGAL SUFFICIENCY 3. TUP Application 4. Denial Letter ev£&:%_a,..._ .<:i"' WILLIAM G. COLLINS II 5. Appeal Application COUNTY ATTORNEY 6. LDR Section 902.07 7. LDR Section 972.08(3)

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2007\pologroundtupappealstaffrep01t.1tf 3 '

I 12th ' ------.....r------~------=-~ ...... 18:5. "Jf:.11.Ct""' ..,. :aJ ~I~ _ .._ - -,------,1,.&.1,f • TR. 10 ~- _ ITR.9 · .....,..,.,...~-=~m-~r-~-" ··....,-=,.,,...... - ...... 1 - '':i!' a •,M '""'- "li(""'"i!: ' •~ Tl ~ .. l ... ! ., !._ "·!- 2 ' •.t ' ~ -~ -ll . I : • I I- ~-..., -- I ~ f I . Subject Site r!i ~ . I ..., -- I ~' ~ ;:; ~ • ' I i ~· ' I ·1 ~ I t!'------! .. TIii~ T POI.C: r.Roc.::•-r:as. ~ ! I ,.. - .- I At':;'Ol~'h'T~H ~ "' ~' i ,.., :r I " ' .. ~ J ! n I + ~' ... I ;::i I ]I : I ! ~ -- j~ I o.~ --- I:;, n.a • • I ! 03 i t " ' ~ ~ '"t'OC.l;_I ~ i!:1- I ,, I ~ JRM:TA ! 11 J I - I ]5 I ~ • . ------' ------_L 11! ~-- ,. UI - -R. '5 ~ " :- . TR.16 - -· ll ~ -~ ,. ! - ' ------ll , I ! ll J:I i. >I)! .. ll ! l5 "' ! t! I

... i'r! ~- ~ I II ~ - - ~ .,. ~ & ! ..... - -;- ..." .. ~, ll I' J:I~ ,. : 1/~ ". "' . ~ 1:'jJ L . ' --- - ~ -- .....,.

03 T.U1CT l'JI n.t

...... • The Polo Grounds ... Phase I

The Saddle Club A. Polo Field B. JumpArea C. Practice Area D. Pastures E. Exercise Track F. , Arena G. Riding Ring H. Paddocks I. Dressage Ring J. Barns/Clubroom K. Riding Trails 2 04/12/2·'!07 14:13 177213781806 HJDIAfl f;'I\/ER C:Dlli'lTV

PHONE#( 7l"l.) .S: /:,']_:~.--____ PHONE#{ ),______FAX#(77'"l.) Gl,.1- COO'-\ FAX#( ),, ______E-MAU, dc>,\.f'Y:,c.h\.,_, Gt o..a\. eo,v-,.. E-MAlt,______

CONTACT:_ :::J)A\f'__ ~...,l"'-,'110.;;;,W..,l.,.

S(TE LOCATION ADDRESS:, _____,---,,--,------,----,------TAX ?ARCEL CONTROLNU!,IBER:_ l'.l.. /33./3.~/ o:'.X)\ / ro.3o / CJ::::t:x:.:),. 0 P1w11,crNAME1/IAssoc1ArEDTo: -~~ PQ\u(Qrc11 ...c,~ ST _E~;,...k. LJ~-1;.+: ZONING: Ptrr'N D LAND USE DESIGNATION: ______ADJACENT BXISTI.NG USES: NORTH,_ t> ITTN a sourH:,_A,.s ______E~A::,:S.c.cT:~~- ,_A'""::)'-- .. . WEST: ~""'"--~------'

~;.__....,_,.. ._ ...... __.__ _,.. ,...... ,.,.__.,_. CI1.ze;:.k At,vropriB.t..:i . PBRMlT T.YY:t P.ERMITTED DiSTIUCTS ·1 Dox<::;) I I C:l ' Christma::; fi-ee, Purnptdt't. or S1rnrklcr Sales l Agrim.,Hurl:'., Comrnercfa.1 : . Start Date; End .011f.c; ,, hfo

0 ·rempora.ry Mteting! Recre.atk.m.~ Or Am~wcmcitt Aeri1.1uJfure 1 Commercial, 1ndus1ria.l Fadli1,;., ., V. Temporary Real Estate Offiec All .... • tempOt'ary Sa.le·- -::,fFruifa 1md Vegetables Aeriou!ture, Commerciat • Speeia.1 Svcr,ts: Cortttnercial. lndu.striaI (or other propertie& St•rt Dato: J;fod- Date: ~ved fer publ.ie eve-ttt>ll e.g. fnit@:rou.

Telephone: 1772) 567-8000

4/30/2007

DOLF KAHLE VERO BEACH POLO LLC 7635 N POLO GROUNDS LN VERO BEACH, FL 32962

RE: APPLICATION REQUEST DENIAL

PROJECT/APPLICATION NO. 2004040038 / 58611 APPLICATION DESCRIPT.: Temporary Sales Center (Sales Trailer) PROPERTY LOCATION: 7635 N POLO GROUNDS LN PARCEL NO.: 33-38-12-00003-0000-0000J.O

Dear DOLF KAHLE:

Your zoning permit application and related materials have been reviewed by county planning staff. Staff has determined that the proposed sales trailer does not satisfy county land development regulations. Based on that determination, your application request has been denied.

Specifically, please note that LDR section 972.08(3) requires that a temporary real estate sales office involve the sale of ten (10) or more lots or units which are contiguous. Although there are 13 or 14 lots for sale in the Polo Grounds subdivision, no more than three lots for sale are contiguous (Lots 11-13). Therefore, section 972.08(3) is not satisfied and the permit application is denied. If you have any different information please provide documentation in writing for further review.

In accordance with Section 902.07 of the county land development code, a decision by the community development director ( or his designee) denying an application request may be appealed to the county planning and zoning commission, if it is the applicant's contention that staff improperly administered county regulations. If it is your decision to appeal staffs determination, you are advised to contact this office for filing information. Please be advised that if an appeal is to be filed, it must be done within fifteen (I 5) days of the date of your receipt of this letter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Sincerely, /4,rfo-4 Stan Boling, AICP (} Planning Director

Attachments: 1. LDR Section 973.08(3) 2. LDR Definition of "Contiguous" cc: Robert M. Keating, AICP, Community Development Director Roland M. DeBlois, AICP John W. McCoy, AICP Vanessa Carter Solomon L__ \ I . . Section 972.08. Specific uses, standards and requirements.

(3) Temporary real estate sales offices, for the purpose of marketing for sale ten (10) or more lots or units which are contiguous, are allowed within authorized zoning districts subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

Section 901.03. Definitions in alphabetical order.

Contiguous next to, abutting, or touching and having a boundary, or portion thereof, which is coterminous. APPLICATION FORM FOR APPEALS Scf 0 ( (

APPEALS FROM: Nok,' ~'c~ ~ ~ 0, lv0l01 r-z-c.. ~ M Decisions of the Community Development Director or His Designee; AND M Actions/Decisions of the Planning and Zoning Commission (P&ZC) -=""'- ~ \~ 1S 16 ll49 . FEES: ~~ ~ <~ . I. ~ M.•y <:::, Site Plan Projects: ~ 0;, M 2007 r--l Coi1 - r-> Appeal by project applicant: $400.00 ao D£11;· A•IUtv1ty ~ r--- '-'LOpiv/[;,· ~ Appeal by affected party: . 0 ,s;, . ,vr °'I ,S'. ~ II. Appeal ofStaffDetermination: $800.00 ,;t -Q: f' i I l£~£.~1~ Is this an appeal by a project applicant? _yes If so, please list the project name _The Polo Grounds at Pointe West. ______

Property Owner(s): .------Address: ______Phone Number: ______

Signature: ______( or letter of authorization attached)

Applicant Name: -~T=h=e~P~o=lo~Gr~o=un=d=s=L=L~C------~---- Address: 7635 N Polo Grounds Lane Vero Beach FL 32966 -~~~~~~~~~-=-~~~~~~~------~ 72-567-0000

Signatur : -i=>'Glf"-'Ji-'---=-~7>~==--'l<,-"'c,"'-:,...;-'-'k.=--~---"----'--"~""'--"c:kn,\--""'--'"------­ Site Addr ss (If Ap licable): --~7=6=35~N~P~o=l=o~Gr=ou=n=d=s~L=a=n=e~V~e=r=o~B=e=a=ch~F=L~3=2~96=6~-- 1. What is being appealed? -~D~e=n=i=al~o=f~t=em=p=o=rary~=sa=l=e~s=tr=a1=·1=er~a,,.p~p=li=c=at=io=n~--

2. Reason(s) for the appeal 76% (35 lots) of the neighborhood is for sale and 52% (24 lots) is for sale through this sales trailer. Although there are not IO contiguous lots for sale today there were l O contiguous lots at the issuance of the original permit and there may be again with lot buybacks. We believe the intent of this regulation is to get trailers out of neighborhoods approaching buildout. Only 12 homes have been built on 46 lots in this neighborhood to date, and 7 of those 12 are for sale.

3. What staff(or P&ZC) error(s) is alleged? Incorrect interpretation and/or inconsistent application of the regulation. In this neighborhood a strict interpretation of IO contiguous lots is lost after the sale of only 3 lots of 46 (ie lots 9, 33, and 35)

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\APPEAL.doc Revised 2004 1 of2 ' •

4. What land development regulation (LDR) provision(s) have allegedly been improperly interpreted or applied _ _,,S-"ec,,,t..,io,.,_n'""'9"-'0"'2'-'-.0,,_7,______

5. What LDRs and/or Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives, policies support your position? Policy of allowing and supporting the efficient sale of property and the policy of consistent interpretation and application of regulations.

NOTE: Supplemental or additional information may be attached. If such information is being attached, please list here what is being attached:

1. 2. 3.

OFFICE USE OWI, Y: FEEPAID: ~ YCO DATERECEIVED: S-l7-0'] DATE ACCEPTED:------

C:\Documents and Settings\Administrator\Desktop\APPEAL.doc Revised 2004 2 of 2 Section 902.07. Appeals from decisions of the commnnity development director or his designee.

(1) Purpose and intent. This section is established to provide a mechanism for the hearing and resolution of appeals of decisions or actions by the community development director or his designee and for further appeals from decisions and actions from the planning and zoning commission.

(2) Authorization.

(a) The plarming and zoning commission of Indian River County shall be authorized to:

1. Hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that there is an error in any order, requirement, decision, or determination made by the community development director or his designee in the application and enforcement of the provisions of the land development regulations.

Hear and decide appeals when it is alleged that there is an error in the interpretation or application of a provision(s) of these land development regulations in relation to a development application. Decisions rendered by the plarming and zoning commission may be appealed to the board of county commissioners which shall have the power to hear and decide such appeals.

(b) Upon appeal and in conformance with land development regulations, the planning and zoning commission in exercising its powers may reverse or affirm wholly or partly or may modify the order, requirement, decision, interpretation, application or determination of the community development director or his designee.

(c) Any action reversing the community development director's decision shall require four (4) affirmative votes of the planning and zoning commission.

(3) Appeal procedures.

(a) The applicant, or any other person(s) whose substantial interests may be affected during the development review process, may initiate an appeal.

(b) Appeals must be filed within twenty-one (21) days from the date of notification letter rendering the decision by the respective official. Appeals may be concurrent with requests for approval of a development application(s).

( c) An appeal must be filed within the specified time limit with the plarming division on a form prescribed by the county. All such appeals shall recite the reasons such an appeal is being taken. The appeal should identify: the error alleged; the ordinance allegedly improperly interpreted or the requirement decision or order allegedly improperly issued; the land development regulations supporting the applicant's position; and the goals, objectives and/or policies of the comprehensive plan supporting the applicant's position. The appeal shall be accompanied by a fee to be determined by resolution of the board of county commissioners. The community development director shall schedule the appeal at the earliest available meeting of the planning and zoning commission.

(d) Notice of the appeal, in writing, shall be mailed by the planning division to the owners of all land which abuts the property upon which an appeal is sought, at least seven (7)

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2006\902.07 attachment.doc days prior to the hearing. The property appraiser's address for said owners shall be used in sending all such notices. The notice shall contain the name of the applicant for the appeal, a description of the land sufficient to identify it, a description of the appeal requested, as well as the date, time and place of the hearing.

( e) All appeals shall be heard at a meeting of the planning and zoning commission. All interested parties shall have a right to appear before the planning and zoning commission and address specific concerns directly related to the appeal. Any person may appear by agent or attorney. All such hearings shall be conducted in compliance with the rules of procedure for the planning and zoning commission. The time and place scheduled for hearing shall be given to the applicant in writing after an appeal application is submitted.

( 4) Action by the planning and zoning commission, findings offact. At the hearing scheduled for the purpose of considering the appeal, the planning and zoning commission may, in conformity with the provisions oflaw and these land development regulations, uphold, development director or his designee from whom the appeal is taken. In reviewing an appeal of a decision by the community development director or his designee, the planning and zoning commission must make findings in the following areas: -

(a) Did the reviewing official fail to follow the appropriate review procedures?

(b) Did the reviewing official or commission fail to properly apply the use or size and dimension regulations for the respective zoning district(s)?

(c) Did the reviewing official fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare?

(d) Did the reviewing official fail to evaluate the application with respect to the comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian River County?

The decision of the planning and zoning commission shall be final unless further appealed. Not withstanding findings (a) through (d) above, the planning and zoning commission may make additional findings of fact.

( 5) Further appeals from actions by the planning and zoning commission. At any time within twenty-one (21) days following action by the planning and zoning commission, the applicant, the county administration, or any department thereof, or any other person whose substantial interests may be affected by the proceeding may seek review of such decision by the board of county commissioners. The decision of the board of county commissioners shall be final. At the hearing scheduled for the purpose of considering an appeal of the planning and zoning commission's action, the board of county commissions may, in conformity with the provisions of law and these land development regulations, uphold, amend, or reverse who Uy or partly, the decision by the p Janning and zoning commission which is being appealed. Appeals of planning and zoning commission decisions to deny rezoning applications are regulated in section 902.12. All other types of appeals to the board of county commissioners shall be followed in accordance with the same provisions of appeal procedures to the planning and zoning commission, section 902.07(3), and the board of county commissioners shall review the appeals with respect to the findings criteria of section 902.07(4). Any action by the board of county commissioners reversing a planning and zoning commission decision shall require

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2006\902.07 attachment.doc ,

three (3) affitmative votes.

(6) Effect offiling an appeal. The filing ofan appeal shall terminate all proceedings which further the action appealed until the appeal is resolved, except when the halting of such action poses a threat to life or property. The planning and zoning commission shall make this determination. Notwithstanding this provision, proceedings involving review of a development application may proceed when an appeal of an administrative decision has been filed and will be considered concurrent with the development application request.

(7) Transmittal of the record. Staff shall forthwith compile and transmit to the planning and zoning commission all information documented which constitutes the record of action from which the appeal is taken. (Ord. No. 90-16, § 1, 9-11-90; Ord. No. 91-7, §2, 2-27-91; Ord. No. 93-29, §§ SA, 8B, 9-7-93; Ord. No. 2002-004, § 1, 2-12-02)

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2006\902.07 attachment.doc CHAPTER972

TEMPORARY USES

Section 972.08. Specific uses, standards and requirements.

(3) Temporary real estate sales offices, for the purpose of marketing for sale ten (10) or more lots or .,;fE units which are contiguous, are allowed within authorized zoning districts subject to the following conditions and restrictions:

(a) If a mobile home or trailer is used as the sales office, it shall not exceed eight hundred (800) square feet of gross floor area, and may not be used for such purpose for more than twelve (12) months from the date of issuance of the temporary use permit, and thereafter shall be removed or shall be used in accordance with all regulations of the district in which it is located. The temporary permit may be extended one time for a period not to exceed three (3) months. Sales offices located on the premises after the expiration of the permit must be located in a permanent structure.

(b) If the sales office is located in a modular or permanent building that meets applicable building code standards, a temporary use permit may be issued for a period ofup to one year, and may be renewed armually upon re-application.

( c) The sales office shall not be used to promote or market for sale any lot or unit which is not part of the common, contiguous project being marketed by the same developer and agent.

( d) Neither the sales office nor signs shall be illuminated, other than for security purposes, or used for any business activity, after 9:00 p.m., except as may be allowed when located in a nomesidential zoning district.

( e) All temporary real estate sales offices shall provide parking as required for model homes in section 972.08(1 )(B), and shall have water and wastewater treatment provisions approved by the environmental health and utility services department for the lot or site upon which the temporary office will be located. For temporary offices associated with multifamily or non-residential projects, all applicable landscaping requirements of Chapter 926 shall be satisfied.

(f) The sketch accompanying the temporary use permit application shall identify the driveway access to the lot or site, parking areas (spaces, dimensions, method of stabilization), water and wastewater services, landscaping improvements (if applicable); and building setbacks and dimensions (or building envelope). !PUBLI«;' HEARING • : SPEFIAL EXCEPTION USE ~QUASI-JUDICIAL) I i

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Ro ert M. eating, AICP; C elopment Director -41'--:.· THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director [3F FROM: Brian Freeman, AICP; Senior Plam1er, Current Development

DATE: June 19, 2007

.SUBJECTi Sally Alkayaly's Request for Special E:x;ception Use Approval for a Child Care Facility [SP-MI-07-04-19 / 2006070080-57427]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

W. F. McCain and Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for special exception use approval on behalf of Sally Alkayaly for a child care facility to be located at 2855 58th Avenue. The site contains an existing single-family residence and is located on the west side of 58 th Avenue, north of 26tl' Street. The site is located between Kings Baptist Church and Living Lord Lutheran Church. The subject site is zoned RS-3, a zoning district in which special exception use approval is required for child care facilities.

In addition to the request for special exception use approval, the applicant has also submitted an application for minor site plan approval for the proposed site improvements associated with the requested child care use. The minor site plan application has been approved by county staff, subject to Board of County Commissioners approval of the special exception use request.

The Planning and Zoning Commission is now to consider the special exception use request for the child care facility and make a recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners to approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request. Pursuant to Section 971.05 of the land development regulations (LDRs), the Planning and Zoning Commission is to consider the appropriateness of the requested use for the subject site and compatibility of the use with the surrounding area. The Commission may recommend reasonable conditions and safeguards necessary to mitigate impacts and to ensure compatibility of the use with the surrounding area.

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spmn\Little Rising StarS.pzc staffreport.rtf 1 ANALYSIS

1. Size of Parcel: 1. 16 acres

2. Zoning Classification: RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre)

3. Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density (up to 6 units/acre)

4. Building Area: 2,953 sq. ft.

Note: The applicant proposes to convert an existing single-family residence into a child care center. As part of the project, an existing garage and covered porch are to converted into interior building area.

5. Impervious Area: Existing: 8,086 sq. ft. Proposed: 2,736 sq. ft. Total: I 0,822 sq. ft.

6. Recreation Area: The rear yard of the existing residence will be used as an outdoor recreation area. A Type "C" buffer and 6 ft. opaque feature are to be provided around the perimeter of the recreation area. The opaque feature will consist of a 6 ft. high PVC stockade fence. Required trees and shrubs are to be planted on both sides of the fence.

7. Traffic Circulation: The site currently has access to 58th Avenue via a one-way circular driveway. The child care facility will use the existing ingress and egress locations as well as the one-way internal circulation, although the driveway and parking area will be expanded to accommodate the child care use. The Traffic Engineering Division has reviewed and approved the project's traffic impact statement and internal circulation plan. No off-site improvements are required for this development, and none are proposed.

8. Off-Street Parking: Required: 9 spaces Proposed: 15 spaces

9. Concurrency: As required under the county's concurrency regulations, the applicant has applied for and obtained a conditional concurrency certificate for the project. The concurrency certificate was issued based upon a concurrency analysis and a determination that adequate capacity was available to serve this project at the time of the determination. The developer will be required to obtain final concurrency certificates prior to issuance of building permits, in accordance with county concunency regulations.

10. Landscape Plan: The proposed landscape plan satisfies the requirements ofLDR landscape requirements for child care facilities. An arterial road landscape strip is to be provided along the site's 58th Avenue frontage and Type "C" buffers are to be provided around the remainder 1 of the site's perimeter.

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spmn\Litt!e Rising StarA.pzc staffreport.rtf 2 11. Specific Land Use Criteria: Pursuant to LDR section 971.28(1), the following criteria for child care facilities apply to this project:

I. The site shall be located on a paved road with sufficient width to accommodate pedestrian and vehicular traffic generated by the use. The facility shall be located near thoroughfares, as designated in the county's major thoroughfare plan, so as to discourage traffic along residential streets in the immediate area;

Note: The site is located on 58 th Avenue, a thoroughfare plan roadway.

2. Special passenger loading and unloading facilities shall be provided on the same site for vehicles to pick up or deliver c/ientele. Such facilities shall include driveways that do not require any back-up movements by vehicles to enter or exit the premises;

Note: A passenger loading/unloading area will be included as part of the site's one­ way internal ciruclation. No back-up movements for vehicles loading or unloading will be necessary.

3. All regulations ofthe State ofFlorida that pertain to the use as presently exists or may hereafter be amended shall be satisfied;

Note: The facility operator will obtain the appropriate license from the State of Florida.

4. Child care facilities shall provide recreation area(s) and facilities that meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall supply to the planning division, prior to site plan approval, written acknowledgement from the state that the proposed recreation area(s) and facilities meet or exceed applicable state standards. The applicant shall provide either a six-foot opaque buffer or one hundred fifty-foot setback between all outdoor recreation areas and adjacent residentially designated properties.

Note: As discussed above, an outdoor playground area is proposed in the rear yard of the existing single-family residence. Planning staff has verified that the proposed facilities will meet applicable state standards for recreation. A 6 ft. opaque buffer is to be provided along the site's north, south, and west boundaries to screen the playground area from adjacent properties. The 6 ft. opaque feature will consist of PVC stockade fence to be screened by a Type "C" buffer. The Land Development Regulations permit the opaque feature to consist .of a solid wall, an earthen berm, or an alternative material as approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission. In this case, staff supports the applicant's request to use a PVC stockade fence because that type offence is commonly used in single-family residential settings. Required

F:\Community Developmen\Users\Brian F\spmn\Little Rising StarS.pzc staffreport.rtf 3 trees and shrubs will be planted on both sides of the fence. A graphic of the proposed landscape buffer is provided as "Attachment 5."

5. A Type "C" buffer will be required, acceptable to the planning department.

Note: As discussed above, a Type "C" buffer and 6 ft. opaque feature is proposed along the site's north, south, and west perimeters. An arterial road landscape strip is proposed along the site's east perimeter, which abuts 58th Avenue. This arterial road landscape strip is comparable to a Type "C" buffer.

12. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Vacant residential parcel, Kings Baptist Church I RS-3 East: 58th Avenue, undeveloped land/ City of Vero Beach South: Living Lord Lutheran Church/ RS-3 West: Single-family residences/ RS-3

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the above analysis, the staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners find that, in conjunction with the recommended conditions:

1. It is empowered under the provisions of Chapter 971 to review the special exceptions applied for;

2. The granting of the special exceptions will not adversely affect the public interest;

3. The application satisfies the general and specific criteria required for special exception approval.

Staff further recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners grant special exception use approval for the child care use with the following condition:

1. Prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy, the applicant shall install all required buffers and opaque features (opaque features shall consist of a PVC stockade fence).

APPROVED AS TO FORM Attachments: AND LEGAi.SUFFiCiENCY 1. Application BY~(V(~ 2. Location Map WILLIAM G, COLLINS II 3. Traffic Impact Analysis Executive Summary COUNTY ATTORNEY 4. Site Plan/Landscape Plan/Aerial

F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\spmn\Little Rising StarS.pzc staffreport.rtf 4 ,··-...:,.,,~::c ...

PROPOSED PROJECT USE: Convert existing single family home to a child care facility

CORRESPONDING PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME AND IRC ASSIGNED FILE NUMBER (IF ANY): Vera's Little Einstein's Dav Care SP-Ml-07-04-19

OWNER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) Sally Alkayaly W.F. McCain & Associates, Inc. NAME NAME . PO Box 2173 1171 19th Street ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32961 ~ 473- --=8-=-04~9 ______32960 ( 7721770--1'-'0"-'9'-"3 ______ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE 772-770-1508 FAX NUMBER FAXNUMBER [email protected] EMAIL EMAIL Sally Alkayaly hristopher J. Pontello, P.E. CONTACT PERSON TPERSON

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT ARCHITECT:(PRINT) W.F. McCain & Associates, Inc. John H Dean Architect & Associates NAME 1171 19th St NAME 2223 10th Ave ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach , FL Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 mL) 770-_,1_,,_09"-'3'------32960 (772 )567 -_4--e9-'-0-'-7 _____ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE 772-770-1508 772-569-3939 FAXNUMBER FAXNUMBER [email protected] EMAIL EMAIL Christopher J. Pontello, P.E. John Dean CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

Revised Jun~ 2006 Page I of3

ATTACHMENT l ! DOES THE REQUEST INCLUDE A CONCEPTUAL PLAN ONLY OR A CONCEPTUAL AND "FINAL" SITE PLAN?: "Final" Site Plan

!AMOUNT OF NEW IMPERVIOUS SURFACE: (SO.FT.) 2,544.QQ

! SITE ADDRESS: 2855 58th Ave, Vero Beach, FL

! SITE TAX ID#(S): 32-39-32-00001-0160-00005.0

! IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREA AS DESIGNATED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ADDRESSED IN A PRE-APP CONFERENCE? _ __L-__L_YES I V I NO

! FLOOD ZONE.-----'-X_,______

! ZONING:._----'-R-'-S=----=-3 _____ CLUP: L-2

!TOTAL (GROSS) ACREAGE OF PARCEL:. __1.:_:•_;_1-=-6--=ac..:c:_:_. ______

!AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE: __~0-'-.8'--6'--a_c_. ------

! PROPOSED CHANGES TO EXISTING DEVELOPMENT (IF APPLICABLE): A. NUMBER OF UNITS: FROMc ______TO______B. DENSITY FROM. ___ UNITS PER ACRE TO ___UNITS PER ACRE

! CHANGE IN USES BY SQUARE FEET GROSS BUILDING AREA

USE: FROM.______SQ.FT. OF ______(USE)

TO______SQ. FT. OF (USE)

COMMENTS:

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY DATE RECEIVED:------/ / DA TE APPLICATION COMPLETE:------/ / REVIEWING PLANNER.: ______

Revised June 2006 2 of 3 w ::, 0 I 1l:l - - 2 3 '::) 7... 5 AC 14 [(:)]

6 SA-2 AC

'27£6

,95 AC ;:,:; 1 ....a, II)

8 AJ AC .11 / AC iJ 1.40 t.C

.M AC Al A.C

7

RS-3 1.15 AC

9

CITY OF VERO BEACH

,36.;m Ul9 AC

::.::: ,; 19 O::'. :t: 0... 3 :;;; 20 "' WS AC 4.0S AC 2!

22 1.e2 At

"5ifili;t'ili:

ATTACKM Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

LITTLE RISING STAR'S- TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY November 2006 1,ebruary 2007 May2007 041257000/l 100

1. Location: West side of58th Avenue north of 26th Street

2. Size: 2,971 square feet Day Care Center

3 . Trip Generation: Net new daily = 164 Net new AM = 27 peak hour trips Net new PM = 31 peak hour trips

4. Area ofinfluencc Boundaries: 58tb Avenue to east of property, all other links De minimus

5. Significant Roads 58tb Ave {41 st Street.. ...26!1' Street)

6. Significant Intersections: • None

7, Trip Distribution: See Appendix A

8. Internal Capture: none

9. Pass-by Capture: Day Care Center - 7 4% new trips

10. A.M, Peak Hom Directional% {ingress/egress): 55% entering/ 45% exiting. P.M. Peak Hour Directional % (ingress/egress): 45% entering/ 55% exiting

11. Traffic Count Factors Applied: 5.62% annual growth to build-out 2007

12. Off-Site Improvements: .none

13. Roadway Capacities (!RC Link Sheets): See Appendix B

14. Assume roadway and/ or intersection improvements:

• SR 60 between 82nd Avenue to 66th Avenue: • 43% to link= 0. 731 trip • 0. 731 trips x $7,677 per trip= $5,612 APPROVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY TR IC ENGINEE ING r2.

ATTACHMENT Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

"Sui!e103 10521 s.w. vmage Center Drive Port St Lucie, Ronda 34987 15. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: November 21, 2006 b) Traffic counts: None c) Study approval: ......

S:\041\041257000 Little Rising Star's\TRAFFIL"'\R.evised due to comments 2-6-07\Rcvised 5-23-07 TRAFFIC JMPAGJ' SUMMARY;

"m m 345 Jaoo FIi< m 286 0138 LITTLE RISING STAR'S Traffic counts in the Exlstlng column were collected in 2006 Trips indieated in thB Vested oolumn are as ,of111512007 REMAINING % oflOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VE:STE• PROJECT W/PROJECT ·o·

1010N S,f?.,A1A $, COUNTY L1NE S, VBCITYL 951) 325 30 0 Jr.r. 10105 S.R.A1A 5. COUNTY LINE S. VBCITYL 950 396 16 D "' 43% 1020N S.R.A1A S. VBCITYL 17THS'mEET 930 8'0 19 0 '"81 91¾ 10206 S.RA1A S. VEICITYt.. 17THSTREEi BStl 900 7 • "' 9!!% 1D30N S.R.A1A 17THSTRE£T S.R. 6{l ... 604 S5 0 201 11¾ 1030S S.R.A1A 17THSTREET S.R. 60 960 635 5 0 220 74•/4 1040N S.R. A1A S.R.60 N. VBCITY L. • 0 18 98½ S.R, A1,A S.R,eQ N. VB Ctn' L. "' "" 0 107" mos 910 • ... 1050N S.R.A1A N. VB CITYL. FRED TUERK RD. '"ll60 2 0 22 97Y, 10505 S.RA1A N. VBCITYL ffiEO TUERK.RD. 860 '"910 0 .51 1Dfi% 1060N S.RA1A FRED TUERK RO. OW WJNTER BEACH RD 8'0 580 0 68¼ 1060$ S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WJNTER BEACH RD 0 0 '"392 .... ~070N 5.RA1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N. IRS l. '" "'53' 5 0 321 63¼ 1070S 5.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N.IRSL. '" 472 • 0 392 .... 1080N S.R..A1A N. !RS LN. C.R510 '"960 534 53 • 273 68'Yo 1080S S.R.A1A N. IRS l.N. C.R. 510 472 ,. 0 350 ,... 1090N S.RA1A C.R.:510 N. COUNTI UN'i; '" 354 46 0 40% '"391 10905 S.R.A1A C.R. 510 N. COUNTY LINE "' 513 "' 0 61¾ 1110N IND\r.N RIVER BLVD. 4THST.@US1 1::!THSTREET 1,660'" 740 • 0 1112 40% 111OS INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 4THS1.@U$1 12THS1REET 1,1li60 1,366 33 0 4'1 75% 1120N INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL 1,860 0 0 54% 11205 ,NDIAN RIVE:R BlVO. 12THSIBEET S.VBCnYL 1,560 1.425'" 0 0 '" 77'/, '" 54% 1t30N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S. VBCllYL 17THSTREET 1,850 999 10 0 '" 1130S lNDIAN RIVER BLVD. $. VBCJTYL 17THSTREET ,.aco 1,425 0 • 435 11v~ n40N l'NOIAN "R:NeR Bl.VO. 17THSTREET 21STSTReE.T 1,a60 1.024 3 0 833 55.% 114.llS lh'OIAN RIVER BLVD. 1nHSTREE.i 21STSTReET 1,860 1,395 0 0 .. , 75% 1150N tNDIAN RIVER St.VD. 21STSTREET S.R.so 1.860 1.420 ,. 0 424 77% 1150S INO!AN' RIVER BLVD. 21STSTRl:ET S.R.60 1,860 1,661 0 199 89% 1160N IND!AN. RIVER BLVD. S.R.60 W.VBCITYL. ,,,., 1.049 63 so~,. 1100S IN.OIAN.-RlVER BLVD. S.R60 W.VBCITYL 1,860 -1,120 29 0 "'m 62¾ 1170N lNOIAtll RIVER BLVD. W.VBCITYL. US 1 @ 53RD ST. 1,860 588 136 0 1134 1170S tNO!AN RIVER BLVD. W.VBClTYL US 1@5'3RDST. 1.860 832 116 0 912 ""'-51% 1210N 1.gs N. COUNTY LINE'. C.R. 51:2 2,740 1;504 ,0 0 1226 55o/a 1210$ ,... N. COUN1Y LINE C.R. 512 :2,740 1,509 0 1216 56% 1228N- I.OS C.R. 512 S.R. 60 2.740 1,510 29" 0 1201 56% 122DS 1-95 C.R. 512 S.R. 00 2,740 1,S19 3() 0 1191 57% 123DN 1·95 S.R,60 OSLO ROAD 2,690 1,725 44 0 61% 12305 1-95 S.R. 60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,712 31 0 ""'1147 60% 1240N 1-95 OSLO ROAD S.COUMTYUME 2.890 1,718 35 0 1139 61% 124-0S 1-95 OSLO ROAD 5. COUNTY LINE ,..,. 1,701 24 0 1189 $. COUNTY LINE OSl.0-ROA'D ,. 1305N U.$.1 1;111\0 1,1!:17 .., • ...'"' 150SS U.S.1 S, COUNTY LINE 0S1.0ROAD 1;B60 1,590 54 0 "' '8% 1310N U.5,1 OSLO ROAD 4TH ST,@ IR BLVD. 2.7'0 1,41:Z 37 0 1341"' 52% 1310S U.S,1 OSLO ROAD An-I ST.@ JR BLVD. 1,749 00 0 981 GS¾ 1315N U.S.1 4lHST.@lRBLVD. 81HSTREET ""1,860 1,195 7 0 656 65¾ 1315S U.S.1 4THST. @lR BLVD. 8THSTREET 1,860 1,484 19 0 "" 81% 132DN U.S.1 6THSTREET ·l2TH STREET 1,860 1,289 19 0 "' 70'1, 1320$ u.s., em S1'RE"ET 12TH3lREE1' 1,1360 1,.q72 .. • "' ... .. 1525N u.s., 12THS1REET S.VB ClTYL 1,710 1,Z!i 36 0 453 74% 13255 U.S.1 12THSTREET $. VSCITYL 1,710 1,301 51 0 "'' 7$¾ LITTLE RISING STAR'S Traffic counts in the Ex is-ting column were i;ollected irt :2006 Trips indicated it1 the Vested column are as of1/15J20D7 REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROMSlREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WI PROJECT "D" 1330N U.S.1 S; VBCTTYL 17THSTRa:.T 1.710 1,120 36 554 ij8'¼ i330S U.S.1 S. VBCITY.L 1m-J STREET 1,71• 1,329 52 329 81% 1335"' U.S.1 tTTHSTREET S,R.oO 1.510 1.175 0 276 82% 1335S U.S.1 17THSTREET S.R 60 1,510 1.207 75" 0 22' 85% 1340N U.S.1 S.R.60 ROYAL PALM Pt, 1,510 'B01 ,. 523 65% 13",S U.5.1 S.R.60 ROYAL PALM PL 1,510 1,124 182 ,., 86'' 1345N U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL AllANTIC BLVD. 1,7i0 1,084 108 0 518 70% 1'458 U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL Alt.ANTIC BLVD. 1,110 '70 5'2 1:3SON u.s.1 ATLANTIC SLVO. N. \IBCllYL 2,010 1.503 135"' ,.., ""82¾ 133{)S U.S:i ATLANTIC BLVD. N:VBCITVL 2.010 1,£12 180 218 89% 1355N U.S.1 N. VBGITYL OLD DlXIE HWY 2,010 1.634 166 0 210 90% 13555 U.S.~ 111. V$CITYL. OLD DlXlE·HWY 2.010 1,2ea m 0 535 73% 1361lN u.s.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 2.010 1,712 129 94% 1361JS U.S,1 OLD DIXIE HWY 4~ST ST.REE1 2,010 1,079 "'127 804 60¼ 1365N U;S'.1 41ST SIBEl;T 45THSTREET 2,010 1.451 187 0 372 81% 1365S U.S.1 415TSTREET 45THSTREET 2.010 1.021 156 0 833 59% 1"370N U,S.1 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 2,010 1.425 101 0 BO'/o 1370S U.S.1 451HSTREET 49TH ST.REET 2,010 163 0 "'917 54% 1375N U.S.'i '191H sm:eer 65THSTREET 2,010 1.728'" 268 0 14 99% 137:5$ U.S.1 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 2,010 1.oar 213 0 710 GS% 13B0N u,s:1 65THSTREET 69THSiRE.E7 Z232 1,711 173 0 348 .... 13!!D5 U,S.1 65TH'SlREET 69THSTREET 1,860 1.07(1 163 • 627 66% U.5.1 69THSlREET OWO[);IEHWY 2.23:i 1.675 165 0 392 82¼ ,,,.."'""' U.S.1 69THSTREET OU)OI:, 1750W C,R;S12 ROSELAND RO. U.S,1 1.860 700 ""' 0 11:36 39½ 181-0E C.R. 510 C,R.512 66THAVE. 1,860 538 ... 0 ... .. ,. 1810W C.R. 510 C.R.512 66THAVE. 1,860 776 104 0 47¾ H!20E CRS10 66TH A.VE. 5RTl-lAVf i,600 <112 115 • 1233'" 34% 1820W C.R. 510 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 1,860 713 116 0 1026 45% 1830E C.R.510 58TI-IAVE. U.S.1 1.860 0 1182 3"% 1830W C.R. 510 5BTHAVE, u.s.1 1.eoo 774""' '"1Z! 0 48% 1840E C.R. 510 U,S,1 S.RA1A 571 1S1 0 1133"' 40'/4 1l!4llW C.R.510 U.S.1 S.R.A1A ,,..,'·"" 1,021 210 0 669 65% 19135E S.R. 60 We COUNTY LINE C.R. 512 1,8i0 217 1' 0 15B2 13% 1905W S.R.60 W. COUNTYllME C.R.512: 1,810 254 13 0 1543 15% 1907E S.R..60 C.R.512 100WAVE. 1,810 258 1 0 1551 14% 1907W S.R. 60 C.R.512 100TH AVE. 1,810 257 3 0 1550 14% 1910E S.R. 60 100THAVE. 1-95 1~,0 325 140 0 1395 26% 1910W S.R.60 100THAVE. 1-95 1,860 286 213 0 136f 21% 19155 S.R. 60 1-95 82NDAVE. 1,860 'i,S91 2'8 0 181 90% 1915W S.R.60 '96 B2NOAVE. 2.000 t,1i93 263 0 ,.. 93¾ 1920.E $.R; 60 82NDAVE. 66THAVE. 2,120 1,550 466 104 95% 19:!0W $.R.60 82NOAVE. 66THAVS. 2,120 1.665 359 -104 % 61% 2810N 20THAVENUE OStOROAD 4THSTRfET 660 402 126 332 28.0S 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTRl::ET 660 563 153 0 144 83% 2820N 20THAVENUE 4-THSTREET 8THSTRl:ET ,10 65 0 3'5 "-% 2a20s 20THAVENUE 4TliSTREET BTHSTREET 810 "' 85 0 32 9S¾ 2830N 20THAVENUE BTI-JSTREl:T 1:ZTH STREE"r 810 <35"' 43 332 59% 28'S4 207 0 59¾ 29055 A3ROAVENUE S, COUNTY IJNE OSLOROAO 9.SO 311 0 "'31& 76¾ 2910N 43RDAV.ENUE OStoROAD 4THSTREET 1,068 "'375 0 254 '"' 2S10S 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTRE:ET 1,068 "''541 284 0 243 77'k 2915N 43RDAVENUe 4THSTREET STH STREET 1.020 473 162 0 385 62% 11:? 89"/4 z;ss 43RDAVENUE 4THSiReEi STHSTREET 1,020 671 2'1 0 60% 2920N 43RDAVENL!JE STHSTREET 12THSiREET 1,071 482 157 0 432 0 , 81% '9205 43RDAVENUE STHSTREET 12THSTREET 1.071 653 219 .. ..,, 2925N 43RDAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1.071 502 0 431 191/. 20255 43ROAVENUE 12TH SiR.EET 1GTHSTREEr 1,071 "' 0 224 1064 4"1¾ '2930N 4:3ROAVENUE ,em STREET S,R, 60 1,796 '"561 "'151 0 2930$ 43RDAVENUE 1trfHSTREET S.R..60 1,796 191 0 906 SO¾ 2935N -4~RDAVENUE 5.R. 60 26THSiReET 1,796 '"467 1S7 0 1192 '4% -41¾ 2!;1305 l'.3RO AVENUE S.R. 00 26TH $7RS::T 1,796 012 1;;;} 0 1DS1 2940N 43RDAVENUE 26THSTREET 41STSTREl:T '23 223 0 21, 75% 29405 43RDAVENU!:: 26THSTREET 41STSTREET ''"860 ... 220 0 152 82% LITTLE RISING STAR'S Traffic. counts In the Existing column were collected In 20ll6 Trips indie:ated in the Vested column are as of1/15/20G7 REMAINING %.of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "O" 2!145N 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH STflEET 660 332 169 0 359 50% 29455 43RDAVENUE 41STS1REET 45THSTREET 860 3'!3 '21 0 406 53¼ 2'>50N 43ROAVENUE «ITH STREET 1!9THSTREET 860 245 155 0 ... 47% 29505 43RDAVENUE '5THSTREET 49THSTREET 860 150 104 0 576 33% SOOSN 53THAVENUE 0$LCROA.D ,t'r'UC!."l'OCI:"/' i,860 363 1~ 25¾ .aooss S8THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TI-ISTRE.ET 1,860 '11 1'9" '0 '320 29% 3010N 58THAVENUE 4THS1REET BTHSTREET 1,710 657 72 0 ,., 43% .3010S 58THAVENUE 4THSTREEf fHHS'JRfEl 1,110 712 96 0 47"/o 3015N 5!lTHAVENUI;: aiH$Tf\eET 12THST~CET 1,710 015 99 0 ,..'" 5:,•1o 30155 SllTHAVENUE 8THSTREET 12THSTREET 1.710 1,13B 116 0 456 73% 3020N 58THAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1,710 147 0 619 64% 3020S 58THAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1,?10 1,046"" 158 0 SOG 70% 58THAVENUE 1iiTH$TREET $,R..60 1,710 983 .218 0 509 10•;;. "'""30255 SBTHAVENUE 1iiTHSTREET S.R. 60 1,710 1,035 246 0 .,. 75'/.. 3030N SBTHAVENUE S.R.60 41STSTREET 1,860 1,137 246 9 ... 75¼ 3030S SBTHAVENi.JE S.R.60 41ST-STREET 1.860 1;109 168 11 572 3035N 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSiREET 860 587 205 0 ., '"' 3035S 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSlREET '60 538 99 0 223 '"'14% 3Q4(lN 58THAVENUE .llSTHSmEET 49THSTREEi 860 496 187 0 m 79% 304CS SBTI~ AVF1NUE 45Tll STREET 40THSTREET '80 • 278 58THAVENUE 49TH STREET 65TH$TREEH ''" 221 74%"" 3045N '79 154" • 3045S 5BTHAVENUE 49TH STRl:ET QSTHSTREET '"860 402 114 0 344 60% 3050N 58Tli_AVENU~ 65THSTREET 59THSTREET 860 '32 89 0 339 61% 3050$ SSTHAVENUE" 65THSTREET 69THSTREEr 860 356 108 • 54% 3055N 58THAVENUE 69THSTREET C,R.510 860 367 78 0 415"' 52", 30555 58THAVENUE 69THSTREE7 C.R.510 '60 118 ""' 312CN 66THAVENUE S,R. 60 26THS1REET .., 463'" 163 0 234 '"'73% 31205 66THAVENUE S.R.60 26TH STFU:IIT 860 129 0 299 65% 3130N 66THAVENl.lE 26THSTREE1 41ST$TREET 860 '"548 155 0 157 82¾ 3130S 6STHAVENUE 26TH·STREIIT 41STSTREET 860 118 ,.. 60% 3140N 66THAVENUE 41ST S1'REET 45THSTREET ,SO "'569 69 0 322 66% 3140S 6oiHAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 950 3('7 58 0 525 45¾ 31~N 66THAVENUE 45THSTREET 65THSTREEI 870 537 73 0 260 70o/6 31506 66THAVENUE 45THSTREET 65THSTREE.T 870 33' 59 0 ...o .... 31,00N 66TII AVENUE 65THSTREET 69THS1REET 870 537 42 0 291 '1% 31605 66THAVENUE 55THSTREET 69THSTl1.l:E.T 870 301 0 ,,.. 3170N 66THAVENUE 69THSTREET C.R510 870 561 ""56 '"253 71% 3170S 6GTHAVENUE 89THSTREl:T C.R.510 ll70 ,,. 46 ' 510 41% 3310N 82NOAVENUE OSI.OROAO 4THSTREET 050 180 5 ' 765 19% 3310S 82NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 950 166 6 18% 3320N 82NDAVENUE 4THSTREET 12TH$TREET 950 196 15 "',,. ZZ% 3320S 82NDAVENUE 4THSTREET 12Tl1STREET 950 1a,, 20 746 21% S330N 82NDAVEillUE 12THSTRE:ET S.R.60 ll6IJ ,,, 0 557 3'305 82NDAVENUE 12THSTREE1 S.R.60 860 14' " ""2w~ 82NDAVENUE S.R.60 65THSlREET 410 10 " '"387 6% '"°"3340S 82NDAVENUE S,R. 00 65THSlREET 410 76 ' 0 20% 3350N 82NDAVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH51REET 410 19 1 "'390 5% '350S 82NDAveNUE (15THSTREET 69THSlREET 410 ,, 0 387 6% 96THAVENUE 6THSTREET 12THSiREET '3 ... 7',0 '"'"3360S 98THAVENUE sTHSTREET 1'2THS1REE1 ''° "'3 79 768 11% 3370N 98THAVENUE 12.TMSTREET 16THSTREET "' 72 108 0 680 21% 33'705 98TH AVENUE. 12THSTREET 16THS1REET "' 50 197 0 613 29% 98THAVENUE 16THSTREE1 $R60 '" 73 108 679 21% """3380S 98THAVENUE 16TH STREET 5R60 "'860 48 1'7 615 2B"fo 339

S:\041\041257000 Little Risi,ng Star's\TRAFFIC\Revised

! ! I 0 ' ! ! ! i p i l f I i I ' I ' I, '· '· : ! I ~' J' I :1 ' ! i ' - ' " " " ; ~ ' I ' ' 1:"''" 'I I I ' I ' ' ~I. !~ ' ' ' ' ' ' !l 'l 'l ,, )! < < ! ;! !ii ! !' i i ' I i .;o:'-\ I . i 'ii~'( ' ' ! ~ ! ,, 8 i !- ~ D 11 "~ i ' £ ,! 8 !1·•· a 'I ij ~ ! ' " Ill ... .; ., 1!88 '

~,oo· ---­ ,oo• . .

'i o8lS a\'EHUE (l'I) CO .,, 100' aJ

R ~~ R "R I !, i '! I ' : !~; ! ' 0 :• ! I !"·! 0

LITTLE RISING STARS LANDSCAPE PLAN ...,..,!!;..'!~~!t.5~J~S~~ ""'-'""""''""""""'"""' °"'T&Ol>\Tl'OF""'°"""TlJHMO.- FElff vrnoeEACH, FlO,.DA 02000 - INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA ·~:~:.: i ' 'I !, i a ' ~ 'I - I ' ' I I i ' i' i ' 'I 'l l i 'I • I !• I I i I ' '•I i I i I I I I ! I I I 'i I I I ! • I i I 'I I I ! i• i,i I ,!•! I !''I I • I~~ I'~ I ,

'I I '• a ! ~ •I I I I =-=_,,.,_ LITTLE RISING STARS AERIAL EXHIBIT ..,,,.!· F::::::~~~~~~~-= OoSIGNED Rl'J 1! 'fi ....l,,.~ 111110THSTREET CHILD CARE CENTER VeROSEACH,A.0,.0,,"""° •Q ""'""',~, • INDIAN RIVER COUITTY, FLORIDA ~:~;i;;w:.-~"" . I PubHc ~earing : (Quasi-~udicial) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Ran e Planning 5~ ·4

FROM: Gale Carmoney; Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning~

DATE: June 18, 2007

RE: Bahia Honda Real Estate Investments IV LLC. 's Request to Rezone ±6.67 acres from A-1 to RM-8 (RZON 2006060238-55223)

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

This request is to rezone ±6.67 acres from A-1, Agricultural-I District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RM-8, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre). Located west of 90th Avenue and approximately 1235 feet north ofS.R. 60, the subject property is depicted in the figure below and is under the same ownership as the parcel immediately to the north which is zoned RM-8. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site, in conjunction with the RM-8 zoned property to the north, with residential uses at a density consistent with the allowed density of its comprehensive plan land use designation.

Existing Land Use Pattern

Generally, this area of the county contains residential uses, commercial uses and agricultural land. Zoned A-1, the subject property is wooded, undeveloped land. Land that abuts the north and south boundaries of the subject property is wooded, undeveloped, and under the same ownership as the subject property. The land that is to the north is zoned RM-8)while the land to the south is zoned CG, General Commercial. Land to the west of the subject property and west of the platted right-of-way for 92 nd Court is zoned A-1, and contains wooded, undeveloped parcels that are within Unit 3 of the Paradise Park Subdivision. East of the subject property, and across 90th Avenue, land is zoned RS-6, Single Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre), is within Unit 2 of the Paradise Park Subdivision, and is developed with single family homes. Residential

I parcels within Unit 2 of Paradise Park are nonconforming m size and are developed at approximately 5. 14 units/acre.

Location and Zoning of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

Future Land Use Pattern

With the exception of the land to the south, the subject property and all abutting properties are designated M-1, Medium-Density Residential-I, on the county's Future Land Use Map. The M­ l designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. The property that is south of the subject property is designated C/I, Commercial Industrial, on the county's Future Land Use Map. The C/I designation allows various commercial and industrial uses.

Environment

Aerial photos of the subject property reveal a wooded, undeveloped site that may have some wetlands. The property is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is in a flood zone "X".

2 Location and Land Use of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

AG.'I AG-1

Utilities and Services

The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.

Transportation System

The property's eastern boundary abuts 90th Avenue. Classified as an Urban Collector Roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 90th A venue is a 2 lane unpaved road with approximately 60 feet of existing public road right-of-way. There are currently no planned road improvements for 90th Avenue listed within the County's Comprehensive Plan through the year 2025. When development occurs on the subject property, the developer will be responsible for acquiring any additional right-of-way and making the street improvements necessary for paved access to the subject property.

3 ANALYSIS

In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include:

• The request's impact on public facilities; • The request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • The request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • The request's potential impact on environmental quality.

Concurrency of Public Facilities

This site is located within the county urban service area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained.

Policy 3 .2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For 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. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:

1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 6.67 acres

2. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/Sacres).

3. Proposed Zoning District: RM-8, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre)

4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning District: 1 Single-Family Units

5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning District: 53 Multiple-Family Units

4 Transportation

As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). A TIA reports 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 zoning district, and assigns those trips on the county's thoroughfare roadway network within the project's area of influence. That area of influence consists of roadway segments that receive eight (8) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for a two-lane roadway or fifteen (15) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for a four-lane (or wider) roadway.

According to the approved TIA, the existing level of service on impacted roads would not be lowered by the traffic generated by development of 53 multiple-family units on the subject property. A summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis is provided in Attachment 3.

With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 53 residential units, resulting in water consumption at a rate of 53 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 13,250 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property would be served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed rezoning.

Wastewater

Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 53 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 13,250 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. County wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.

Solid Waste

Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 3.67 cubic yards/person/year. With the county's average of approximately 2.25 persons/unit, a 53 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 119 people (2.25 X 53). For the subject request to meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 3.67 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 436.7 (l 19X 3.67) cubic yards/year.

A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning district.

5 Stormwater Management

All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations, which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the C-2 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.

In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard does not apply, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply. The stormwater management level of service standard will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and maintaining on-site retention of the stormwater runoff for the most intense use of the property.

As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process.

Recreation

A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the · additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage.

Park Information LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population) Project Demand (Acres) Surplus Acreage 6.61 .79 63.49

Concurrency Summary

Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency-mandated facilities, including stormwater management, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.

Consistency with Comprehensive Plan

Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on

6 the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, 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 rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies.

Future Land Use Element Objective 1

Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern, which reduces urban sprawl. By allowing the site to be developed in a marmer that is consistent with the site's land use designation, the request allows a more compact land use pattern within the urban service area and reduces the chances that urban sprawl will occur. For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium-Density Residential-I, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area.

Since the subject property is located within a11 area designated as M-1 on the county's Future Land Use Map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater tha11 8 units/acre, the proposed request is consistent with Policy 1.13.

Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2

Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and encourage more development on the subject property and the subject property is within the urban · service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.

Consistency Summary

As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staffs position is that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

7 Compatibility with the Surrounding Area

Staffs position is that the requested zoning district is appropriate for the site and that development under this zoning district will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Since the property to the north of the subject property is zoned RM-8, the requested RM-8 zoning district will be a continuation of that multiple family development pattern.

More important is the compatibility between the subject property and the A-1 zoned properties to the west and the RS-6 zoned properties to the east. The properties to the west (Unit 3 of Paradise Park), and the properties to ·the east (Unit 2 of the Paradise Park), contain 50 foot wide, nonconforming lots of record that were created prior to 1985 and are platted for single family development at a density of approximately 5 .14 units per acre.

Overall, the impact that this rezoning request will have on the properties to the east and west is insignificant. There are only 4 parcels that are adjacent to the subject property; two on the east and two on the west. Of the two parcels that are east of the subject property, only one is developed with a single family residence, and it is separated from the subject property by 60 feet of right-of-way. As for the two parcels to the west of the subject property, one is a 2.7 acre parcel that belongs to the cow1ty and is platted as park land. The other parcel is a wooded undeveloped lot. Both parcels to the west are separated from the subject property by approximately 35 feet of platted right-of-way for 92nd Court. For these reasons, the rezoning request will be compatible with the properties to the east and west.

Generally, multi-family development is appropriate proximate to commercial areas. In this case, the subject property is adjacent to C/I designated land to the south and is in close proximity to other commercial developments surrounding the I-95/SR 60 interchange. By being located close to commercial areas, multi-family units can provide housing choices for residents who want to live near employment centers and for residents who want convenient access to shopping areas. This can result in lower automobile trip lengths.

Two factors indicate that an urban type of zoning district would be appropriate for this portion of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the Future Land Use Map. As shown on the Future Land Use Map, the subject property is within the urban service area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with densities of up to 8 units per acre.

Equally important is the development pattern in this portion of the county. This area of the county is primarily developed with residential and commercial uses. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in this portion of the county. Therefore, no incompatibilities between these properties and the subject property are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed rezoning.

For those reasons, staff feels that the requested RM-8 zoning district will be compatible with development in the surrow1ding area.

8 Potential Impact on Environmental Quality

Presently, the subject property is a wooded, undeveloped site with some wetlands. An environmental assessment of the property and mitigation of site resource impacts, as applicable, will be required prior to county approval of any development on the property, regardless of whether or not the property is developed under the current zoning or proposed zoning. Since protection of site resources will be addressed through the regulatory process irrespective of the zoning, staff's finding is that the proposed rezoning will have no adverse environmental impacts.

CONCLUSION .

Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for medium-density multiple-family uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RM-8.

ATTACHMENTS

I. Summary Page 2. Rezoning Application 3. Traffic Impact Summary Report

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\Rzon\Bahia Honda\PZC item Bahia .doc

APPROVE!) AS TO FORM AND LEGAi. SUFFICIENCY av~(~ WILLIAM G. COLLINS II COUNTY ATTORNEY

9 SUMMARY PAGE

GENERAL Applicant: Bahia Honda Real Estate Investments IV L.L.C. Location: West of90th Avenue and approx. 1235 feet north of S.R. 60 Acreage: 6.67 Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium-Density Residential-I (up to 8 units/acres) Existing Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District (up to I unit/ 5 acres) Requested Zoning: RM-8, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) Existing Land Use: Wooded, undeveloped parcel

ADJACENT LAND North: Wooded, undeveloped parcel: Zoned RM-8, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 8 units/acre) South: Wooded, undeveloped parcel: Zoned CG, General Commercial District Wooded, undeveloped: Zoned A-1, Agricultural District (up to I unit/ 5 acres) Residential uses: Zoned Single Family Residential District (up to 6 units/ acre)

INFRASTRUCTURE Water is available from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant and sewer is available from the West Regional Wastewater Plant; access is from 90th Avenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None; Flood Zone X

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Staff Contact: Gale Carmoney Date Advertised: June 13, 2007 # of Surrounding Property Owner Notifications: 21 Date Notification Mailed: June 14, 2007 ... \ Date Sign Posted: June 14, 2007

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the request

10

Attachment 1 . ,,, APPLICATIONFORM REZONINGREQUEST(RZON) -(\\·:~ ct:)'·,, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY /2•\>". ''1::,,., ... .,. ..,, "'-,l ,., r"- . "• • ~ s,i ' ···• Each application must be complete when submitted and must ili~l~de' ~u-,;~ifrd 1,,'.}l attachments. An incomplete application will not be processed and wid:;b.el returned to die ·.,, ·, . applicant. ~ ~~~-~ r~}i ~\· .. ,. _,-:.·•, Assigned Project Number: RZON - rP- 0 D (p D0() :2 :3 ~ ,;,~~~~~- y .\t/:)),'·-· _,.,M,.,,o,·• Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Purchaser) I :istrhi A HoNDA Name: l?eC\1 Gi-lAl( Kimley Horn and Associat es •~~S-lt-leN-1 S T\f , L, L . (.. :r. 601 21 '1 Street Complete MaiHng ~o "fvr.;ic.e .De Leol\J Address: ~Ulk '1.,1Q; ('""'5':.,~"1~1es, Suite 300 Vero Beach FL. 32960 Phone #: (including area (aos) z,;2,S-~ I '511';" code) 794-4035 Keith Pelan Fax #: (including area (80S) 2.2-J- OOCIO code) E-Mail: / Contact .Person: (,tt -,u.n roe(< I . I Signature of Owner o~ . ~ , .

. Property Information

Site Address: Nof':±b o.£ 6 ,q (qO GD we-s+ s/de of: 90 t:),,, Ave

SiteTaxParcell.D.#s: 33·-39>-O3-QQQOl·00!O · OOQOY,O

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) __A[.l.,lc_,/1-'A-~-~------­ '

. Existing Zoning District: ___,,A..,,.• _-.,_I ------"'­ Existing Land Uiie Designation: _ _,_N-'-1.'---'-11.._ __ Requested Zoning District: l<.H- 'a Total (gross) Acreage of Parcel: . ·. ( o: lJJ 7 Aorea.ge (net) to be Amended: __l,e..;-""Lo'-7..,,. .. __

Existing Use on Site: .,....:w.11.14.u_+-L------Proposed Use on Site: ___,_/\1"-.-l--'y.,.,/ ... f ,'__ ~-1,..6..sCl:,../'nu...u../...,/ ,,_1!______4 l

. ATTACHMENT 2 Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

SR 60/90'h AVENUE REZONING- EXECUTIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY (March 2007) II Suite B-100 120119~ Place 1. Location: northside of SR 60 just west of 90th Avenue and across from 22nd Street Vero Beach, Flortda 32960

2. Size: 6.67 acres (A-1 to RM-8), 53 single-family residential units

3. Trip Generation: . Net New Daily Trip Volume= 374vehicular trips Net New A.M. Peak-Hour Volume= 31 vehicular trips Net New P.M. Peak-Hour Volume= 36 vehicular trips

4. Area of Influence Boundaries: • North: SR 60 • South: SR 60 • East: 82nd Avenue • West: I-95

5. Significant Roads: • SR 60 - I-95 to 82nd Avenue

6. Significant Intersections: • None APR O 4 I.OU/

7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A

8. Internal Capture: none

9. Pass-by Capture: none

10. A.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): Multi-Family Housing 17% entering/83% exiting

11. P.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/ egress): Multi-Family Housing 67% entering/33% exiting

12. Traffic Count Factors Applied: none

13. Off-Site Improvements: • None

14. Roadway Capacities (IRC Link Sheets): See Appendb: B • TEL 772 562 79B1 FAX 772 794 936B ATTACHMfNT 3 Kirnley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

15. Assumed roadway and/ or intersection improvements: • none

16. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: Match 2006, study updated March 2007

b) Traffic couuts: None

c) Study approval: ...... J,t -:r/, 9l{) '7 17. SR 60 Interest Share Special Fee The applicant will be required to contribute to the SR 60 Interest Share Special Fee. Final contribution determination will be determined based upon a site specific traffic impact analysis.

H:\47550003\Rezoning\M:arch 2007 Update\1-95 & 90th Avenue~ Traffic Impact Executive Summary.doc • • • • 0

• 0 • • • •

•

,b • . ' a " N 1- .... " 'ii : ...... ---- a ~ ... :,.,' {, o· • R 0 o' \~ • " • • ~, \ j,J,' • • ' 'b ', ; '\' fT/ 'f7 :. .•h•.----••--;;- Ci ),...--",•~.;..-.:,...-+,..c.~-----'~---":-- 1.'-( 66,' 't-4 · · I 'i3 • 3'7. ,., ,o , '... :-- ,,.. t l 'L ... ,_ -, , __'

\6' ~0- ~ 1:! ... - ,, ~L __ -----.i------,' ' Q', • , ' ,.'·o ~ w ' " I ' " " , l ' j': ~,' • ' • • .. • ~, • : 0 • Q

Plct Sb~a0t zone L0ad· -- Po~cent of ?~ajo~t SR 60 / I-~~ TIA f,tOOl'Fl:EO l"Rl::I 2Pr OBFEB06 11 : 1 ~ : 50c, ;t\VLTl•fA,.,cy /(f2bNII% SR 60190th AVENUE· REZONING Traffic counts in the EXISTING column were collected In 2006 Trips Indicated in the VESTED column are as of03!20l2007

REMAINING % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST, VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "Dtt

1010N S.R.A1A S. COUNTY LINE 5. VSCJTYL. 950 325 31 0 37% 10105 S.R.A1A S, COUNTY LINE S. VBCITYL. 950 396 16 0 538"' 43% 1020N S.R.A1A S. VBCJTYL. 17TH STREET 930 830 19 0 81 91% 1020S S.R.A1A S. VBC!TYL 17TH STREET 800 7 0 98% 1030N S.R,A1A 17THSTREET S.R. 50 '"860 604 56 0 200" 77.% 1030S S.R.A1A 17THSTREET S.R. 60 860 635 6 0 219 75% 1040N S.R.A1A S.R. 60 N. VBCITYL, 860 636 7 0 17 98% 1040S S.R.A1A S.R.60 N. VB CllYL. 860 910 6 0 ·56 107% 1050N S.R.A1A N. VBCJTYL. FRED TUERK RD. 860 836 2 0 22 97% 1050S S.R.A1A N, VBCITYL. FRED TUERK RD, 860 910 1 0 -51 106% 1060N S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RO, OLD WINTER BEACH RD 860 580 0 279 68% 1060S S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WINTER BEACH RD 860 469 0 0 392 54% 1070N S.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N. IRS L. 860 534 5 0 321 63% 1070S S.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N. lRS L. 860 472 6 0 382 56% 1080N S.R.A1A N. IRSLN. C.R. 510 860 534 53 0 273 68% 1080S S.R.A1A N. IRSLN, C.R. 510 860 472 38 0 350 59¾ 1090N S.R.A1A C.R.510 N. COUNTY LINE 988 354 46 0 598 40¾ 1090S S.R.A1A C.R. 510 N. COUNTY LINE 998 513 94 0 391 &1¾ 1110N INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 4TH ST.@US1 12THSTREET 1,860 740 8 0 1112 40¾ 1110S IND/AN RIVER BLVD. 4TH ST.@US1 12THSTREET 1,860 1,366 33 0 461 75% 1120N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 1,860 999 0 0 861 54% 1120S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 12TH STREET S. VBCITYL. 1,860 1,425 0 0 435 77¾ 1130N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S. VBClTYL. 17TH STREET 1,860 999 10 0 851 54% 1130S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S. VBCITYL. 17THSTREET 1,860 1,425 0 0 435 77% 1140N IND/AN RIVER BLVD. 17THSTREET 21STSTREET 1,860 1,024 3 0 833 55% 1140S !NDJAN RIVER BLVD. 17THSTREET 21STSTREET 1,860 1,395 0 0 465 75% 1150N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 21STSTREET S.R. 60 1,860 1,420 16 0 424 77% 1150S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 21STSTREET s.R. so 1,860 1,661 0 0 199 89% 1160N JND!AN RIVER BLVD. S.R. 60 W. VB CITYL. 1,860 1,049 64 0 747 60% 11608 INDIAN R!VER BLVD. S.R.60 W. VB CITYL. 1,860 1,120 30 0 710 62¾ 1170N INDIAN RNER BLVD. W. VBCITYL. US 1 @53RD ST. 1,860 589 139 0 1133 39% 1170S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. W. VB CITY L. US 1.@53RD ST. 1,860 932 116 0 ,12 51% 1210N 1-95 N. COUNTY LINE C.R. 512 2,740 1,504 10 0 1226 55% 1210S J-95 N. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 2,740 1,509 15 0 1216 56% 1220N J-95 C.R. 512 S.R.60 2,740 1,510 29 0 1201 56% 1220S 1-95 C.R. 512 S.R.60 2,740 1,519 30 0 1191 57% 1230N 1-95 S.R. 60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,726 44 0 1120 61% 1230S 1-95 S.R. 60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,712 31 0 1147 60% 1240N 1-95 OSLO ROAD S. COUNTY UNE 2,890 1,716 35 0 1139 61% 1240S 1-95 OSLO ROAD S. COUNTY LINE 2,890 1,707 24 0 1159 60% 1305N U.S.1 S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,860 1,197 67 0 596 68% 1305S U.S.1 S.COUr-rrY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,860 1,590 54 0 216 BB% 1310N U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 4TH ST.@ IR BLVD. 2,790 1,412 37 0 1341 52¾ 1310$ U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 4TH ST.@ IR BLVD. 2,790 1,749 60 0 981 65% 1315N U.S.1 4TH ST.@ IR BLVD, 8TH STREET 1,860 1,195 7 0 658 &5% 1315S U.S.1 4TH ST.@IR BLVD. BTHSTREET 1,860 1.484 '9 0 357 81% 1320N U.S.1 8TH STREET 12THSTREET 1.860 1,289 19 0 552 70¾ 1320S u.s.1 BTH STREET 12TH STREET 1,860 1,472 38 0 350 81% 1325N U.S.1 12TH STREET S. VBCITYL. 1,710 1,221 36 0 453 74% 1325S u.s.1 12TH STREET S. VB CITY l, 1,710 1,301 51 0 358 79% SR 60190th AVENUE· REZONING Traffic counts in the EXISTING column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the VESTED column are as of 03/20{2007

REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 1330N U.S.1 S. VBCJTYL. 17TH STREET 1,710 1,120 36 0 554 68% 1330S U.S.1 $. VB CITY L. 17TH STREET 1,710 1,329 52 0 329 a1% 1335N u.s.1 17TH STREET S.R.60 1,510 1,175 59 0 276 82% 1335S U.S.1 17TH STREET S.R.60 1,510 1,207 75 0 228 85% 1340N U.S.f S.R. 80 ROYAL PALM PL 1,510 901 86 0 523 66¾ 1340S U.S.1 S.R. 60 ROYAL PALM PL 1,510 1,124 182 0 204 86% 1345N U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL ATLANTIC BLVD. 1,710 1,084 108 0 518 70% 1345S U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL ATLANTIC BLVD. 1,710 970 158 0 582 66% 1350N U.S.1 ATLANTIC BLVD. N. VBCITYL. 2,010 1,508 135 0 367 82% 1350$ U.S.1 ATLANTIC BLVD. N,VBC!TYL. 2,010 1,612 180 0 218 8~% 1355N U.S.1 N. VB CllY L. OLD DIXIE HWY 2,010 1,634 166 210 SO% 1355S U.S.1 N. VB CITY L. OLD DIXIE HWY 2,010 1,288 177 535 73% 1360N U.S.1 OLD DIXIE H\rVY 41ST STREET 2,010 1,712 169 0 129 94% 1360S U.$,1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 2,010 1,079 127 0 804 60% 1365N U.S.1 41STSTREET 45TH STREET 2,010 1,451 187 0 372 81% 1365S U.S.1 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 2,010 1,021 156 0 833 59% 1370N U.S.1 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 2,010 1,425 191 0 394 80% 1370S U.S.1 45THSTREET 49TH STREET 2,010 930 163 0 917 54% 1375N U.S.1 49THSTREET 65TH STREET 2,010 1,728 270 0 12 99% 1375S U.S.1 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 2,010 1,087 213 0 710 65% 13BON U.S,1 65TH STREET 69THSTREET 2,232 1,711 174 0 347 84¾ 1380S U.S.1 65THSTREET 69TH STREET 1,860 1,070 164 0 626 66¾ 1385N U.S.1 69THSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY 2,232 1,675 166 0 391 B2% 1385S U.S.1 69THSTREET OLD DIX!E HWY 1,860 1,034 138 0 688 63% 1390N U.S.1 OLD DIX!E HWY SCHUMANN OR. 2,210 1.411 155 0 644 71% 1390S U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR. 1,860 915 134 0 811 56¾ 1395N U.S.1 SCHUMANN OR, C.R. 512 1,860 1,300 84 0 476 74¾ 1395S U.S.1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 512 1,860 973 100 0 787 58% 1400N U.S.1 C.R. 512 N.SEB.CITYL. 1,710 1,272 60 0 378 78% 1400S U.S.1 C.R. 512 N. SEB. CITY L. 1,710 1,171 76 0 463 73% 1405N U.S.1 N. SEB. CITY L. ROSELAND RD, 1,860 1,~18 42 0 500 73% 1405S U.S.1 N. SEB. CITY L. ROSEL.AND RD. 1,860 1,323 58 0 479 74% 1410N U.S.1 ROSELAND RO. N. COUNTY L!NE 1,860 1,158 8 0 63% 1410S U.S.1 ROSELAND RD. N. COUN'TY LINE 1,860 965 33 0 "'862 54% 1510N SCHUMANN DR. C.R 510@66TH AVE. S. SEB. CITY L. 860 705 11 0 144 83% 1510S SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 510@ 66THAVE, S. SEB. CITY L 860 337 17 0 506 41% 1520N SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB. CITY L. U.S.1 860 118 1 0 735 15% 1520S SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB. CITY L. U.S.1 860 66 12 0 782 9% 1610E ROSELAND RD. S.R. 512 N. SEB. CITY l. 860 325 14 0 521 39% 1610W ROSELAND RD. S.R. 512 N. SEB. CITY L 860 335 16 0 509 41% 1620E ROSELAND RD. N, SEB. C!TY L. u.s.1 860 301 18 0 541 37% 1620W ROSELAND RD. N, SEB. CITY L. u.s., 860 '77 6 0 477 45% 1710E C.R. 512 S.R. 60 1-95 860 386 81 0 387 55% 1710W C.R. 512 S.R. 60 !-95 860 704 14 0 142 83% 1720E C.R. 512 1-95 C.R.510 1,B60 656 245 0 959 48% 1720W C.R.512 1-95 C.R. 510 1,860 823 30 0 1007 46% 1730E C.R.512 C.R. 510 W.SEB.CITYL. 1,860 730 41 0 1089 41% 1730W C.R. 512 C.R. 510 W. SES. CITY l. 1,860 716 45 0 1099 41% 1740E C.R. 512 W. SEB. CITY L. ROSELAND RD. 1,860 952 40 0 868 53% 1710W C.R. 512 W. SEB. CITY L. ROSELAND RD. 1,860 732 44 0 1084 42% SR 60 / 90th AVENUE· REZONING Traffic counts in the EXISTING column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the VESTED column a_re as of D3/20/2007

REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 17SOE C.R,512 ROSELAND RD. U.S.1 1,860 611 0 1224 34% 1750W C.R. 512 ROSELAND RD. U.S.1 1,860 700 24" 0 1136 39% 1810E C.R.510 C.R.512 66THAVE. 1,860 538 469 0 853 54¾ 1810W C.R.510 C.R. 512 66THAVE. 1,860 776 104 0 960 47¾ 1820E C.R.510 66THAVE. S8THAVE. 1,860 512 118 0 1230 34o/, 1820W C,R,510 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 1,860 718 120 0 1022 45% 1830E C.R.510 58THAVE. U.S.1 1,860 544 1'6 0 1180 37¾ 1830W C.R. 510 SBTHAVE. U.S,1 1,860 774 125 0 961 '18% 1840E C.R. 510 U.S.1 S.R.A1A 1,900 571 191 0 1138 40% 1840W C.R. 510 u.s.1 S.R. A1A 1,900 1,021 210 0 65% 1905E S,R. 60 W. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 1,810 217 11 0 1582"' 13% 1905W S.R. 60 W. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 1,810 254 13 0 1543 15¾ 1907E S.R. 60 C.R.512 100THAVE. 1,810 258 1 0 1551 14°/o 1907W S.R. 60 c.R.512 100THAVE. '1,810 257 0 1550 14¾ 1910E S.R.60 100THAVE. J-95 1,860 325 140' 0 1395 25¾ 1910W S.R. 60 100THAVE, 1.95 1,860 286 213 0 1361 27% 1915E S.R.60 1-95 82NDAVE. 1,860 1,391 289 0 180 90% 1915W S,R. 60 l-95 82NDAVE. 2,000 1,593 263 16 128 94¾ 1920E S.R. 60 82NDAVE. 66THAVE. 2.120 1,550 467 0 103 95¾ 6 ·-;,-~~·g .. 0 . : ··f.?4- :19JR;fi!~{~\fW.c: ., \'.isw~~:"t~E:.-. .'. eyf~A;Yff \ :'#.!12.0.-~:- i, .>Ji1~$c~~: :-ti!~.~~·· 1925E s.R. so 66THAVE. 58THAVE, 2,790 1,641 335 814 71% 1925W S.R. 60 66THAVE. 58TH AVE. 2,790 1,652 386 0 752 73% 1930E s.R. 60 SSTHAVE. 43ROAVE. 2,790 1.399 280 0 1111 60'½ 1930W S.R. 60 SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE. 2,790 1.497 386 0 907 67'¼ 1935E S.R,60 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 2,790 1,315 249 0 1226 1935W S.R. 60 43ROAVE. 27THAVE. 2.790 1,544 35S 0 893 "''68% 1940E S.R.60 27THAVE, 20THAVE. 2,790 1,158 188 0 1444 48% 1940W S.R. 60 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 2,790 1,371 254 0 1135 1945E S.R.60 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,135 1'2 0 1985 '"' 1945W SR.SO 20THAVE, OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,268 186 0 1798 ''" 1950E S.R60 OLD DIXIE HWY iOTHAVE. 3,252 1,258 83 0 1911 ""41% 1950W s.R. eo OLD DIXJE HWY 10TH AVE. 3.252 1,051 116 2085 36% 1955E S.R. 60 10THAVE. U.S.1 3,252 1,100 BO 0 2072 1955W s.R.60 iOTHAVE. u.s.1 3,252 757 100 0 2395 26%"" 1960E s.R. eo U.S.1 lNDIAN RlVER BLVD. 3,252 789 17 0 2446 25% 1960W s.R. so u.s.1 !NDJAN RIVER BLVD. 3'52 513 15 0 2724 16% 1965E s.R. 60 INOJAN R!VeR BLVD, ICWW 1,860 908 7 0 945 1965W S.R. 60 JNDJAN RIVER BLVD. ICWW 1,860 1.263 3 0 684 '"'68% 1970E S.R.60 ICWW S.R.A1A 1,860 920 7 0 933 SC% 1970W $.R. 60 ICWW S.R.A1A 1,860 991 8 0 861 54% 2020E 16THSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 160 49 0 651 24% 2020W 16TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE, 860 240 38 0 582 32'¼ 2030E 16TH STREET 43RD AVE. 27TH AVE, 860 348 47 0 465 46% 2030W 16TH STREET 43RDAVE:. 27TH AVE. 860 507 38 0 315 63¾ 2040E 16THSTREET 2TTHAVE. 20THAVE. 860 390 32 0 438 49% 2040W 16THSTREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 579 53 0 228 73% 2050E 16TH STREET 2DTHAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 597 31 0 182 78% 20SQW. ..1~_i_'H ~\[EE:T _ 20T-HAVE;-_ , . :,.OLD DIXIE H'#f· ·:a1o 775 "45 '0 · ..10 . · :-)101%-, 2060E 16THf17TH STREET O~D 01XiE HWY U.S.1 1,710 562 52 0 1076 37% 2060W 16TH/17TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.$.1 1,710 624 50 0 1036 39¾ SR 60 190th AVENUE - REZONING Traffic counts in the E:XISTING column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the VESTED column are as of 03/2012007

REMAINING %otl.os LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WI PROJECT 'D" 2110E 17THS1REET U.S.1 INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 1,710 560 29 0 1121 34% 2110w 17THSTREET u.s.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD, 1,710 754 23 0 9~3 45% 212DE 17TH STREET IND!AN RIVER BLVD. S.R.A1A 1,860 1,049 26 0 785 58% 2120W 1TTH STREET IND JAN RIVER BL VD. S.R,A1A 1,660 1,298 16 0 71% 2210E 12TH STREET 82NDAVE, SBTHAVE. 670 15 3 0 "'852 2% 2210W 12THSTREET 82ND AYE. SBTHAVE. 870 17 0 0 853 2% 2220E 12TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 180 38 0 642 25% 2220w 12THSTREET SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE, 860 254 29 0 577 33% 2230E 12THSTREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 313 16 0 531 38% 2230W 12THSTREET 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 471 13 0 376 56% 2240E 12TH STREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 402 11 0 447 48% 2240W 12TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 562 11 267 67% 2250E 12TH STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 489 7 0 364 58% 2250W 12THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 711 11 0 136 64% 2260E 12TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,368 227 0 0 1141 17% 2260W 12TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1.366 760 10 0 S6% 2305N OLD DIXIE H\W S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 860 358 113 0 "'391 55% 2305S OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 860 491 21 0 348 60% 2310N OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 860 '29 43 0 4'6 43% 2310S OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 860 463 41 0 336 61% 2315N OLD DIXIE HWY 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 810 484 39 0 m 65% 2315S OLD DIXIE HWY 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 810 630 39 0 141 83% 2320N OLD DIXIE HWY 8TH STREET 12THSTREET 810 529 21 0 260 68% 2320S OLD DIXIE HWY 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 810 704 24 0 82 90% 2325N OLD DIXIE HWY 12THSTREET S. VB CITY L 810 396 7 0 407 50% 2325S OLD DIXIE HWY 12THSTREET S. VBC!TYL. 810 391 0 411 49% 2330N OLD DIXIE HWY S. VBC!TYL. 16THSTREET 850 396 '8 0 446 48% 2330S OLDDIXIEHINY S. VBCITYL. 16THSTREET 850 391 6 0 453 47% 2335N OLD DIXIE HWY 16TH STREET S.R. 60 850 284 33 0 533 37% 2335S OLD DIXIE HWY 16THSTREET S.R.60 850 239 22 0 589 31% 2345N OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 45THSTREET 860 176 49 0 635 26% 2345S OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 860 181 35 0 644 25% 2350N OLD DIXIE HWY 45THSTREET 49TH STREET 660 136 61 0 663 23% 2350S OLD O!X!E HWY 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 860 114 42 0 704 18% 2355N OLD DIXIE HWY 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 860 132 108 0 620 28% 2355S OLD DIXIE HWY 49THSTREET 65TH STREET 860 149 92 0 619 28% 2360N OLD DIXIE HV\IY 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 860 218 30 0 612 29% 2360S OLD DIXIE HWY 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 860 23 0 750 13% 2365N OLD DIXIE HV\IY 69TH STREET C.R. 510 ,so 145" 17 0 698 19% 2365S OLD DIXIE HWY 69TH STREET C.R.510 860 129 12 719 1so;. 2410N 27THAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,066 519 314 0 235 78% ;;:::i!Q9"·· ·24108. :~ttf.fA~~!'JUE >: ~J.P9H/'lJY.LINf;_ ·. o·stoi!"S'.".-fi ... :i::O!!a::, ,·aoQ,:1 \in· ... ,tiq~/·. "2420N 27rHAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,066 548 209 311 71% .2420S· ··2ry,A_&)~H~ ~·~!ft~.g.~o~: t ' · :'l!-T-H. SJ~E.ET;:' · . j-Aa_B .•:.:7,:5.e:.· .·3,25_-... - y.·. ·:.Q•·· . :.'26 Jt~.~· ·24·soN 27THAVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH'::.TREET 1,020 462 149 0 409 60% 1 ~4.30S 1_7:TH .1-: VENUE ·.·,

REMAINING % ofLOS L!NK ON STRE:ET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D~ 2460N 27THAVENUE $, VB CITY L. 16TH STREET 1,020 456 81 0 483 53% 2460S 27THAVENUE S. VB CITY L. 16TH STREET 1,020 784 138 0 98 !JO% 2470N 27THAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R 60 1,020 411 40 0 569 44% 2470S 27THAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,020_ 704 70 0 246 76% 2480N 27TH AVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD, 810 267 19 0 534 '4% 2480S 27THAVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 810 439 0 343 58% 2510N 27TH AVENUE ATLANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 439 "8 363 55% 2510S 27THAVENUE ATLANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 756 14 0 40 95% 2530E OSLO ROAD 82NDAVE. 58TH AVE. 870 245 5 0 620 29% 2530W OSLO ROAD 82NOAVE, 58THAVE. B70 197 0 672 23% 2540E OSLO ROAD 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 1,953 561 247 0 1145 41% 2540W OSLO ROAD 58THAVE. 43RD AVE. 1,953 483 128 0 1342 31% 2550E OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1,953 741 227 0 985 50% 2550W OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 1,953 703 209 0 1041 47% 2560E OSLO ROAD 27THAVE. 20TH AYE. 1,953 564 173 0 1216 38% 2560W OSLO ROAD 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 1,953 695 143 0 1115 43% 2570E OSLO ROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 595 298 0 1060 46% 2570W OSLO ROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 8•5 189 0 959 51% 25SDE OSLO ROAD OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,953 519 75 0 1359 30% 2580W OSLO ROAD OLD DIXIE HWf U.S.1 1,953 631 81 0 1241 36% 261DE STHAVENUE 17TH STREET S. VB CJTYL, 860 299 0 560 35% 2610N STHAVENUE 17THSTREET S.VBCITYL 86• 450 0 409 52% 2610S STHAVENUE 17THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 860 732 127 85% 2620N STHAVENUE $. VBCJTYL. S.R.60 850 470 2 0 378 56% 26208 6THAVENUE S. VBClTYL. S.R,60 850 567 0 282 67% 2710N 10THAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 78 23 0 711 12% 2710S 10THAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 73 23 0 714 12% 2720N 10THAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17TH STREET 810 216 24 570 30% 2720S 10THAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17TH STREET 810 238 23 0 549 32% 2810N 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 860 402 126 0 332 61% 2810S 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 880 563 154 143 83% 2820N 20THAVENUE 4TH STREET BTH STREET 810 360 65 0 385 52% 2820S 20THAVENUE 4TH STREET STHSTREET 810 693 86 0 32 96% 2830N 20THAVENUE 811-1 STREET 12TH STREET 810 435 43 332 59% 2830S 20THAVENUE 8TH STREET 12THSTREET 810 689 59 0 62 92% 2840N 20THAVENUE 12TH STREET s.ve CITY L. 1,710 442 27 0 1241 27% 2840S 20THAVENUE 12THSTREET $. VBCITYL. 1,710 596 34 0 1080 37% 2850N 20THAVENUE S. VBCITYL. 16THSTREET 1,800 442 16 0 1342 25% 2850S 20THAVENUE S. VB ClTYL. 16TI-l STREET 1,800 596 33 0 1171 35% 2860N 20THAVENUE 16TH STREET S.R, 60 1,800 332 23 0 1445 20% .2860S 20THAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R. 60 1,600 4,0 42 0 1328 26% 2870N 20THAVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 850 166 24 0 660 22% 2870S 20THAVENUE S.R,60 ATLANTIC BlVD. 850 130 58 0 662 22% 2905N 43RDAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 354 208 0 388 59% 2905S 43RDAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 311 323 0 316 67% 2910N 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 1,068 439 375 0 254 76% 2910S 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,068 541 284 0 243 77% 2915N 43ROAVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 1,020 473 162 0 385 62% 2915S 43ROAVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 1,020 671 237 112 89% 2920N 43ROAVENUE 8TH STREE;l i2THSTREET 1,071 482 157 0 432 60% SR 60 190th AVENUE· REZONING Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were collected in 2008 Trips indicated in the VESTED column are as of 03/20/2007

REMAINING %of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACl1Y EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 2920S 43RDAVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,071 653 219 199 81% 2925N 43RDAVENUE 12THSTREET 16TH STREET 1,071 502 136 0 431 60% 2925S 43RDAVENUE 12THSTREET 16TH STREET 1,071 656 189 0 224 79% 2930N 43RDAVENUE 16TH STREET S.R.60 1,796 581 151 0 1064 41% 2930S 43RDAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,796 197 906 50% 2935N 43RDAVENUE S.R. 60 6"' 26TH STREET 1,796 467 137 0 1192 34% 2935S 43RDAVENUE S.R.60 26TH STREET 1,796 612 133 0 1051 41% 2940N 43RDAVENUE 26TH STREET 41ST STREET 650 423 223 214 75% 2940S 43RDAVENUE 26TH STREET 41STSTREET 860 488 220 0 152 82% 2945N 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH STREET 860 332 169 0 359 58% 2945S 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 660 333 121 0 406 53% 2950N 43RDAVENUE 45THSTREET 49TH STREET 860 245 155 0 460 47% 2950S 43RDAVENUE 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 660 180 104 570 33% 3005N 58THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 383 95 1402 25% 3005S 58THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 1,860 411 129 1320 29% 3010N 58THAVENUE 4THSTREET 8TH STREET 1,710 657 72 0 981 43% 3010S 58TH AVENUE 4THSTREET 8TH STREET 1,710 712 96 0 902 47% 3015N 58THAVENUE 8THSTREET 12THSTREET 1,710 815 99 0 796 53% 3015S 58THAVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,710 1,138 116 0 456 73% 3020N 58THAVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 1,710 944 147 0 619 64% 3020S 58TH AVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1.710 1,046 158 0 506 70% 3025N 58THAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,710 983 219 0 508 70% 3025S 58THAVENUE 16THSTREET s.R.60 1,710 1,035 246 0 429 75% 3030N SBTHAVENUE S.R.60 41ST STREET 1,860 1,137 246 477 74% 3030S 58THAVENUE S.R. 60 41STSTREET 1,860 1,109 168 583 69% 3035N 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 660 587 205 0 68 52% 3035S 58THAVENUE 418TSTREET 45TH STREET 860 538 99 0 223 74% 3040N 58THAVENUE 45TH STREET 49THSTREET 860 496 187 0 177 79% 30408 SBTHAVENUE 45TH8TREET 49THSTREET 860 487 95 278 68¾ 3045N 58THAVENUE 49THSTREET 65TH STREET 860 479 155 226 74% 30458 58TH AVENUE 49THSTREET 65TH STREET 860 402 115 0 343 60% 3050N 58TH AVENUE 65THSTREET 69TH STREET 660 432 90 0 338 61% 3050S 58TH AVENUE 65THSTREET 69TH STREET 860 356 110 0 394 54% 3055N 58THAVENUE 69THSTREET C,R.510 860 3"7 81 0 412 52% 3055S 58THAVENUE 69THSTREET C.R.510 860 292 118 0 450 48% 3120N 66THAVENUE 8.R. 60 26TH STREET 860 463 164 0 233 73% 3120S 66THAVENUE S.R. 60 26TH STREET 860 432 129 0 299 65% 3130N 66THAVENUE 26TH8TREET 41ST STREET 660 548 159 0 156 82% 3130S 66THAVENUE 26THSTREET 41ST8TREET 860 398 119 343 60% 3140N SBTHAVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH8TREET 950 559 69 0 322 66% 3140S 66THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH STREET ,so 367 58 0 525 45% 3150N 66THAVENUE 45THSTREET 65TH STREET 870 537 73 260 70% 3150S 66THAVENUE 45THSTREET 65TH STREET 870 331 60 0 479 45% 31BON 66THAVENUE 65THSTREET 69THSTREET 870 537 42 0 291 67% 3160S 66THAVENUE 65THSTREET 69TH STREET 870 301 41 0 526 39% 3170N 66TH AVENUE 69THSTREET C.R. 510 870 561 57 0 252 71¾ 3170S 66TH AVENUE 69TH STREET C.R.510 870 314 47 0 509 41% 3310N B2NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 950 180 5 0 765 . 19¾ 3310S 82NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 950 166 8 0 776 18% 3320N 82NDAVENUE 4TH STREET 12TH STREET 950 196 15 0 73S 22¾ SR 60190th AVENUE~ REZONING Traffic counts In the EXISTING column were collected in 2006 Trips Indicated in the VE!STED column are as of 03/20/2007

REMAINING ¾ofLOS UNK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 3320S 82NDAVENUE 4TH STREET 12TH STREET 950 184 20 746 21¾ 3330N 82NDAVENUE 1211-l STREET S.R.60 860 239 64 0 557 35% 3330S B2NOAVENUE 12TH STREET S.R. 60 860 144 33 0 21% 3340N 82NDAVENUE S.R. 60 65THSTREET 410 18 5 0 "'387 6% 3340S 82NDAVENUE S.R.60 65TH STREET 410 76 6 0 20% 3350N 82NOAVENUE 65THSTREET 69THSTREET 410 19 0 "'390 5% 3350S 82NDAVENUE 65THSTREET . 69TH STREET 410 23 0 0 307 6% 3360N 98THAVENUE BTHSTREET 12THSTREET 860 13 43 0 804 7% 3360S 98THAVENUE STHSTREET 12TH STREET 860 13 79 0 768 11% 3370N 98THAVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 860 72 10B 0 680 21% 3370S 98THAVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 860 50 197 0 613 29% 3380N 98THAVENUE 16TH STREET SR60 860 73 108 0 679 21% 3380S 98THAVENUE 16THSTREET SR60 860 48 197 0 615 28% 3390N 98THAVENUE SR60 26TH STREET 660 24 0 0 836 3% 3390S 98TH AVENUE SR60 26TH STREET 860 14 0 0 846 2% 3610E nTH STREET 66THAVE, U.S.1 620 70 11 0 739 10% 3610W 77TH STREET 66THAVE. U.S.1 620 174 9 0 637 22% 3710E 69TH STREET 82NDAVE. 66TH AVE. 410 16 16 0 376 8% 3710W 69TH STREET 82NDAVE, 66THAVE. 410 48 18 0 344 16% 3720E 69TH STREET 66THAVE, 58THAVE, 670 13 0 818 6% 3720W 69TH STREET 66THAVE. 58TH AVE, 870 "66 1B 0 784 10~;. 3730E 69TH STREET 58THAVE. OLD DlX!E HWY 870 53 26 0 791 9% 3730W 69TH STREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 70 18 0 78.2 10% 3740E 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 47 11 0 812 7% 3740W 69THS"TREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 59 13 '798 8% 3820E 65THSTREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 870 44 21 0 805 7% 3820W 65TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 670 32 4 834 4% 3830E 65THSTREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 86 30 0 754 13% 3830W 65TH STREET SBTHAVE. OLD D!X!E H'M' 870 90 22 0 756 13% "3840E 65TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 51 0 810 7% 3B40W 65TH STREET OLD DiXIE HWY U.S,1 870 66 10' 0 794 9% 4220E 49TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 28 35 0 797 7% 4220W 49TH STREET 66THAVE. SBTHAVE. B60 31 19 0 610 6% 4230E 49TH STREET SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE. B60 135 28 0 697 19% 4230W 49TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 660 200 19 641 25% 4240E 49TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 610 216 113 481 41% 4240W 49TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 144 90 0 576 29% 4250E 49TH STREET OLD DiXIE H\rVY U.S.1 610 221 30 0 559 31% 4250W 49TH STREET OLD DIXIE H\rVY U.S.1 810 157 21 0 632 22% 4320E 45TH STREET 66THAVE. 5BTHAVE. B60 157 21 0 662 21% 4320W 45TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 136 10 0 714 17% 4330E 45TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RD AVE. 860 177 42 0 641 25% 4330W 45TH STREET 56THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 207 42 0 611 29% 4340E 45TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 321 77 462 46% 4340W 45TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 432 62 0 346 60% 4350E 45TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD, 660 186 75 0 597 31% 4350W 45TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. B60 273 82 0 605 41% 4420E 41STSTREET 66THAVE, 5BTHAVE. 870 102 33 0 735 16¾ 4420W 41STSTREET 66THAVE. 56TH AVE. 870 141 15 0 714 18% 4430E 41STSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 1B1 55 0 624 27% SR 60190th AVENUE· REZONING Traffic counts in the EXISTING column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the VESTED column are as of 03/20/2007

REMAINING % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT "D" 4430W 41STSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 262 73 0 525 39% 4440E 41STSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 205 116· 0 539 37% 4440W 41STSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 212 48 0 600 30% 4450E 41STSTREET OLD D)XIE HWY · INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 133 18 709 18% 4450W 41ST STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 960 18 0 9% 4460E 37TH STREET u.s.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 448" 1 0 "'411 52% 4460W 37TH STREET U.S.1 !NDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 638 21 0 201 77% 4720E 26TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 352 135 0 373 57% 4720W 26TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 500 106 0 254 70% 473DE 26TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 405 41 0 414 52% 4730W 26TH STREET SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 607 57 0 196 17% 4740E 26TH STREET 43RDAVE, AVIATION BLVD. 860 508 30 0 322 63% 4740W 26TH STREET 43RDAVE. AVIATION BLVD. 860 666 35 0 159 82% 4750E 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD. 27THAVE. 860 197 12 0 651 24% 4750W 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD. 27THAVE. 860 180 19 0 661 23% 4B30E BTHSTREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 292 17 0 551 36% 4630W 8TH STREET SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 213 10 0 637 26% 4840E 6TH STREET 43ROAVE. 27THAVE. 860 352 55 453 47% 4640W 8TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 521 36 0 303 65% 4B50E 8TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 354 14 0 492 43% 4B50W 8TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 660 555 13 0 292 66% 4860E 8TH STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIX!E HWY 910 359 86 0 365 55% 4860W 8TH STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 711 27 0 72 91% 4870E BTHSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 326 20 0 464 43% 4870W 8TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 715 29 0 66 92% 48BOE BTHSTREET U.S.1 JNDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 297 3 0 560 35% 4880W 8TH STREET U.S.1 IND!AN RIVER BLVD. 860 577 4 0 279 68% 4910E 4TH STREET 82NDAVE. 58TH AVE. 870 80 25 0 765 12¼ 4910W 4TH STREET 82NDAVE. 5BTHAVE. 870 121 7 742 15% 4930E 4THSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 228 15 0 617 28% 4930W 4TH STREET SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE. 660 288 11 0 561 35% 4940E 4TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 293 26 0 541 37% 4940W 4TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 365 23 0 472 45% 4950E 4TH STREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 339 9 0 ~12 40% 4950W 4THSTREET 27TH AVE. 20THAVE. 860 505 11 0 344 60% 4960E 4THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD D!XlE HWY 860 383 37 0 440 49% 4960W 4TH STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 675 53 0 232 73¾ 4970E 4THSTREET OLD DIX!E HwY U.S.1 810 569 17 0 224 72% 4970W 4TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 532 29 0 249 69% '5610E FRED TUERK DR. A1A W. OF COCONUT DR. 860 115 0 0 745 13% 5610W FRED TUERK DR. A1A W. OF COCONUT DR. 860 92 0 0 768 11% 5710E WINTER BEACH RD. A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 64 0 795 8% 5710W WINTER BEACH RD. A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 54 0 0 806 6% 5810E ATLANTIC BLVD. 27TH AVE. 20THAVE. 860 141 6 713 17¼ 5810W ATLANTIC BLVD. 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 257 7 0 596 31% 5820E ATLANTIC BLVD. 20TH AVE. u.s.1 860 123 41 0 696 19% 5820W ATLANTIC BLVD. 20THAVE. U.S.1 860 171 104 0 32¾ 5910E AVIATION BLVD. 26TH STREET 27THAVE. 1,280 547 10 0 '"723 44% 5910W AVIATION BLVD. 26TH STREET 27THAVE. 1,280 732 44 0 so, 61¾ 6010E ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL PALM PL. INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 394 9 0 477 46% 6010W ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL PALM PL. INDlAN RIVER BLVD. 860 197 9 0 674 23% 6110E ROYAL PALM PL. U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. BBO 223 20 0 637 28% 6110W ROYAL PALM PL. u.s.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 444 19 0 417 53%

H:\47550003\Rezoning\{Link Tables REVISED 03-20-07.xls]Link Percent Publi~ Hearing (Quasj-Judicial) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

elopment Director

THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Ran e Planning .s; ·/(,

FROM: Gale Carmoney; Senior Planner, Long-Range Plannin~

DATE: June 7, 2007

RE: Royal Professional Builders' Request to Rezone 29.63 acres from A-1 to RS-3 (RZON 2005070188-54077)

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of Jtme 28, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

This request is to rezone approximately 29.63 acres from A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres), to RS-3, Single-Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre). The subject property is located south of 33 rd Street and approximately 1650 feet west of 66th Avenue. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the site with residential uses at a density consistent with the allowed density of its comprehensive plan land use designation.

Existing Land Use Pattern

Generally, this area of the county contains a mix of agriculture and residential uses. Zoned A-1, the subject property contains two houses and several accessory buildings; a majority of the property has been used for agricultural purposes. Land to the north of the subject property and across 33 rd Avenue is outside of the urban service area, is zoned A-1, and includes several properties that contain residential dwellings. Land west of the subject property is zoned A-1, and is the site of the Florida Research Center for Agricultural Sustainability Inc. Land to the south of the subject property is zoned RM-6 and contains Walker Avenue Club, a multiple family apartment complex that is developed at a density of approximately 5.9 units/acre. East of the subject property, land is zoned RS-3 and is the site of Trillium West which is approved for development at 2.56 units/acre.

1 Location and Zoning of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

Future Land Use Pattern

The subject property and land to the east and west is within the county's urban service area and is designated L-1, Low-Density Residential-I, on the county's Future Land Use Map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. Land to the south is also within the urban service area and is designated as L-2, Low Density Residential-2, on the county's Future Land Use Map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre.

North of the subject property, land is outside of the urban service area and is designated as AG-I, Agricultural-I, on the county's Future Land Use Map. This land use designation permits both agricultural and residential uses with residential densities of up to I unit/5 acres.

Environment

The subject property has been developed with agricultural and residential uses; therefore, it is an altered site. No wetlands or native upland plant communities exist on site. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property lies within Flood Zone X.

Utilities and Services

The subject property is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the site from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant.

2 Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

AG-1

3RD Street

ice B und ry I L-1 29.63 acres IL-1 IProposed RS-3 I

-1 L-2

1

Transportation System

The property's north boundary is the A-4 Canal and 33 rd Street. This segment of 33 rd Street is an unpaved road with approximately 30 feet of right-of-way, and is classified as a rural major collector on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. The canal, which is between 33 rd Street and the subject property's northern boundary, has 30 feet of right-of-way. There are currently no planned road improvements for 33 rd Street listed within the County's Comprehensive Plan through the year 2025. When development occurs on the subject property, the developer will be responsible for acquiring any additional right-of-way· and making the street improvements necessary for access to the subject property.

ANALYSIS

In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include:

• The request's impact on public facilities; • The request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • The request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • The request's potential impact on environmental quality.

3 Concurrency of Public Facilities

This site is located within the county urban service area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation. 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 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. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use ( according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:

I. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 29.63 acres

2. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5 acres)

3. Proposed Zoning District: RS-3, Single-Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acres)

4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning District: 5 Single-Family Units

5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning District: 88 Single-Family Units

Transportation

As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submilled a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). A TIA reports 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 zoning district, and assigns those trips on the county's thoroughfare roadway network within the project's area of influence. That area of influence consists of roadway segments that receive eight (8) or more pealc season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for a two-lane roadway or fifteen (15) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for a four-lane (or wider) roadway.

According to the approved TIA, development of 88 single-family units on the subject property will not lower the existing level of service of impacted roads. A summary of the Traffic Impact Analysis is provided in Attachment 3.

4 With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 88 residential units, resulting in water consun1ption at a rate of approximately 88 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 22,000 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Development on the subject property would be served by the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed rezoning.

Wastewater

Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 88 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 22,000 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERU/day. Cotmty wastewater service is available to the site from the West Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.

Solid Waste

Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 3.67 cubic yards/person/year. With the county's average of approximately 2.25 persons/unit, a 88 unit residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 198 people (2.25 X 88). For the subject request to meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 3.67 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 726 (198 X 3.67) cubic yards/year.

A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning district.

Stormwater Management

All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations, which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the C-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any nmoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.

In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards does not apply, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply. The stormwater management level of service standard will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximun1 discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and maintaining on-site retention of the stormwater runoff for the most intense use of the property.

5 As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process.

Recreation

A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted level of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage.

Park Information LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population) Project Demand (Acres) Surplus Acreage 6.61 1.31 63.49

Concurrency Summary

Based upon the analysis .conducted, staff has determined that concurrency-mandated facilities, including stormwater management, traffic, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.

Consistency with Comprehensive Plan

Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable 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.

The goals, objectives and pGlicies 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 the following objectives and policies.

Future Land Use Element Objective 1

Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern, which reduces urban sprawl. By allowing the site to be developed in a manner that is consistent with the site's land use designation, the request allows a more compact land use pattern within the urban service area and reduces the chances that urban sprawl will occur. For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective I.

6 SUMMARY PAGE

GENERAL Applicant: Royal Professional Builders Inc. Location: South of33rd Street and approx. 1650 feet west of66th Ave Acreage: 29.63 Land Use Designation: L-1, Low-Density Residential-I (up to 3 units/acres) Existing Zoning: A-1, Agricultural-I District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) Requested Zoning: RS-3, Single-Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) Existing Uses: Agriculture and residential uses

ADJACENT LAND North: Residential and agricultural uses outside of USA; zoned A-1, Agriculture-I District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) East: Trillium West; RS-3, Single-Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) West: Florida Research Center for Ag Sustainability; zoned A-1, Agriculture-I District (up to I unit/5 acres) South: Walker Avenue Club; zoned RM-6, Multiple Family Residential District, (up to 6 units/acre)

INFRASTRUCTURE Water from the South County Reverse Osmosis Plant and sewer is available from the West Regional Wastewater Plant; access from 33rd Street.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Staff Contact: Gale Carmoney Date Advertised: June 13, 2007 # of Surrounding Property Owner Notifications: 11 Date Notification Mailed: June 14, 2007 Date Sign Posted: June 14, 2007

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the request

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGALSUFFIC::?/ BV~~('.,...b-"-- ,f'erWILLIAM G. COLLINS II · COUNTY ATTORNEY

Attachment 1 10 \ •fs,1>l'off2Qv~ - ,UJ/4 APPLICATION FORM 1 '.ZY REZONING REQUEST (RZON) ~ <,.,, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY Nr,,.,...... ,..,,;..,·,:i,• .... 1(\ Ji!" . ~ \ \\~~:Y--~,S.\t:_).. /) Ui 0 Each application must be complete when submitted and must ;gludtl•.;~)\i ~ired, ' attachments. An incomplete application will not be processed and wi ;be ret?t~e1L.to t c, & ~ applicant. "I'./ n . . .If Si ti fl J\. Assigned Project Number: RZON -

Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Purchaser Name:

Complete Mailing Address: Phone #: (including area code (5Lo I) '795- 090 I ('l'lZ.) 'l'lo - C/L0'2.:Z. Fax#: (including area code (wl) '790- LoBOL\ E-Mail: Contact Person:

Property Information

SiteAddress: __"""U>"-9...._7...... _'.::)..__~-S=3 ....."R_d_,,_2) ...... Me,:.=.:re+:=------

Subdivision ~me, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) S+. P. UQUS-h r,,,f @ \kf2 0 Then c_;;;;;,Lu2di\1iS10N

Existing Zoning District: __.._A..._-__,_I ____ Existing Land Use Designation: ---=L=---'I ____ Requested Zoning District: ::::J;;~ -3

Total (gross) Acreage ofParcel: 29. Up Acreage (net) to be Amended: _....;;;;.2_9..:..•;..:V""""?;,..,_ __ Existing Use on Site: AQei CJJl-tu,l"fl Proposed Use on Site: '.:::,i b19 ie . . lli~;\~

ATTACHMENT 2 & r------MOTORIST DESIGN Traffic/Transportation Consultants

STAlJGUSTlNE- FKA KLEISLEY REZONE-TRAFFIC Irv1PACT SUMMARY

I. Location: South side of 33rd'11 Street, west of 66u, Avenue 2. Size: 89 single family homes (rezoning) 3. Trip Generation: 89 detached dwelling units x 9.57 chlily trips/unit= 852 tripsiday 89 x .1.01 P.M. peakhour trips/unit= 90 P.M. peak hour trips rd 4. Area oflnflucnce Boundaries: 41st Street (nortlt),:SR 60 (south), 43 Ave(east), I-95 (west) st 111 1h 5, Significant .Roads: SR 60 (66th Ave to 58'" Ave}, 66"' Ave (SR 60 to 41 St), 26 St (66 to 43rd Ave) 1 th 111 (i. Significantlntcrscctions; SR 60 (aJ (i6 " Ave, 26 Street @ 66 Ave 7. Trip Distribution: Sec Appendix A 8. Internal Capture: none 9. Pass-by Capture: 0%, (new trips= 100%) 10. P.M. Peal, H11ur Directional'% (ingress/egress): 63% cntering/37% exitiog 11. Traffic Count Fm;tors Applied: FDOT peaksc,mm ad,iustinent factors and 4.4°/., annual growth to build-out in 2006. 12. Off-Site Improvements: The developer will be required to commit to a SR 60 Interest contribution based upon the site's westbound peak hour impact to thte segment between 82"" Avenue and 66th Avenue. 13. Roadway Capacities (IRC l.ink Sheets): Sec Appendix B ·. 11 J 4. Assumed ro,ulway and/or intersection imp1·ovc.mcnts: 6-lane SR 60 from 82Jld Ave to 66 ' Ave 1_5. Signifieant oa:tes a) Pre-study conference: January 31, 2006 b) Traffic counts: intersections- based upon current traffic counts that were purchased from Indian River Cmmty that were less titan 6 months old and supplemented with traffic counts that were. performed by Motorist Design where not current County com1ts were available roads - link sheets based upo ;car 200<, seasonally-adjusted tra 'tic count~ provided by Indian River Cott . .>fad j/ . -j I · c) Study approval: · 'lo? , s- /!, (11'7 16. Percentage of prn,ject traffic accessing SR 60 WB between 82'"1 Av• , h Ave ~15°/., of niting site traffic.

Motorist Design of MerriU Island, Inc., 1237 Guy Road, Orlando, FL .32828 EB/BA #8270 - e-mail: [email protected] - voice: 321-459-2905 - fax: 321-459-2012 ATTACHMENT 3 APPENDIX B - PROJECT LINK ASSIGNMENTS LINK SHEET SUMMARY TABLE

Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected i.n 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20/07. IRC 89. unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8/15)" 1010N SRA1A CNTY LINE CITY LIMIT 950 . 325 30 595 SRA1A. 10105 950 396 16 538 1020N SRA1A CITY LIMIT 17TH ST 860 830 19 11 1020S SRA1A 860 900 7 -47 1030N SRA1A 17TH ST SR60 860 604 56 200 1030S SRA1A 860 635 6 219 1040N SRA1A SR 60 CITY LIMIT 860 836 7 17 10405 SR A1A 860 910 6 -56 1050N SRA1A CITY LIMIT FRED TUERK 860 836 2 22 1050S SR A1A 860 910 1 -51 1060N SRA1A FRED TUERK OLD WINTER 850 580 279 1060S SRA1A 860 468 0 392 1070N SR A1A OLD WINTER N IRSL 860 534 5 321 '1070S SRA1A 860 472 6 382 1080N SRAJA NIRSL CR 510 860 534 53 273 1080S SRA1A 860 472 38 350 1090N SRA1A CR 510 COUNTY LINE 99.8 354 47 · 597 1090S SRA1A 998 513 94 391 1110N lRB 4TH ST/US 1 12TH ST 1860 740 8 1112 1110S IRB 1860 1366 33 461 1120N IRB 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1860 999 0 861 1120S IRB 1860 1425 0 435 1130N !RB C1TY LIMIT 17TH ST 1860 999 10 851 · 1130S IRB 1850 1425 0 435 1140N IRB 17TH ST 21STST 1860 1024 3 833 1140S IRB 1860 1395 0 465 1150N IRB 21STST SR60 1860 1420 16 424 1150S IRB 1860 1651 0 199 1160N IRB SR 60 CITY LIMIT 1860 1049 64 747 1160S IRB 1860 1120 30 710 1170N IRS CITY LIMIT US 1153RD 1860 588 139 1133 1170S IRS 1860 832 116 912 1210N 1-95 CNTY LINE CR512 2740 1504 10 1226 12108 1-95 2740 1509 15 1216 1220N 1-95 CR 512 SR 60 2740 1510 29 1201 1220S 1-95 2740 1519 30 1191 1230N 1-95 SR60 OSLO RD 2890 H26 44 1120 1230S 1-95 2890 1712 31 1147 1240N 1-95 OSLO RD CNTY LINE 2890 1716 35 1139 1240S 1-95 2890. 1707 24 1159 1305N 1 us CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1860 1197 67 596 1305S us 1 1860 1590 54 216 1310N us 1 OSLO RD 4TH@IR BO 2790 1413 37 1340 H10S us 1 2790 1749 60 981 1315N us 1 4TH@IR BO 8THST 1860 1191 7 662 ·1315S us 1 1860 1477 19 364 1320N us 1 8TH ST 12TH ST 1860 1286 19 555 1320S us 1 1860 1466 38 356 1325N us 1 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1710 1219 36 455 1325S us 1 1710 1296 51 363

ATTll.t'UMCMT , 'J. Traffic Counis ·in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2120107. IRC 89 unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WJTH UNK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8/15)" 1330N us 1 CITY LIMIT 17TH ST 1710 1118 36 556 1330S US1 1710 1325 52 333 1335N us 1 17TH ST SR60 1510 1175 59 276· 1335S us 1 1510 1207 75 228 1340N us 1 SR60 ROYAL PALM 1510 901 86 523 1340S us 1 1510 1124 ·182 204 1345N us 1 ROYAL PALM ATLANTIC 1710 1084 108 518 1345S us 1 1710 970 158 582 1350N us 1 ATLANTIC CITY LIMIT 2010 1508 135 367 1350S us 1 2010 1612 180 218 1355N us 1 CITY LIMIT OLD DIXIE 2010 1634 166 210 1655S us 1 2010 1298 177 535 1360N us 1 OLD DIXIE 41ST ST 2010 1712 169 129 1360S us 1 2010 1079 127 · 804 1365N us 1 41ST ST 45TH ST 2010 1451 187 372 1365S us 1 2010 1021 156 833 1370N us 1 45TH ST 49TH ST 2010 1425 191 394 1370S us·1 2010 930 163 917 1375N us 1 49THST 65TH ST 2010 1728 270 12 1375S us 1 2010 1087 213 710 1380N us 1 65THST 69THST 2232 1711 174 347 1380S US1 1860 1070 164 626 13.85N us 1 69TH ST OLD DIXIE 2232 1675 166 391 1385S us·1 1.860 1034 138 688 1390N us 1 OLD DIXIE SCHUMANN 2210 1411 155 644 1390S us 1 1860 915 134. 811 1395N US 1 SCHUMANN CR512 1860 1300 .84 476 1395S us 1 1860 973 100 787 1400N us 1 CR 512 CITY LIMIT 1710 1272 60 378 1400S us 1 1710 1171 76 463 1405N us 1 CITY LIMIT ROSELAND 1860 1318 42 500 1405S us 1 1860 1323 58 479 1410N us 1 ROSELAND CNTY LINE 1860 1158 8 694 1410S US1 1860 965 33 862 1510N SCHUMANN CR510/66TH CJTY LIMIT 860 705 11 144 151DS SCHUMANN 860 337 17 506 1520N SCHUMANN CITY LIMIT us 1 860 118 7 735 1520S SCHUMANN 860 66 12 782 1610N ROSELAND CR 512 CITY UMJT 860 325 14 521 16108 ROSELAND 860 335 16 509 1620N ROSELAND CITY LIMIT us 1 860 301 18 541 1620S ROSELAND 860 277 6 577 1710E CR 512 SR60 1-95 860 386 87 387 1710W CR 512 860 704 14 142 1720E CR 512 1-95 CR 510 1860 655 246 959 1720W CR 512 1860 823 30 1007 1730E CR 512 CR 510 CITY LIMIT 1860 730 41 1089 1730W CR 512 1860 716 45 1099 1740E CR 512 CITY LIMIT ROSELAND 1860 952 40 868 1740W CR 512 1860 732 44 1084 1750E CR 512 ROSELAND us 1 1860 611 25 1224 1750W CR 512 1860 700 24 1136 1810E CR 510 CR 512 66THAVE 1860 538 470 852

/Jffl'ACHPAENT 3 Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were·collected in 2006 Trips indicated. in the "Vested" Column are as of 2i20/07.. !RC 89 unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM ·TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8115)" 1810W CR 510 1860 776 104 980 1820E CR 510 66TH AVE 58THAVE 1860 5:12 118 1.230 1820W CR510 1860 718 120 1022 1630E CR 510 58TH AVE us 1 1860 544 136 1180 1830W CR 510 1860 774 125 961 1840E CR 510 us 1 SRA1.A 1900 571 1.91 1138 1840W CR 510 1900 1021 210 669 1905E SR 60 CNTYLINE CR 512 1810 217 11 1582 1905W SR60 1810 254 13 1543 1907E SR .. 60 CR 512 1001HAVE 1810 258 1 1551 1907W SR60 1810 257 3 1550 1910E SR60 100THAVE 1-95 1860 325 140 1395 1910W SR60 1860 286 213 1.361 1915E SR60 1-95 82NDAVE 18!30 1391 289 180 1915W SR60 2000 1593 2i33 141 t920E SR6D. 82ND AVE 66TH AVE 2120 1550 467 103 1920W SR60 2120 1865 359 -109 1925E SR60 66TH AVE 58THAVE 2790 1641 335 814 1925W SR60 2790 1652 386 22 730 1930E SR 60 58THAVE 43RD AVE 2790 139.9 280 1111 1930W SR60 2190 1497 386 907 1935E SR60 43RDAVE 27TH.AVE 279.0 1315 249 1226 1935W SR60 2790 1544 353 893 1940E SR60 27THAVE 20TH AYE 2790 1158 188 1444 1940W SR60 2790 1371 284 1135 1945E SR60 20THAVE OLD DIXIE 3252 11.35. 132 1985 1945W SR60 3252 1268 186 1798 1950E SR60 OLD DIXIE 10TH AVE 3252 1258 83 1911 1950W SR60 3252 1051 116 2085 1955E SR60 10TH AVE us 1 3252 1100 .80 2072 1955W SR60 3252 757 10.0 2395 1960E. SR60 US.1 IRS 3252 789 17 2446 1960W sR·so 3252 513 15 2724 1965E SR 60 IRB ICWW 1860 908 7 945 1965W SR60 186U 1616 3 241 1970E SR 60 ICWW SRA1A 1860 911 7 942 1970W SR60 1860 979 8 873 2020E 16THST 58THAVE 43RDAVE 860 355 49 456 202DW 16TH ST 860 279 38 543 2030E 16TH sr 43ROAVE 27TH ST 860 367 47 446 2030\/11 16THST 860 551 38 271 2040E 16THST 27TH ST 20THAVE 860 355 32 473 2040W 16TH ST 860 543 53. 264 2050E 16TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 810 569 31 210 . 2050W 16TH ST s:10 730 45 35 2060E 16TH/17TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 1710 6.86 52 972 2060W 16TH/17TH ST 1710 764 50 896 2110E 17TH ST US1 IRB 1710 560 29 1121 2110W 17TH ST 1710 754 23 933 2120E 17TH ST IRS SRA1A 1860 1047 26 787 2120W 17TH ST 1860. 1296 16 548 2210E 12THST 82NDAVE 58THAVE 870 98 3 769 2210W 12TH sr 870 98 0 772 ATTACHMENT 3 Traffic Counts ,n tl1e "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vestedl' Column are as of 2120/07. !RC 89 unit REM/\INING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8115)" 2220E 12TH ST 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 860 190 38 632 2220W 12TH ST 860 261 29 570 2230E 12TH ST 43RD AVE 27THAVE 860 269 16 575 2230W 12TH ST 860 390 13 457 2240E 12TH ST 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 860 350 11 499 2240W 12TH ST 860 533 11 316 2250E 12TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 860 459 8 393 2250W 12TH ST 860 698 11 151 2260E 12TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 1368 416 0 952 2260W 12TH ST 1368 691 10 667 2305N OLD DIXIE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 860 356 113 391 2305.S OLD DIXI.E 860 491 21 348 2310N OLD DIXIE OSLO RD 4THST 860 329 43 488 2310S OLD DIXIE 860 383 41 436 2315N OLD DIXIE 4TH ST 8TH ST 810 484 39 287 23153 OLD DIXIE 810 630 39 141 2320N OLD DIXIE STHST 12TH ST 810 529 21 2130 2320S OLD DIXIE 810 704 24 82 2325N OLD DIXIE 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 810 560 7 243 2325S OLD DIXIE 810 634 8 16.8 2300N OLD DIXIE CITY LIMIT 16TH ST 850 382 8 46.0 2330S OLD DIXIE 850 387 6 457 2335N OLD DIXIE 16TH ST SR60 850 284 33 533 233.SS OLD DIXIE 850 239 22 589 2345N OLD DIXIE 41ST ST 45TH ST 860 179 49 632 2345S OLD DIXIE 860 193 34 6-33 2350N OLD DIXIE 45TH ST 49TH ST 860 136 61 663 2350S OLD DIXIE 860 114 42 704 2355N OLD DIXIE 49TH ST 65TH ST 860 132 108 620 2355S OLD DIXIE 860 149 92 619 2360N OLD DIXIE 65TJ-J ST 691H ST 860 218 · 30 612 2360S OLD DIXIE .860 87 23 750 2365N OLD DIXIE 69TH ST CR 510 860 145 17 698 2365S OLD DIXIE 860 129 12 719 2410N 27THAVE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1068 519 314 235 2410S 27TH AVE 1068 800 477 -209 2420N 27TH AVE OSLO RD 4THST 1068 548 209 311 2420S 27THAVE 1068 769 325 -26 2430N 27THAVE 4THST 8THST 1020 462 149 409 2430S 27THAVE 1020 811 240 -31 2440N 27Tli AVE 8TH ST 12TH ST 1020 447. 106 467 2440$ 27THAVE 1020 793 174 53 2450N 27TH AVE 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1020 456 87 477 . 2450S 27TH AVE 1020 784 143 93 2460N 27THAVE CITY LIMIT 16TH ST 1020 456 81 483 2460S 27THAVE 1020 784 138 98 2470N 27THAVE 16TH ST SR 60 1020 411 40 569 2470S 27THAVE 1020 704 70 246 2480N 27TH AVE SR60 ATLANTIC 810 257 19 534 2480S 27THAVE 810 439 28 343 2510N 27TH AVE ATLANTIC AVIATION 810 439 8 363 2510S 27THAVE 810 756 14 40 2530E OSLO RD 82ND AVE 58THAVE 870 234 5 631

ATTACHMENT 3 Traffic Counts in the "Existing'' column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20/07. IRC 89 unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8115)'' 2530W OSLO RD 870 197 1 672 2540E OSLO RD 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 1953 583 247 1123 2540W OSLO RD 1953 469 128 1356 2550E OSLO RD 43RD AV!:: 27TH AVE 1953 778 227 948 2550W OSLO RD .1953 635 209 1109 2560E OSLO RD 27TH AVE 20THAVE 1953 543 173 1237 2560W OSLO RD 1953 654 143 1156 2570E OSLO RD 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 1953 595 298 1060 2570\JV OSLO RD 1953 805 189 959 2580E OSLO RD OLD DIXIE us 1 1953 740 75 1138 2580\IV OSLO RD 1953 585 81 1287 2610N 6T-H AVE 17TH ST CITY LIMIT 860 312 1 547 2610$ 6TH AVE 860 467 1 382 2620N 6THAVE CITY LIMIT SR 60 850 330 2 518 2620S . 6TH AVE 850 368 1 481 2710N 10Trl AVE SR 60 ROYAL PALM 810 77 23 710 2710S 10TH AVE 810 68 23 719 2720N 10TH AVE ROYAL PALM 17TH ST 810 218 24 568 2720S 10THAVE 810 372 23 415 2810N 20TH AVE OSLO RD 4TH_ST 860 432 126 302 2810S 20TH AVE 860 438 154 268 2820N Z0THAVE 4TH ST 8TH ST 810 364 65 381 2820S 2DTHAVE 810 625 85 100 2830N 20THAVE 8TH ST 12TH ST 810 362 43 405 2830S 20THAVE 810 624 59 127 2840N 20THAVE 12TH ST CITY LIMIT 1710 428 . 27 1255 2840S 20TH AVE 1710 624 34. 1052 2850N 20THAVE CITY LIMIT 16TH ST 1800 42.8 16 1356 2850S 20TH AVE 1800 624 33 1143 2860N 20THAVE 16TH ST SRG0 1800 334 23 1443 2860S 20TH AVE 1800 425 42 1333 2870N 20THAVE ·sR60 ATLANTIC 850 193 24 633 2870S 20TH AVE 850 113 58 679 2905N 43RDAVE CNTY LINE OSLO RD 1068 354 208 506 2905S 43RDAVE 1068 311 323 434 2910N. 43RDAVE OSLO RD 4TH ST 1068 439 375 254 2910S 43RDAVE 1068 541 284 243 2915N 43RDAVE 4THST 8TH ST 1020 473 162 385 2915S 43RDAVE 1020 671 237 112 2920N 43RD AVE 8TH ST 12TH ST 1071 482 157 432 2920S 43RDAVE 1071 653 219 199 2925N 43RDAVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 1071 502 138 431 2925S 43RDAVE 1071 658 189 224 2930N 43RDAVE 16TH ST SR 60 1796 581 151 1064 2930S 43RDAVE 1796 693 "197 906 2935N 43RDAVE SR 60 26TH ST 1796 467 137 1192 2935S 43RDAVE 1796 612 133 1051 2940N 43RDAVE 26TH ST 41ST ST 860 423 223 214 2940S 43RD AVE 860 488 220 152 2945N 43RD AVE 41ST ST 45TH ST 860 332 169 359 29458 43RD AVE 860 333 121 406 2950N 43RDAVE 45TH ST 49TH ST 860 245 155 460 2950S 43RD AVE 860 180 104 576

AltACHMiNT .} Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated .in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20/07. IRC 89 unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8/15)" 3005N 58THAVE OSLO RD 4THST 1860 363 95 1402 3005S 58THAVE 1860 411 129 1320 3010N 58TH AVE 4TH ST STHST 1710 657 72 981 3010S 58THAVE 1710 712 96 902 3015N 58THAVE 8TH ST ·J2TH ST 1710 815 99 796 30153 58THAVE 1710 1138 116 456 3020N 58TH AVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 1710 944 147 619 3020S 58THAVE 1710 1046 158 506 3025N 58THAVE 16TH ST SR 60 1710 983 219 508 3025S 58TH AVE 1710 1035 246 429 3030N 58THAVE SR60 41ST ST 1860 1137 246 477 3030S 58TH AVE 1860 1109 168 583 3035N 58TH AVE 41ST ST 45TH ST 860 587 205 68 3035S 58TH AVE 860 538 99 223 3040N 58TH AVE 45TH ST 49TH ST 860 496 187 177 3040S 58TH AVE 860 487 95 278 3045N 58THAVE 49TH ST 65TH ST 860 479 155 226 3045S 58TH AVE 860 402 115 343 3050N 58TH AVE 65TH ST 69TH ST 860 432 90 338 30508 58TH AVE 860 356 110 394 3055N 58TH AVE 69TH ST CR 510. 860 367 81 412 30558 56TH AVE 860 292 118 450 3120N 66TH AVE SR 60 26TH ST 860 463 164 31 202 31208 66TH AVE 860 432 129 18 281 3130N 66TH AVE 26TH ST 41ST ST 860 548 156 48 108 3130S 66THAVE 860 398 119 28 315 3140N 66THAVE 41ST ST 45TH ST 950 559 69 322 31408 66THAVE 950 367 58 525 3150N 66THAVE 45TH ST 65TH ST 870 537 73 260 3150$ 66TH AVE 870 331 60 479 31l30N 66TH AVE 65TH ST 69TH ST 870 537 42 291 3160S 66TH AVE 870 301 41 528 3170N 66THAVE 69THST CR 510 870 561 57 252 3170S 66THAVE 870 314 47 509 3310N 82NDAVE OLSO RD 4THST 950 171 5 774 3310S 82NDAVE 950 166 8 776 3320N 82NDAVE 4TH ST 12TH ST 950 191 15 744 33208 82NDAVE 950 158 20 772 3330N 82NDAVE 12TH ST SR60 860 264 64 532 3330S 82NDAVE 860 220 33 607 3340N 82NDAVE SR 60 65TH ST 410 12 5 393 3340S 82NDAVE 410 21 8 381 3350N 82NDAVE 65TH ST 69TH ST 410 17 1 392 3350S 82NDAVE 410 15 0 395 ·3360N 98THAVE 8TH ST 12TH ST 860 13 43 804 3360S 98THAVE 860 13 79 766 3370N 98THAVE 12TH ST 16TH ST 860 72 108 680 3370S 98THAVE 860 50 197 613 3380N 98THAVE 16TH ST SR 60 860 73 108 679 33808 98TI-IAVE 860 48 197 615 3390N 98THAVE SR60 .26TH ST 860 24 0 836 3390S 98THAVE 860 143 0 717 3610E 77TH ST 66TH AVE us 1 820 124 11 685

Ai li-\CHMENT .. 1 Traffic Counts in the ''Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20/07. IRC 89 unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8115)" 3610VV 77TH ST 820 124 9 687 3710E 69TH ST 82NDAVE 66TH AVE 410 17 18 375 3710VV 69TH ST 410 15 18 377 3720E 69TH ST 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 870 119 13 738 3720W 69TH ST 870 55 18 797 3730E 69THST 58TH AVE OLD DIXIE 870 49 26 795 3730W 69TH ST 870 59 18 793 3740E 69TH ST OLD DIXIE us 1 870 46 11 813 3740W 69TH ST 870 48 13 809 3820E 65TH ST 66THAVE 58TH AVE 870 50 21 799 3620W 65TH.ST 870 41 4 825 3830E 65TH ST 58TH AVE OLD DIXIE 870 98 30 742 3830W 65TH ST 870 64 22 784 3840E 65THST OLD DIXIE us 1 870 62 9 799 3840W 65TH ST 870 72 10 788 4220E 49TH ST 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 860 31 35 794 4220W 49TH ST 860 123 19 718 4230E 49THST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 23 28 809 4230W 49TH ST 860 173 19 668 4240E 49TH ST 43RDAVE OLD DIXIE 810 216 113 481 4240W 49TH ST 810 144 90 576 4250E 49THST OLD DIXIE us 1 810 221 30 559 4250W 49TH ST 810 157 21 632 4320E 45TH ST 66THAVE 58TH AVE 860 105 22 733 4320W 45TH ST 860 136 10 714 4330E 45THST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 176 42 642 4330W 45THST 860 207 42 611 4340E 45TH ST 43RD AVE OLD DIXIE 860 352 77 431 4340W 45TH ST 860 422 82 356 4350E 45TH ST OLD DIXIE !RB 860 230 75 555 4350W 45TH ST 860 267 82 511 4420E 41ST ST 66TH AVE 58TH AVE 870 109 33 728 '1420W 41ST ST 870 120 15 735 443DE 41ST ST 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 860 246 55 559 4430W 41ST ST 860 227 73 560 4440E 41ST ST 43RDAVE OLD DIXIE 860 211 116 533 4440VV 41ST ST 860 226 48 586 4450E 41ST ST OLD DIXIE IRB 860 109 18 733 4450W 41ST ST 860 128 18 714 4460E 37TH ST us 1 IRB 860 448 411 4460W 37TH ST 860 638 21 201 47220E 26TH ST 66THAVE 58TH AVE 860 248 135 10 467 4720VV 26TH ST 860 234 106 17 503 4730E 26TH ST 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 860 394 41 425 4730W 26TH ST 860 539 57 10 254 4740E 26TH ST .43RDAVE AVIATION 860 458 30 372 4740W 26TH ST 860 635 35 190 475DE 26TH ST AVIATION 27THAVE 860 137 12 711 4750W 26TH ST 860 201 19 640 4830E 8TH ST 58TH AVE 43RDAVE 860 75 17 768 4830W 8TH ST 860 '118 10 732 4840E 8TH ST 43RD/'.VE 27THAVE 86D 311 55 494 4840W 8TH ST 860 380 . 36 444 ) A1li>.Cl\tt£Kl Traffic Counts in the "Existing" column were collected in 2006 Trips indicated in the "Vested" Column are as of 2/20/07 IRC 69 unit REMAINING BASE EXIST VESTED KLEISLEY WITH LINK ON FROM TO CAP VOLUME TRAFFIC REZONE PROJECT "(8/15)" 4850E 8THST 27TH AVE 20TH AVE 860 353 14 493 4850W 8THST 860 544 13 303 4860E 8TH ST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 810 331 86 393 4860W 8TH ST B10 632 27 151 4870E STHST OLD DIXIE· us 1 810 327 20 463 4870W STHST 810 551 29 230 4880E 8TH ST us 1 IRB 860 192 3 665 4880W STHST 860 242 4 614 4910E 4TH ST 82ND AVE 58TH AVE 870 75 25 770 4910W 4THST 870 97 7 766 4930E 4THST 58TH AVE 43RD AVE 860 208 15 637 4930W 4THST 860 262 11 587 4940E 4THST 43RD AVE 27TH AVE 860 277 26 557 4940W 4THST 860 341 23 496 4950E 4THST 27TH AVE 20THAVE 860 315 9. 536 4950W 4THST 860 472 11 377 4960E 4THST 20TH AVE OLD DIXIE 860 320 37 503 4960W 4THST 860 479 53 328 4970E 4THST OLD DIXIE us 1 810 353 17 440 4970W 4THST 810 463 28 319 5610E FRED TUERK A1A 'V OF COCONU. 860 110 0 750 5610W FRED TUERK 860 68 0 792 5710E WINTER BEACH A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 61 1 . 798 5710W WINTER BEACH 860 47 0 813 5810E ATLANTIC 27THAVE 20TH AVE 860 141 6 713 5810W ATLANTIC 860 257 7 596 5820E ATLANTIC 20TH AVE us 1 860 123 41 696 5820W . ATLANTIC 860 171 104 585 5910E AVIATION BD 26TH ST 27TH AVE 1280 497 10 773 5910W AVIATION BD. 1280 627 44 609 6010E ROYAL PALM BD ROYAL PALM IRB 880 253 9 608 6010W ROYAL PALM BD 880 130 9 741 6110E ROYAL PALM PL us 1 !RB 880 169 20 691 6110W ROYAL PALM PL 880 349 19 512

43rd - 4L 16th to 26th - 2009 US1 - 6L 4th to Oslo Oslo - 5L 58th to US 1 89 units CR 510 - 4L CR 512 - US 1 KLEILSEY REZONE "(8/15)"

ATTACHM£NT 3 Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.12 states that the L-1, Low-Density Residential-I, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.11 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area.

Since the subject property is located within an area designated as L-1 on the county's future land use plan map, is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would allow residential uses no greater than the 3 units/acre permitted by the L-1 designation, the proposed request is consistent with Policies 1.11 and 1.12.

Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2

Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and encourage more development on the subject property and since the subject property is within the urban service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.

Consistency Summary

As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staffs position is that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

Compatibility with the Surrounding Area

Staffs position is that the requested zoning district is appropriate for the site and that development under this zoning district will be compatible with surrounding land uses. In particular, the subject property's requested RS-3 zoning will serve as a transitional zoning district between the RM-6 zoned property to the south and the A-1 zoned properties to the north, which are outside of the urban service area.

Similarly, no incompatibility is anticipated between the subject property and the adjacent A-1 zoned properties to the west. Those properties are within the urban service area and have a land use designation of L-1, which allows up to three residential units per acre. Although the properties to the west are currently zoned A-1, it is anticipated that these properties will eventually be rezoned and developed for residential uses. Since the property to the east of the subject property is zoned RS-3, the requested RS-3 zoning will be a continuation of that zoning district.

With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on property rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation changes. This not only reflects the county's policy of using agricultural zoning within the urban service area as a "holding" zone, but also recognizes that urbanization occurs incrementally with various tracts remaining agricultural for longer periods.

7 To the north of the subject property, land is outside of the urban service area and is zoned A-1. The properties directly north of the subject property contain residential structures and agricultural uses. Since the urban service area line· delineates the boundary between urban type development and agricultural uses, the line establishes an interface between residential uses and agricultural uses. At a residential/agricultural interface, there is a need to consider compatibility issues.

In this case, the subject property will be separated from the properties to the north that are outside the urban service area by the 60 foot right-of-way for 33 rd Street and the 25 foot minimum RS-3 zoning district front yard and back yard setbacks. In addition, Chapter 91 l.04(3)(c)5 of the county's land development regulations requires at minimum a 50 foot wide type B buffer with a 6 foot opaque feature for any residential development adjacent to the urban service boundary. The combined effect of the buffer, setback requirements, and the existing right-of-way will provide, at minimum, a 135 foot separation between the properties to the north that are outside of the urban service boundary and the subject property. This separation should minimize any potential impacts that the agricultural properties to the north may have on the subject property.

Two factors indicate that an urban type of zoning district would be appropriate for this portion of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the Future Land Use Map. As shown on the Future Land Use Map, this area is within the urban service area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with densities of up to 3 units per acre.

Equally important is the development pattern in this portion of the county. This area of the county is primarily developed with medium density and low density residential developments. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in this portion of the county. Therefore, no incompatibilities between these properties and the subject property are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed rezoning.

For these reasons, staff feels that the requested RS-3 zoning district would be compatible with development in the surrounding area.

Potential Impact on Environmental Quality

The subject property is currently used for residential and agricultural uses and is no longer in its natural state. 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 envirornnental quality. For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on envirornnental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for low-density single­ family uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request.

8 RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RS-3.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Summary Page 2. Rezoning Application 3. Traffic Impact Analysis Summary

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\Rzon\Royal Professional Builders\PZC item Royal Pro.doc

9 I Public Hearing 1 (Quasi-Jp.dicial) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

ENT HEAD CONCURRENCE

THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Range Planning s• '/t/

FROM: Gale Carmoney; Senior Planner, Long-Range Planning_r~

DATE: June 19, 2007

RE: Redstick Golf Course Inc.'s Request to Rezone ±1.11 acres from A-1 to RM-6 (RZON 2007020134-57862)

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of June 28, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

This request is to rezone ±1. ll acres from A-1, Agricultural-I District (up to I unit/5 acres), to RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). Located east of 58th Avenue and approximately 170 feet south of 85tl1 Street, the subject property is depicted in the figure below. The subject property is actually two parcels that lie within two zoning districts. The western parcel of the subject property is entirely within an A-1 zoning district, while the eastern parcel lies half within the A-1 district and half within a RM-6 zoning district. The purpose of this request is to secure the zoning necessary to develop the entire site with residential uses at a density consistent with the allowed density of its comprehensive plan land use designation.

Existing Land Use Pattern

Generally, this area of the county contains single family residential uses, commercial uses and recreational uses. Zoned A-1, the subject property is wooded, undeveloped land. To the east is the portion of the subject property that is cunently zoned RM-6 and is vacant, undeveloped land. Land immediately to the west and across 58 th Avenue is zoned RS-3, Single Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre), and contains single family residences. To the north of the western half of the subject property, land is zoned RM-6 and contains a single family residence. To the north of the eastern half of the subject property, land is under the same ownership as the subject property, is zoned PD, Planned Development, and is a portion of the Redstick Golf Course. The

I land to south of the subject property is also under the same ownership as the subject property, is zoned PD, and is a continuation of the Redstick Golf Course. The parcel to the southeast of the subject property is a vacant parcel that is split zoned in a manner similar to the subject property; the western portion is zoned A-1 and the eastern portion is zoned RM-6.

Location and Zoning of Snbject Property and Surrounding Properties

CON-1 CL

85 th Street/CR 510 BJ 1.11 acr s Proposed A-·I CG RS-3

~ 1-+------l!f'.i¢j

Future Land Use Pattern

With the exception of the land to the west of the subject property and across 58th Avenue, the subject property and all abutting properties are designated M-1, Medium-Density Residential-I, on the county's Future Land Use Map. The M-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 8 w1its/acre. The property that is west of the subject property is designated L-1, Low Density Residential-I, on the county's Future Land Use Map. The L-1 designation allows residential uses up to 3 units/ acre.

Environment

The subject property is a wooded, undeveloped site. It is not designated as environmentally important or environmentally sensitive by the comprehensive plan. No wetlands exist on the site. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is in a flood zone "X".

2 Location and Land use of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

Utilities and Services

The site is within the Urban Service Area of the county. Wastewater service is available to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available to the site from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant.

Transportation System

The property's west boundary abuts 58'11 Avenue. Classified as an Urban Collector Roadway on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map, this segment of 58 th Avenue is a 2 lane paved road with approximately 108 feet of existing public road right-of-way. There are currently no planned road improvements for this segment of 58th Avenue listed within the County's Comprehensive Plan through the year 2025.

ANALYSIS

In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezoning request will be presented. Specifically, this section will include:

• The request's impact on public facilities;

3 • The request's consistency with the county's comprehensive plan; • The request's compatibility with the surrounding area; and • The request's potential impact on environmental quality.

Concurrency of Public Facilities

This site is located within the county urban service area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management, and Recreation. The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) also require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained.

Policy 3.2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For 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. For residential rezoning requests, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed zoning. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:

I. Size of Area to be Rezoned: 1.11 acres

2. Existing Zoning District: A-1, Agricultural District (up to 1 unit/5acres).

3. Proposed Zoning District: RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre)

4. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Existing Zoning District: 1 Single-Family Unit

5. Maximum# of Trips 1 X 9.57 = 9 Trips Under Exiting Zoning:

6. Most Intense Use of Subject Property Under Proposed Zoning District: 6 Multiple-Family Units

., 7. Maximum# of Trips Under 6 X 5.86 = 35 Trips Proposed Zoning:

4 Transportation

As part of the concurrency review process, the applicant has submitted a Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA). A TIA reports 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 zoning district, and assigns those trips on the county's thoroughfare roadway network within the project's area of influence. That area of influence consists of roadway segments that receive eight (8) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for a two-lane roadway or fifteen (15) or more peak season/peak hour/peak direction project trips for a four-lane (or wider) roadway.

Based on Indian River County Land Development Regulations, a Traffic Study or Traffic Impact Analysis executive summary is not required for projects generating less than 100 daily trips. Since the maximum number of trips that would be generated by this rezoning request is 35, the rezoning is de minimus on all network roadway links, and no study or analysis is required.

With the proposed zoning, the subject property could accommodate 6 residential units, resulting in water consun1ption at a rate of 6 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,500 gallons/day. This is based upon a level of service of 250 gallons/ERV/day. Development on the subject property would be served by the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional demand generated by the proposed rezoning.

Wastewater

Based upon the most intense use allowed under the proposed zoning, development of the property will have a wastewater generation rate of approximately 6 Equivalent Residential Units (ERU), or 1,500 gallons/day. This is based upon the level of service standard of 250 gallons/ERV/day. County wastewater service is available to the site from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, which currently has sufficient capacity to accommodate the additional wastewater generated by the subject request.

Solid Waste

Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 3.67 cubic yards/person/year. With the county's average of approximately 2.25 persons/unit, a 6 U11il residential development would be anticipated to house approximately 14 people (2.25 X 6). For the subject request to meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 3 .67 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill must have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 51.38 (14X 3.67) cubic yards/year.

A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segment of the county landfill indicates that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the site under the proposed zoning district.

5 Stormwater Management

All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stormwater regulations, which require on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the C-2 Drainage Basin and the Indian River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited from discharging any runoff in excess of two inches in a twenty-four hour period, which is the approved IRFWCD discharge rate.

In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standard does not apply, since the property does not lie within a floodplain. Both the on-site retention and discharge standards apply. The stormwater management level of service standard will be met by limiting off-site discharge to the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of two inches in twenty-four hours, and maintaining on-site retention of the stormwater runoff for the most intense use of the property.

As with all development, a more detailed review will be conducted during the development approval process.

Recreation

A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district indicates that the adopted levels of service would be maintained. The table below illustrates the additional park demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the existing surplus acreage.

Park Information LOS (Acres per 1,000 Population) Project Demand (Acres) Surplus Acreage 6.61 .09 63.49

Concurrency Summary

Based upon the analysis conducted, staff has determined that all concurrency-mandated facilities, including stormwater management, roads, solid waste, recreation, water, and wastewater, have adequate capacity to accommodate the most intense use of the subject property under the proposed zoning district. Therefore, the concurrency test has been satisfied for the subject request.

Consistency with Comprehensive Plan

Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the comprehensive plan. Rezonings must also be consistent with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on

6 the Future Land Use Map, which include agriculture, residential, recreation, 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 rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following objectives and policies.

Future Land Use Element Objective 1

Future Land Use Element Objective 1 states that the county will have a compact land use pattern, which reduces urban sprawl. By allowing the site to be developed in a manner that is consistent with the site's land use designation, the request allows a more compact land use pattern within the urban service area and reduces the chances that urban sprawl will occur. For these reasons, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Objective 1.

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that the M-1, Medium-Density Residential-I, land use designation is intended for residential uses with densities up to 8 units/acre. In addition, Future Land Use Element Policy 1.13 states that these residential uses must be located within the urban service area.

Since the subject property is located within an area designated as M-1 on the county's Future Land Use Map and is located within the county's urban service area, and the proposed zoning district would permit residential uses no greater than 6 units/acre, the proposed request is consistent with Policy 1. 13.

Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2

Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2 states that the county shall encourage and direct growth into the urban service area through zoning and LDRs. Since the proposed rezoning would allow and encourage more development on the subject property and the subject property is within the urban service area, the request implements Future Land Use Element Policy 2.2.

Consistency Summary

As part of its consistency analysis, staff compared the proposed request to all applicable objectives and policies in the plan and found no conflicts. Therefore, staffs position is that the request is consistent with the comprehensive plan.

7 Compatibility with the Surrounding Area

Staffs position is that the requested zoning district is appropriate for the site and that development under this zoning district will be compatible with surrounding land uses. Since the property to the north and east of the subject property is zoned RM-6, the requested RM-6 zoning district will be a continuation of that multiple family development pattern.

The property immediately to the south of the subject property is under the same ownership as the subject property and is the site of the Redstick Golf Course, a recreational use. There are no compatibility issues are anticipated between this recreational use and the uses allowed under the requested RM-6 zoning district for the subject property.

While the parcel to the southeast of the subject property is zoned A-1, that property is located within the Urban Service Area and is anticipated to eventually be rezoned and developed with residential uses that are appropriate in the M-1 land use designation. Once rezoned and developed, that property will be compatible with the proposed RM-6 zoning of the subject site.

With respect to zoning, the county's policy has always been to retain agricultural zoning on property rather than changing it when the underlying land use designation changes. This not only reflects the county's policy of using agricultural zoning within the urban service area as a "holding" category, but also recognizes that urbanization occurs incrementally with various tracts remaining agricultural for longer periods.

Although the land to the west of subject property, and across 58th Avenue is zoned RS-3, it is separated from the subject property by the 108 feet of right-of-way for 58 th Avenue. Because the maximum number of units that would be allowed on the subject property will not exceed 6 units, the overall impact of the subject request on surrounding properties is insignificant.

Two factors indicate that an urban type of zoning district would be appropriate for this portion of the county. The first factor is the underlying designation on the Future Land Use Map. As shown on the Future Land Use Map, the subject property is within the urban service area and is deemed appropriate for residential development with densities of up to 6 units per acre.

Equally important is the development pattern in this portion of the county. This area of the county is primarily developed with medium density developments. These factors indicate a trend toward continued urbanization in this portion of the county. Therefore, no incompatibilities between these properties and the subject properties are anticipated to occur as a result of the proposed rezoning.

For those reasons, staff feels that the requested RM-6 zoning district will be compatible with development in the surrounding area.

Potential Impact on Environmental Quality

Presently, the subject property is a wooded, undeveloped site. Since the subject property contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands, development of the

8 site is anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated.

CONCLUSION

Based on the analysis, staff has determined that the requested zoning district is compatible with surrounding areas, is consistent with the comprehensive plan, meets all concurrency criteria, will have no negative impacts on environmental quality, and meets all applicable rezoning criteria. Most importantly, the subject property is located in an area deemed suited for medium-density multiple-family uses. For these reasons, staff supports the request.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis conducted, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve this request to rezone the subject property from A-1 to RM-6.

ATTACHMENTS

I. Summary Page 2. Rezoning Application

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\Rzon\Redstick\PZC item redstick.doc

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY BY U):!Mi<._1.,<--L-/ WILLIAM G. COLLINS II COUNTY ATTORNEY

9 SUMMARY PAGE

GENERAL Applicant: Redstick Golf Course Inc. Location: East of 58 th Avenue and approx. 170 feet south of 85th Street Acreage: 1.11 Land Use Designation: M-1, Medium-Density Residential-I (up to 8 units/acres) Existing Zoning: A-1, Agricultural District (up to I unit/ 5 acres) Requested Zoning: RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) Existing Land Use: Wooded, undeveloped

ADJACENT LAND North: Single Family Residence: Zoned RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) South: Golf Course: Zoned PD, Planned Development West: Single Family Residence: Zoned RS-3, Single-Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) Wooded land: Zoned RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) INFRASTRUCTURE Water is available from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant and sewer is available from the North Regional Wastewater Plant; access is from Ss111 Avenue.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None; Flood Zone X

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Staff Contact: Gale Carmoney Date Advertised: June 13, 2007 # of Surrounding Property Owner Notifications: 18 Date Notification Mailed: June 14, 2007 Date Sign Posted: June 13, 2007

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the request

ATTACHMENT I

10 'I' ~ \~\S 16 !7 ;& APPLICATION FORM ~ + I n COMMUNITY ~\ 1 : •• Dl:'.VFLO?Z--//Cf\-J'T' Each application must be complete when submitted and mu~t jnclude alf''i-~qu· attachments. An incomplete application will not be processed antl'~!l(~be returned)~ e

Assigneda:r::~cc::~mber:RZON- Aoo "/[Jc?, l)/3[-- s1J6;;i.. 'c.-f✓:~J".

Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Purchaser) F,qc/st:ck. {;ol~ (,:"°'~ ):tac.. Name: L ,Yov"I lot S \Jifvno,e, ,£:

Complete Mailing '!)JS1.rre,""' S.c.(..,1,Vtl<•V\ lOcAk'. Voi.-.T P.o_ 80;1 b<-t-3GB'{:, 5'0-Yo 1,. A IA 1 Sv,~e. ·205 Address: "•(o ,a_;.,k t:'I ·1.~ c,·l '2. Vero ee~do, t=L 3t%C/- 36/?f Phone #: (including area code) (q ,4) r,ql{- (090 (172.) z:~ I - If 3 verolaw. c.own Contact Person: \,larr<'"1 S

1L PropertY Information i5lfM, !?'l /J.,v.e,,J\J~Jo8f!e,c/;._ t:=L '!,7.967 !o+9.0: 1 Site Address: ---'1!.!U...::i·c:·y_O..::.'·-z.:.· ______

SiteTaxParcelI.D.#s: -~1-39- 3?-000[)f> _ 3oot, - 0000 C/.0 a.viol Lf.O

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) ______

Existing Zoning District: --~A~-~/ _____ Existing Land Use Designation: 11/7- f Requested Zoning District: K //Vt - tJ A.'.f.A Total (gross) Acreage of Parcel: __)..__ J.-.__ _ Acreage (net) to be Amended: ______

Proposed Use on Site: --~:R... e""''-'.. ~"-'-'itl:"'-'-:a,....._] ____.,_l{~e_v-=-sr_'f\_ 4______

ATIACHIIEHT 2_

PLANNING MATTERS

I

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:

Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director .4-iS FROM: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director

DATE: June 22, 2007

SUBJECT: Planning Information Package for the June 28, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

For this meeting's packet, the following articles are provided:

(1) "Briny Breezes plan roils waves of objections", The Palm Beach Post, June 10, 2007, Eliot Kleinberg.

(2) "Poll: Is a building moratorium in Collier's future?", Naples Daily News, June 13, 2007, I. M. Stackel.

(3) ""Sky, Calhoun County, FL, USA Green is More than a Color", Florida Planning, May 2007, Lupita McClenning.

(4) "Florida is Slow to See the Need to Save Water", The New York Times, June 19, 2007, Abby Goodnough.

(5) "Housing market will come back", Tampa Bay Times, June 15, 2007, James Thomer.

(6) "Study says Florida, California home prices likely to drop in 2 years", Sun-Sentinel, June 19, 2007, Jeremy Herron. cc: Board of County Commissioners Joe Baird Michael Zito

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P &Z\ARTICLES\Articles for 2007\6-28-07.doc + SC THE PALM BEACH POST • SUNDAY, JUNE 10, 2007 M

By ELIOT KLEINBERG He1stt¢$$e,.d. that the plan tions, Some a,re cpwmen4; at , Palm Bea_ch Post Staff Writer js j11~t '\~!lfg*rint, and if gov- a May 22 towri hall rnee'tirig · <. / A)floritla agency that wi11 at .whii;h DCA. chief .PeJhalll pass' Judgtnent on the an:ibi­ .-1i1teiiM'fofcho~•fo,{riijf~~,.·· ti,ous project to redevelop the .'trrtJtelf!~~~~~;pf\~. "We. have to," Pierson said. · sidµ\id'·p1ea~·:tfoµi.1iat11}ides:.· Briny Breezes mobile home "It's the law." · ·· Some are pro'developrnent .park has been . barraged The comment file con­ form letters, · with lines for with comments .from. regula- tains ma_ny more letters of op­ . people tofill in. their names, •. tory 1;1:gei:~ies to neighboring positio11 than support. Briny 'Yhi\:l,. challenge rhyths pre" .. cpm1Uup1t1es to the guy next ~i;ee.ze§; < p9p4lation ... less · sented )jy,;;.opliori\',i)~ qr go11-. • · door; The' · file'-. ho1ds ·more - th&n l,OPO; is s.urtouqd.ecl by - .· than 1,00Q pages. .. .. · thousaqds of neighbors who 1 - ; ,,· Eyefy one _. of r them .. ex.­ ,,,~ay,Jj-ir,, c9mplex will• !festroy i!ft~fll!itfll~\f i' ''"'ill'"-'' , ,· , presses some concernabout :''li\~\l!(,t'ii,'(\Y()f .·- Ji',. •\'· .·· . . . ..· ··•·· · ··.· .. siilli;e 1ffi\Honii\ieffitler!lof the scope ?fth~ development Support letters are exdi1- 8 IIJ"gti~r()cean;,:,L@d Inves{ sively,t;fi;o111. J~riny. Breezes ;~~t .n,iertts. has exaggernted its vaJ, .. r~ide'nt~.".Sharelfolde s of ~ir:,,,~~ •· fl¢ .tii th¢ comiriunify at large tfi,,, '.f~{getif:8wrie4 cqfiJor.f ·· , '"'1:l'ie: and undersold th.e impact or .·uori'\,Bf&'.d iii:Tanilary'W's'en··' ·,-\. '?:-· ,_ov.·­ pleads for more specifics. for .- $510 million, making Charlii ¢rist, .•. 'in~lti'ding Palm Beach County's top many ·of,1:liem millionaires, Bruci, Jeri~en · Jr.; - 67, . who planner calls the plan "out Resitl~Wts.wrote that their · included a 20°page "Briny of scale" with the surround­ 'Park , was •· 9:\e storm -from · Breeze.s Way of Life" direc­ ing area. And Boynton Beach oblivion, that the develop­ tory; which has photos of resi­ says it can't supply the water ment proposal is responsible dents and quotes about what and sewer service the devel­ .they like about the place. oper says it will need. and that wealthy neighbors Miami-Dade County Com­ ''The volume of written just want their way; as usual. missioner Javier Souto, who communication is unusual Many urge the DCA to ap­ owns a mobile home in the but not unprecedented,'; prove the sale, something it park, also wrote Crist, saying Department of Community doesn't have the power to do. the proposed redevelopment Affairs chief Thomas Pelham The agency's role is .strictly "may cause tremendous prob­ said Friday ftom Tallahas­ to review the plan. But should lems'' with.the environment. see. · the DCA submit so many ob­ "Charlie, we have to be . .· The department is read­ jections the town can't ignore very CaJ:fjul. with !'-11 of that. ing every missive, Pelham them, and. it then adopts a . I know fuat you haveJbe best · i;aid. B11t this won't be a popu­ 1119re .. ~r.iJ.~d-g9wn pl&µ that J:<1ori,da jp'mind," . larity.cort,test, lie said. •- IDitf \tiif will {i,i, .. ,;:, • Qc,;.ii{Li1iJ:tl\l .Pierson s.'1id rt.() ·. . . In April, the town's cdundl one \Y

Poll: Is a building moratorium in Collier's future? Sharply divided commissioners vote 3-2 to draft ordinance to shut down construction until county can prove it can pay for needed infrastructure

By 1.M. Stackel, Naples Daily News, 6/13

Today in Studio 55, Michelle Harrison, the president of the Collier Building Industry Association, will discuss the effects a building moratorium would have on the area.

'Moratorium' is a word that would fill any builder's heart with terror.

In rapidly growing Collier County, it would be an economic death sentence, construction industry leaders say.

In a 3-2 vote Tuesday, Collier County commissioners asked planning officials to bring back an ordinance in July that would shut down the building industry until county government can prove to the state that Collier's submitted capital improvement plan is financially feasible.

Typically, the county's responsibility for construction-related growth includes laying the groundwork for water, electricity, new and improved roads, schools, libraries, emergency management, fire and police structures and services.

Commissioner Fred Coyle proposed the moratorium so that county officials can get a handle on growth­ management needs: in short, shut down the county's planning pipeline until the county can prove ii can pay for its own growth and expansion.

During a break in Tuesday's session, Joe Schmitt, the county's Community Development and Environmental Services administrator, said it is difficult to say which developments would be affected. There are a variety of factors to consider that include vested rights, development agreements, and the development of regional impact (ORI) designations, he said.

"ltwould have to be (considered) on a case-by-case basis," Schmitt said. "Who has paid impact fees? To what degree are they in progress?"

The basis for the proposed moratorium, county leaders said, is a recent state request and the possible property tax cuts that will come out of the current special legislative session.

For the first time that he knows of, Florida's Department of Community Affairs wants proof of the viability of the capital improvement element of Collier's growth-management plan, Schmitt said.

Collier County is one of the first counties in the state to address this new request.

In the past, DCA accepted a project synopsis, Schmitt wrote in a memo to commissioners.

"II is not intended to shut down everything," said Coyle, who hopes to enact the moratorium in September. "Some people will have the right to proceed."

Uncertainly about state-mandated property tax rollbacks also contributed to the commission vote, a move construction leaders called premature and paranoid.

18 Commissioner Tom Henning, one of the two board votes against the measure, asked what percentage of property taxes supports capital improvements.

County Manager Jim Mudd said impact fees partially pay for needed growth-related services, but in the past year, county government had to borrow from property taxes to supplement debt service.

"We call that a loan," Mudd said, noting that those shifts appear in the annual budget.

Commission Chairman Jim Coletta was the other commissioner who expressed concern about a building moratorium and was on the losing end of the 3-2 vote.

Contacted after the meeting, construction leaders in Collier County were horrified by the commission's action.

Brenda Talbert, executive vice president of the Collier Building Industry Association trade group, expressed disbelief at the irony of Coyle's suggestion - if revenue is already on the low side, why advocate a complete shutdown of the industry?

"Why would you turn to one industry and put them out of business? How about we pull in our belts like everyone else? How about if we lower our level of service? How about if we suspend construction on $55 million water parks?" she asked.

The last statement refers to a North Naples water park that county government built and now operates.

County officials continue to spend "and put it on the back of new growth," Talbert said.

"New growth has been supporting the roads for years. We've been picking up the tab for it because we wanted to build in Collier County. This is inconceivable," Talbert said.

She suggested it would be just like the federal government turning to ailing General Motors and Ford and saying: "We're going to close down your businesses for a while so we can pay for the war in Iraq."

"It doesn't make any sense. You think business is going to wait?" she asked.

CBIA's immediate past president Al Zichella called the county's plan "completely irresponsible."

"It is unfair to the citizens who are in the development or construction business. There are 50,000 people in our county who rely on, or participate in, the construction business," Zichella said, concerned that it would create mass unemployment.

The commission's move is "very callous and paranoid," he said.

"The worst may come to pass, but we do not know that as we sit here. This seems to be quite premature. I can't guess as to their motives," he said.

The move just took some by surprise.

"Given that we were not represented at today's meeting, it would not be appropriate for us to comment at this time," said Kevin Caffrey, spokesman for The Lutgert Group of companies, which is developing the projects Mercato and Treviso.

19 A capital improvements dollar figure wasn't mentioned in Tuesday's discussion. County officials soon will enter budget workshops when those figures are fleshed-out.

Higher gas tax brings in lower revenue

By Terry Witt, Citrus County Chronicle, 6/15

The county commission's decision in January 2006 to raise the gas tax by six cents doesn't appear to be bearing fruit.

Commissioners began levying the additional tax in January of 2006, but statistics show 2007 revenues are in an overall decline.

Gax tax revenues were down five percent from October to March this budget year compared to same period for 2005-06, according to an e-mail from Public Works Director Glenn McCracken. He said revenues were 15 percent lower during that period than what the Florida Department of Revenue had forecast.

McCracken discussed the revenue decline in an exchange of e-mails with resident Joseph Randazzo, saying there could be a variety of reasons for the revenue declines.

"Given that the population has increased in the county, but gas tax revenue has declined would suggest less consumption within the county," McCracken wrote. "Whether that is due to less travel, improved vehicle efficiency or folks purchasing gas over the county line, or a combination of all, I will leave to others to debate and validate."

McCracken cited several news articles related to the subject lagging gas tax revenues, including an Associated Press story May 21 headlined "Stagnant federal gas tax lies at heart of transportation funding crisis," and a second story in a May 18 USA Today story titled, "Americans continue to drive fewer miles."

Cathy Taylor, director of the county's Office of Management and Budget, said she believes the rising price of gas might be changing driving habits.

The average price of a gallon of regular gasoline in Florida rose more than 60 cents between January 2006 and May of 2007, according to FloridaStateGasPrices.Com. The average price of a gallon of regular gas in Florida was $2.36 in January 2006, the month the county raised the gas tax by 6 cents, the Web site said.

The price of a gallon of regular reached its peak early last month at $3.14, and declined to about $2.96 in early June, the Web site said.

Taylor said she shops for "good buys" at the gas pump whenever she can, but the definition of a good buy is changing.

"I know the other day I remarked to someone that I had ONLY paid $3.04 a gallon," Taylor said. "I thought that was a good deal; and then the other person said, "Where did you get it?"

20 SKY, Calhoun County, FL, USA Green is More than a Color

by Lupita McClenning

A new community is planned, a sustainable community protects natural resources and preserves important landscapes. with a fanning and equestrian component set among the forest, Within SKY's unique setting is a mixture of housing types creeks, lakes and pastures of northwest Florida. Located historically found throughout farming villages. The principles in the central part of Calhoun County, SKY presents a new of SKY are founded on the conviction that building with model for growth to predominantly rural Calhoun County a sense of local identity, based on a natural and cultural by advocating compact development and the preservation of heritage is not nostalgic, but bold and visionary. The open space. Rather than consuming former agricultural land project will encourage sustainable development practices with sprawl, SKY clusters its through the SKY Institute for development into villages and Sustainable Development. hamlets, offering compact The SKY Institute seeks and walkable communities to build awareness around within a greater natural and planning for a sustainable agricultural environment. future, In the face of Zev Cohen and Associates Florida's rapid growth, submitted a large-scale environmental awareness map amendment from 571 and sustainable building acres of Agriculture to 312 methods help to preserve the acres of Mixed Use; 105 future and enhance quality of acres of Conservation and life. SKY Institute will work preservation of the remaining hand-in-hand with Duaney, 154 acres as Agriculture Plater-Zyberk Associates which is a key component (DPZ), and the Congress for to the sustainability of the New Urbanism (CNU) and project. SKY features 624 the Florida Chapter of the new home sites, an equestrian Congress to foster awareness complex, and miles of riding of the SKY project as an and hiking trails, pnblic enticing model village for gardens and amenities, and over half the property set aside the future, a place of ecologically sensitive design and for agriculture and open space. environmentally responsive homes. SKY Institute edifies SKY is consistent with the principles of "Smart the principles of Whole Systems, Healthy Neighborhoods, Growth." This approach to land development promotes Permaculture and Biodynamic farming in working rural a mix of residential, commercial and recreational uses; landscapes. preserves green space and working landscapes. The need The focus extends from the design of the single family for rural smart growth strategies is clear since rural towns home, its surrounding site development and preservation of are the very frontier oftomonow's sprawling development. adjacent ecological systems through the use of protective green The proposed map amendment protects and promotes rural space, restored wetlands, the protection.of riparian buffers, land by promoting agricultnre that provides both open space groundwater recharge zones and clustering development away and renewed connectedness between the farm community from water resources. SKY employs low impact development and the snrrounding villages. The proposed amendment techniques including bioretention areas, vegetated swales, provides protection for a changing agriculture economy. permeable paving and the protection of critical habitat in The continuation of agricultnre will support a wide variety and around watercourses and wetlands. SKY will implement of jobs and sustain a historic tradition. The land use Green Building Program standards developed by the Florida amendment establishes a framework for an economically and Green Building Coalition and the U.S. Green Building enviromnentally sustainable agriculture to keep land available Council, LEED for Homes and LEED ND. for farming and conservation practices to keep the land healthy. A plan with these elements promotes agricultnral, Continued on page I 0

Florida r Planning • May 2007 9 More than a Color Continued from page 9 SKY intends to minimize energy requirements and consumption patterns show that approximately two-thirds maximize renewable energy utilization to support the of the loading are HVAC related. A centralized chilled/ community while maintaining the comforts of life expected heated water plan will apply best available commercial by its residents. This is done by integrating the architectural technology to the development. Consumption will be and engineering designs that minimize energy requirements, measured using BTU metering where customer loops maximize the use of renewable energy and provide common are attached to the main services. This significantly services where economies ofscale bring added efficiency. The reduces the HVAC electrical loading component of the demonstration of optimally integrated reduction techniques, development. renewable energy resources, and overall system automation 2. Solar photovoltaic (PV) and solar thermal will serve SKY's objectives and the need for continued treatments integrated in the roof tiling systems is expected . progress in how new communities approach development to generate 2 to 4 k W per unit during the day. Excess and land use in Florida. It also meets the goals set forth by energy generation is stored in local battery or fuel cell Governor Bush and the Florida Energy Office in the 2006 arrays for use at night. 3. Biomass plans for utilization of open spaces and waste to generate biomass to be sold or given to biomass conversion stakeholders. The availability of agricultural land surrounding SKY's location and land preservation design provides a unique opportunity to create infrastructure and development and biomass utilization as a positive philosophical and aesthetic component of the community. 4.Economic Dispatch of Supply and Demand Side Resources managed by distributed supervisory control

'I

Florida Energy Plan mandate by the Florida Legislature I I I for an expanded role for renewable energy in the State. Through the 2006 Florida Energy Act, the Florida Legislature appropriated $15 million for renewable energy teclmologies grants to stimulate investment in the state and promote and enhance the statewide utilization of renewable energy technologies. The funding was awarded to eight organizations with SKY being awarded $1.8 million to study and develop strategies to successfully integrate renewable and sustainable energy teclmologies with qualify-of-life and environmental I• 1.. • goals embodied in "New Urbanism" community design. . t \..'\ The principles regarding SKY's environmental and sustainable building practices are imbedded in the town's architectural plan and codes which include: I. Common chilled water geothermal heap pump loops circulate thermally conditioned fluids through the neighborhood as required. Residential electrical Continued on page JI

10 May 2007 • Florida f Planning More than a Color renewable and sustainable energy technologies, solar power, trees to the east and west to shade houses, landscaping with drought-tolerant plants that help save natural resources is serious business when one considers Florida's population growth and the water and energy it would take to meet that growth. The land use plan, along with the codes and White Starr, Inc. 's sustainable approach to growth enable SKY to become a model environmental development, exhibiting 0"" sustainable growth patterns on the community, regional and \~'-~ national scale. Lupita McClenning is Project Manager for Zev Cohen and Associates, Inc., and serves as the principal land use planner for SKY Lupita graduated from Stetson University and is an active member of Congress for New Urbanism, \, the Florida Chapter ofAmerican Planning Association, and ;,1 serves on the board of the First Coast American Planning I Association. She can be reached at lmcclenning@zevcohen. com or (904) 491-5436. (Footnotes) r-·. 1 "Energy Bill 2006, Senate Bill 888" Florida Legislature, I \' May 2006. \

2007 Florida Planning & Zoning Continued from page IO Association and data acquisition system to minimize operational costs Annual Conference without affecting residents. "Planning Through Partnerships: 5.Architecturally engineered space design will employ high thermal inertia building materials, highest efficiency Florida Growing Together" hosted by the Gulfcoast Chapter of FPZA insulation, ducting, glass treatments, zoned HVAC, variable speed air handling, lighting, and appliances that June 6 - 9, 2007 minimize electrical load requirements while maintaining The Ritz-Carlton, Sarasota, Florida expected levels of comfort and service. 6. Water/wastewater treatment poses significant The conference provides an excellent forum for opportunity for efficient energy management since bringing together the players in the planning world to exothermic and endothermic reactions are taking place discuss common concerns and challenges, discuss which can provide significant energy source, utilization new programs and topics and share important lessons and storage. learned. Expected impacts include demonstrated reductions in This year's conference features several dynamic key unit energy requirements using high efficiency architectural note speakers: designs, best available renewable energy technologies, shared Tom Pelham, Secretary of DCA commercial HVAC loops and networked supervisory control Steve Seibert, Executive Director systems. Century Commission for a Sustainable Florida Buildings are the biggest drain on energy and natural Janet Watermeier, President of Watermeier Consulting resources. SKY's building practices will conserve energy and and resources using best practices in building materials, Author Randy Wayne White landscaping, appliances, lighting, plumbing and heating and cooling. Developing strategies to successfully integrate For more information, please visit www.fpza.org

Florida r Planning• May 2007 11 Businesses Fight Push For Land Use Overhaul Page 1 of3

.. ··.•······•.~. ··.-, Ci~ PRl!NTTHIS .(.[~= live lh fJ,e m'1me11t

Businesses Fight Push For Land Use Overhaul By MIKE SALINERO The Tampa Tribune Published: Jun 20, 2007 TAMPA- Florida's largest business groups are mobilizing to crush a citizen initiative they say would slow development and kill the state's economy. The Florida Chamber of Commerce is leading an effort to defeat Florida Hometown Democracy, and amendment that would take major land use decisions out of the hands of local politicians and put them to a popular vote. The initiative's appeal is growing among residents who feel increasingly stressed by traffic jams, crowded schools and a degraded environment. Supporters claim the initiative is gaining steam and that they will get the 611,009 petition signatures necessary to put measure on the ballot in November 2008. The deadline for turning in the signatures is Feb. 1. l)ntil then, voters can expect to see petition gatherers at concerts, art shows and other public venues. Before the campaign is over, tens of millions of dollars will be spent on campaign advertising, perhaps more than for any other constitutional amendment campaign in Florida history. The most expensive amendment campaign to date was the 1996 battle over a sugar tax to clean up the Everglades. Sugar farmers and environmental groups spent $36 million on the initiative, which failed. "This is much more serious because it has effects all over the state," said Lance deHaven-Smith, a political scientist and author of books on Florida politics. "It will be a major change for the development community and local government planning. The stakes are a lot higher." Supporters of the amendment have accused the chamber of dirty tricks. The business group pulled a video from its Web site that used actors pretending to be unscrupulous paid petition gatherers. "The builders are looking to protect their pocketbooks," said Lesley Blackner, a Palm Beach lawyer and co-founder of the Hometown Democracy movement. "The citizens are looking to take back their state." 'Comp Plan' Changes At Issue The amendment would require voter approval whenever counties want to change their comprehensive growth plans. "Comp plans," as they are popularly known, are supposed to guide growth, outlining where homes, industries, parks and schools should be located. Under current law, county commissioners vote to approve or deny comp plan amendments with advice from county planners. Blackner maintains that commissioners, dependent on campaign contributions from developers, approve all land use changes that come before them. The result, she said, is runaway growth. "There shouldn't be a change made unless there is a finding by local commissioners that the public's interest will be benefited, or at least not harmed," she said. Opponents, however, say constantly evolving market conditions force planners and developers to re-evaluate growth plans. An example is the recent rezoning approved by the Tampa City Council for an Ikea furniture store in Ybor City. The storn had to get a comp plan amendment because the area was zoned for heavy industry. The amendment changed the land use so the area could be rezoned to planned development. "That would be a perfect example that, just as a knee-jerk reaction, if you don't know what's going on, you would vote against it," said Tampa lawyer David Mechanik, who represented Ikea. Gathering Momentum Blackner says Hometown Democracy has about 400,000 petition signatures, though only 242,445 of the petitions have been verified by elections supervisors as being from registered Florida voters, as required by law. It takes 611,009 for the amendment to be on the November 2008 ballot. "We expect to see the number rise, and at the rate they're going, they will get on the ballot in 2008," said Adam Babington, who leads the chambers' effort to derail the amendment. Babington said the chamber's polling shows support for the amendment running at 43 percent lo 31 percent opposed, with 25 percent unsure. It needs to be approved by 60 percent of http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Businesses+Fight+Push+For... 6/20/2007 Businesses Fight Push For Land Use Overhaul Page 2 of3

voters to pass. The movement is getting some support from environmental groups, including the Sierra Club's Florida chapter and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Federation. Bev Griffiths, chairwoman of the Sierra Club's Tampa Bay Group, said her chapter has pledged $1,000 toward the Hometown Democracy campaign. Griffiths said her members think that growth in Florida is "off the leash," and they blame local government. As an example, Griffiths cites the Hillsborough County Commission's decision to scrap a "livable communities" element proposed for the county's growth plan. The element had been recommended by the city-county planning commission after two years of meetings with neighborhood groups. It included development amenities such as green building codes, native vegetation requirements, sidewalks and bike trails. Developers opposed the livable communities proposal, saying it was too expensive. Commissioners killed it with little public discusSion at a work session in March. "I think what made people change their minds was they would go to the meetings and try to make their ideas work through the system," Griffiths said. "And, in the end, they were frustrated by ii." Chamber On Attack Business groups argue that the amendment will kill representative government and bog down the electoral process. They say it is unreasonable to expect people to spend time educating themselves about land-use technicalities to cast an educated vote. "The fear is that [voters] would vote 'no' on everything," said Mechanik, the Tampa land-use lawyer. Mechanik disagrees with Blackner's contention that county commissioners hand out growth plan amendments like candy. "We go through a pretty rigorous process under zoning," he said. "If there are a large number of residents appearing at a zoning hearing, that rezoning. is in trouble." The fear that Hometown Democracy will bring growth to a halt has united business and development groups in opposition. Last year, they spent an estimated $3.1 million to persuade voters to approve Amendment 2, which requires proposed amendments to get 60 percent of the votes instead of a simple majority. Many businesspeople said the threshold was aimed at Hometown Democracy. The chamber has assembled a "Hometown Scam Coalition" that includes developers, bankers and Realtors. The chamber Web site exhorts members to "Stop the Scam" and has a link for members who want to submit a letter to their local newspapers, opposing Hometown Democracy. Babington maintains a busy schedule telling local chambers and business groups that Hometown Democracy is bankrolled by "special interests" who want to "hijack" Florida's representative form of government. "I wouldn't be surprised to see $10 million, $20 million, $30 million in out-of-state money come in to prop up that Hometown Democracy campaign, which means that here in Florida, we're going to have to come up with at least that much money and certainly more," Babington said. Campaign finance records do not support Babington's claims, however. As of this week, Hometown Democracy had raised about $588,000. Just 12 donations; totaling $435, were from outside Florida. Blackner is the largest contributor to the campaign, giving $375,000 Most of the remaining 1,065 contributions were less than $100. Babington did not reply to questions about how much the chamber has spent on the amendment. Campaign reports show the chamber's Free Enterprise Political Action Committee raised $354,000 as of June 7 and spent $301,209. Edie Ousley, spokeswoman for the Florida Homebuilders Association, said the Hometown campaign will be particularly expensive because it will be fought during a presidential election year when television air time is costly. Researchers Diane Grey and Michael Messano contributed to this report. Reporter Mike Salinero can be reached at msalinero@ tampatrib.com or (813) 259-8303.

Find this article at: http://www.tbo.com/news/metro/MGBSIE6A53F.html

http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=Businesses+Fight+Push+For... 6/20/2007 Florida Is Slow to See the Need to Save Water - New York Times Page 1 of3

ll!J1e Pl'rur jork _l!iin1 ell nyt:rnes.corn

June 19, 2007 Florida Is Slow to See the Need to Save Water

By ABBY GOODNOUGH

POMPANO BEACH, Fla., June 12 - Even as a drought and unprecedented water restrictions strip many Florida lawns of their lushness, Mark Harding has few takers for the artificial grass he sells from a showroom here. Inquiries are up, he said, but swapping turf for less thirsty alternatives remains hard for Floridians to get their heads around.

"People are just starting to look at it," said Mr. Harding, a transplant from Buffalo who admits to having replaced only a piece of his own lawn with the fake stuff. "It's right in its infancy stage."

The same might be said for awareness that Florida's water supply, seemingly endless given the abundance of springs, lakes, canals, aquifers and rainfall, is not.

Many regions have all but depleted their groundwater supply, yet they have barely begun planning new water sources or enforcing conservation measures. Meanwhile, residential water bills in Florida's urban areas - averaging $32 a month in Miami, for example - have remained much lower than those in many other cities.

"We now face the scarcity, the spending and the spectacle that used to be unique to the arid West," said Cynthia Barnett, the author of "Mirage: Florida and the Vanishing Water of the Eastern U.S." But Ms. Barnett and others who study Florida's water use say that unlike out West, a sense of urgency has nottaken hold here, nor have government agencies taken the politically thorny steps some scientists say are necessary.

The South Florida Water Management District, whose political appointees regulate water use in some of the thirstiest counties, is only now considering permanent, year-round watering restrictions. Many cities and homeowner associations still require grass lawns, blocking alternatives like sturdy ground cover, drought­ resistant plants or Mr. Harding's artificial turf.

On Marco Island, near Naples, city officials made a homeowner get rid of $15,000 worth of artificial grass in 2005 on the grounds that it was offensive and might pose environmental risks. (He protested by painting his house with polka dots.) In the Villages, a vast retirement community near Orlando, a resident tried replacing sod with plantings that required less water, only to be rebuffed by the developer.

(Worth noting: Kentucky bluegrass, the soft, archetypal grass of the Northeast and the Midwest, does not grow here. Instead, Florida's trademark turf is St. Augustine grass, coarse, tough on bare feet and often laid on the ground in strips, not seeded.)

Changing the rules on lawns could be significant, since Florida households - especially those with automatic irrigation systems, which are increasingly common - use up to 75 percent of their water outdoors.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007 /06/19/us/l 9florida.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=dl 78064. .. 6/20/2007 Florida Is Slow to See the Need to Save Water - New York Times Page 2 of3

"The most important incentive we can establish is limiting lawn watering," said Amy Vickers, an engineer and consultant who is helping Orange County rewrite its water conservation ordinance. "It's reasonable and fair, and something I think we've got to learn to live with."

In Southeast Florida, the restrictions in place since March - twice-a-week watering in some areas, once a week in others - have been erratically enforced. Wellington, a wealthy community in Palm Beach County known for its polo grounds, has issued more than 2,200 water violations. But Miami Beach has issued none.

To date, only the Tampa Bay region has faced a serious water crisis, after Pinellas County pumped too much groundwater from areas to its north in the 1980s. The region built a $158 million seawater desalination plant, but it has been fraught with problems and had to shut down for almost two years.

Other parts of the state are now under pressure to plan similar projects because in 2005, the Legislature required cities and counties to prove they will have enough water for any new development. The law has been a wakeup call for counties like Miami-Dade and Broward, which reuse only a tiny part of their wastewater and flush the rest into the ocean or injection wells deep underground.

In 2004, Miami-Dade asked to add 100 million gallons of water a day over the next two decades to the 346 million gallons a day it already uses. The county appeared shocked by the state's response last year: that it could not keep tapping the Biscayne Aquifer, its cheap, longtime water source, and must create alternatives. The county is planning to spend $4.5 billion on projects like a high-tech wastewater disinfection plant over the coming decades.

As the prospect of costly water projects looms, so do water wars reminiscent of those that have raged for years in the West.

Orange County, home of Disney World, riled neighbors by requesting an additional 14 million gallons of groundwater a day, a 30 percent increase, over the next two decades. And residents of North Florida were outraged in 2003 when a group of developers urged the transfer of water from that region to the more crowded South Florida.

For now, the state has pledged $60 million a year to help subsidize water projects from the Panhandle to the Keys. Where the rest will come from remains unclear, as does the wisdom of some of the proposed projects. Ms. Vickers said more studies were needed on the safety of treated wastewater, the main alternative source counties are eyeing.

"What are the long-term impacts on health and the environment?" she asked. "I don't think we know."

Since rain will keep falling in Florida - even now, after some of the driest months on record, South Florida has started seeing deluges again - cities here may never press conservation to the extent that many of their Western counterparts do, offering homeowners cash for every square foot of turf they tear up and rebates for water-efficient toilets and appliances.

Yet some places are trying. After the 2001 drought, Ms. Barnett said, Sarasota County kept tough water-use rules in place and reduced its per-capita consumption to 90 gallons a day, compared with the state average of

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19florida.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=dl 78064... 6/20/2007 Florida Is Slow to See the Need to Save Water - New York Times Page 3 of3

174. Broward County now encourages homeowners to replace grass with native plants that need little water, sending out consultants who have helped remake 1,600 lawns. But it runs into trouble with homeowners' associations that still require grass.

"Until these older communities change their bylaws," said Diana Guidry, a Broward County official, "a lot of people will meet resistance."

Marilyn Barber, whose yard was a carpet of grass when she moved to Broward County a decade ago, replaced all but 10 percent with plants that need watering only once a week. "Just like cars get smaller when gas gets high enough," Mrs. Barber said, "if water becomes expensive or there isn't enough of it, people will say, 'Gee, I really can't afford to have grass.' "

For now - at least in Southeast Florida - that seems unlikely. More than eight inches of rain have fallen so far this month in Broward and Palm Beach Counties, compared with about three inches throughout May.

[On Thursday, the South Florida Water Management District announced it was likely to ease the water restrictions soon.]

Copyright 2007 The New York Times Company

Privacy Policy I ~ I Corrections I ..R.$5 I I First Look I l::ie!p_ I Contact I Js I Work fqr Us I ~

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/19/us/19florida.html?ei=5087%0A&em=&en=d178064... 6/20/2007 Page 1 of2

tamnabav.com Know it ri.OW. Housing market will come back

Based on economic trends, an expert predicts short-term pain will lead to long-term gain.

By James Thorner, Times Staff Writer Published June 15, 2007

He's down on the mat, he's bloody, the fans are booing. But can the Tampa Bay area housing market rise from the arena as the Comeback Kid?

You can bet the house on it, said Lawrence Yun, senior economist at the National Association of Realtors.

Yun was appointed last month as the top economic spokesman for the Washington-based Realtors group. He succeeded economist David Lereah, discredited after maintaining rosy outlooks amid an increasingly troubled housing market and promoting his 2005 book, Are You Missing The Real Estate Boom - Why Home Values and Other Real Estate Investments Will Climb Through the End of the Decade.

In a slide show Thursday to the Greater Tampa Association of Realtors, Yun delivered a message of short-term pain leading to long-term gain.

"Five years from now you will be very happy you're in this business and located in Tampa," Yun said over a brown-bag lunch to about 75 real estate agents.

In Yun's view, rising incomes and declining home prices ought to have stimulated sales this year were it not for housing bubble scares in the media.

In one worst-case scenario, an economist suggested the gap between incomes and home prices would depress housing values 40 percent.

Yun scoffed at the idea: The real measure of affordability, he said citing a formula, is mortgage obligation relative to income. He clicked a slide showing Tampa-St. Petersburg-Clearwater hovering at the national average. Much of California isn't so lucky, nor is high-priced Miami and Naples.

"It's very, very manageable. Nothing alarming in this region," Yun said.

Yun based his housing projections on a list of economic trends: speculators leaving the market, strong job creation, baby beamers buying second homes and reform - a slow process now under way - of Florida's property tax and insurance systems.

On that last item, Yun predicted a "sonic boom," should the state Legislature succeed in bringing insurance premiums back to earth.

http://www.sptimes.com/2007 /06/15/news _pfil3usiness/Housing_ market_ will_ c.shtml 6/15/2007 Page 2 of2

Coming off the boom that ended in late 2005, the local housing market's biggest problem is a record-high inventory of homes for sale. Listings hold about 40, 000 houses and condos, quadruple the number of two years ago.

Ever optimistic, Yun suggested a way out of the thicket: Thousands of homes will peel off into the rental market, while others drop off the charts as owners wait out the slump.

"In a job-growth area, people can hold onto the house without being desperate," he said.

If membership rolls are any indication, real estate agents also hope to weather rough times. The Tampa Association of Realtors reported membership ticking up a bit to 9, 200.

Carlos Fuentes, the association's elected president, urged member's to spread the gospel according to Yun.

"You need to know the facts, "Fuentes said. "You need to know how to present them as well."

James Thorner can be .reached at [email protected] or (813) 226-3313.

© 2007 • All Rights Reserved • St. Petersburg Times 490 First Avenue South• St. Petersburg, FL 33701 • 727-893-8111 Contact the Times I Privacy Policy I Standard of Accuracy I Terms, Conditions & Copyright

http://www.sptimes.com/2007 /06/15/news __p£'Business/Housing_ market_ will_ c.shtml 6/15/2007 Study says Florida, California home prices likely to drop in 2 years Page 1 of2

Sun-Sen~e1,aso1m http_;/J.www~un:.$enti.n.eJ&omLbusiness/local/sfl-0619housing,0.499469".7.stQIY

Study says Florida, California home prices likely to drop in 2 years

By JEREMY HERRON Associated Press

June 19, 2007, 3:22 PM EDT

NEW YORK -- The days of oceanfront property as a good investment might be a thing of the past,

Some homeowners in California, Florida and the southwestern U.S. now face more than a 60 percent chance their property will be worth less in two years, according to a new study by a mortgage insurer. But for Texans and Midwesterners, there is much less reason to worry.

The PMI U.S. Market Risk index, released Tuesday by PM! Mortgage Insurance Co., predicts a less than one in 10 chance of price depreciation in markets such as Dallas, Houston and Indianapolis. Pittsburgh is the safest, with just a 6.4 percent risk that home prices will fall.

That's in stark contrast to the once-booming regions on the coasts. The index found that 15 of the nation's 50 largest metro areas have a greater than 50 percent chance of seeing price drops.

Eleven of those markets. are in California and Florida, including Los Angeles and Miami. These are areas that enjoyed some of the largest price run-ups during a five-year housing boom that ended nearly two years ago.

' 'What the markets with the greatest risk of decline have in common is a history of price volatility: rapidly rising rates of price appreciation above the long-term average followed by a recent sharp slowdown in the rate of appreciation," said Mark .Milner, PMI's chief risk officer.

The riskiest of all markets are Riverside, Calif., Phoenix, Las Vegas and West Palm Beach, Fla. -­ each with a greater-than-60 percent chance of depreciation. Nationwide, the average chance of a price decrease in the 50 largest markets is 34 percent, PM! said. Boston and Washington are the riskiest markets in the East, with a 50 percent chance of decline. New York City is safer, coming in at about the national average.

PMI's Risk Index estimates the probability that home prices will fall within the next two years, but does not forecast the depth of any decline. Its calculations are based on first-quarter data on home-price appreciation from the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight, along with mortgage prices, labor market trends and housing demand in each market.

The company adjusted its statistical model to give more weight to recent volatility in home prices, which led in part to the increased risk scores in metro areas in the Western and Southeastern regions, PM! said.

PM!, a unit of residential mortgage insurer PM! Group Inc., typically publishes the index quarterly, but skipped the spring reading because of the revision to its model.

The forecast for price declines in many major markets in the next two years comes with the housing market already struggling with lower prices.

The median price for an existing single-family home fell 1.8 percent to $212,3000 in the first

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-0619housing, 0 ,407281 0,print. story 6/20/2007 Study says Florida, California home prices likely to drop in 2 years Page 2 of2 quarter, according to the National Association of Realtors. That was the third consecutive quarterly decline. Prices slid 2.6 percent in April, a record ninth consecutive monthly drop.

Home prices fall when the supply of available houses exceeds the number of buyers on the market. That has been the case for more than a year, after builders spent lavishly to develop land in response to a surge in demand for homes that was exaggerated by speculative buyers.

Companies have curtailed building recently as they try to sell existing stock. In May, new-home construction fell 2.1 percent, mainly on weakness in the South and West, the Commerce Department reported earlier Tuesday. That was the sharpest drop since a 13.9 percent slump in January.

Construction permits, an indicator of future activity, fell 1.8 percent. But Banc of America analyst Daniel Oppenheim said the drop was not enough to affect an upturn in prices.

'' Lower construction is needed to work through the excess supply," he said. Until that happens, he added, builders will likely continue to cut prices to increase sales, which will hurt prices for preowned homes.

'' Existing homes for sale will continue to sit on the market unless sellers cut pricing aggressively," Oppenheim said.

Copyright© 2007, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/business/local/sfl-0619housing,0,4072810,print.story 6/20/2007 , ' PIIAN11UNG , MATTERS

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

,_

o ert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Direct r

FROM: Stan Bolint,1fcP Planning Director

DATE: June 22, 2007

SUBJECT: Continued Consideration ofldeas from April 25th Quality of Development Workshop

At the June 14, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, staff presented and explained the attached revised matrix. The matrix groups each of the 52 ideas presented by panelists at the April 25, 2007 PZC workshop on Improving the Quality of Development. The groups or "buckets" shown in the matrix represent topic areas. Also, the matrix proposes certain responsibility and oversight assignments. Staffhas committed to taking most of the 52 workshop ideas and imputing them into the EAR process.

At its June 14, 2007 meeting, the PZC indicated that,at its June 28th meeting, it would be ready to discuss the matrix and consider how to handle ideas presented at the April 25th workshop. The PZC needs to review the attached revised matrix, eliminate any ideas it does not wish to pursue, and provide staff direction on how to proceed.

Attachment: Revised Matrix

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P &Z\2007\Qualityofdevelopment6-28-07 .doc EAR BUCKET Primary responsibility: Staff

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element Staff responsibility: follow EAR nrocess 1 Provide incentives for sustaining FLUE Gale PZC LDRs existing agriculture aud promote Stau viable alternative crops such as bio- fuels 2 Revisit existing laud-clearing Conservation Andy PZC LDRs policies aud regulations to preserve Stau

more existing vegetations . 3 Revisit aud expand TDR (transfer of FLUE Gale PZC LDRs development rights) tool for Stau conservation . 4 Establish policy to minimize out-of- Conservation Andy CAC aud MANWAC LDRs county mitigation for wetlands aud Stau uplands impacts 5 Promote large-scale tree planting aud Conservation Andy CAC aud MANWAC restoration of non-conservation lauds 6 Define rural, suburban, urbau areas FLUE Gale PZC LDRs ("transect") aud appropriate overlay Stau districts/regulations . 7 Promote mixed uses aud require FLUE Gale PZC LDRs better integration of residential aud Stan non-residential uses 8 Identify aud address up-corning FLUE Gale PZC LDRs redevelopment opportunities inside Stan the Urbau Service Area 9 Increase densities inside Urbau FLUE Gale PZC LDRs Service Area, particularly in Stau redevelopment areas 10 Develop a big picture plan: refine it FLUE Gale PZC but stick to it 11 Allow expanded but small FLUE Gale PZC LDRs commercial uses in residences Stau

F:\Corrimunity Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 1 EARBUCKET

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element 12 Establish more commercial area FLUE Gale PZC LDRs

. throughout the Urban Service Area Stan 13 Recognize that concurrency hurdles CIE Bill BCC are very costly to overcome 14 Do a cost-benefit analysis of all Staff does some cost requirements and initiatives: can we Analysis afford it even if we want it?

Note: Regardless of an item's "bucket" designation, staff will take 42 of the 52 total items and use them as input into an EAR Implementation Element, as indicated in all the buckets.

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAl\'\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 2 WATER BUCKET PZC Commissioner Liaison: Richard Baker

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element 1 Diversify water supply sources Aquifer recharge Utilities Planning & Zoning Roland Commission (PZC), Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD), Agricultural Advisory Committee (AAC) 2 Potable Water Gale Utility Advisory Committee (UAC) and (SWCD) 3 Develop Reservoirs Aquifer recharge Utilities PZCandSWCD Roland 4 Potable Water Utilities UACandSWCD Gale 5 Expand and upgrade re-use water Sanitary Sewer Utilities UACandSWCD system Gale 6 Initiate more Indian River Farms Stormwater Roland PZCandSWCD Relief canal projects like 74th Ave/4th Management St project 7 Develop St. Sebastian River basin Stormwater Roland PZCandSWCD LDRs project and/or BMP requirements for Management all development in the basin 8 Address contaminated soils in Stormwater Roland PZCandSWCD LDRs agricultural ditches Management 9 Prepare plans for a 100 year Stormwater Roland PZCandSWCD timeframe Management 10 Educate homeowners about habits Stormwater Roland PZCandSWCD and practices that impact stormwater Management Various quality Agencies

F:\Community Development\Users \CurDev\S TAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 3 ENVIRONMENTAL BUCKET PZC Commissioner liaison: Bob Bruce

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element 1 Increase native plant requirements Conservation Andy Conservation Advisory LDRs Stan Committee (CAC) and Marine Advisory Narrows Watershed . Action Committee (MANWAC) 2 Require BMPs (best management Conservation Andy CAC and MANWAC 3 practices) in all Planned Stormwater Roland PZCandSWCD Developments Management 4 FLUE Gale PZCandSWCD Stan 5 Require better landscaping for all Transportation Phil MPOandPZC road projects Jim Davis

Regarding any or all items in this bucket: ask Dr. Cox & the Audubon Society to prepare proposal for PZC to consider Fall 2007

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 4 MAPPING BUCKET Specific, overall responsibility NOT yet defined Implementation # Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Element Mapping of general areas 1 Map, preserve, and connect natural Conservation Roland CACandMANWAC areas; building in remaining areas Andy performed with EAR (McHarg "Design with native (includes information approach") provided by local environmental mapping effort)

Notes: detailed mapping with field verification will either require special funding for a county-directed effort or be performed in part or in whole during a special application process ( e.g. Rural Lands Stewardship proposal).

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 5 "GREEN"BUCKET BCC Commissioner Peter O'Bryan and Green Team Handling "green" issues

# Item EAR hnplementation Staff Review Committee hnplementation Element 1 Adopt existing "Green" standards Conservation Andy PZC LDRs and programs for development Roland projects and buildings (reference: Stan floridagreenbuliding.org) 2 Recognize that "green" practices are CIE Bill BCC essential: their time has come

•

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 6 ARCHITECTURAL BUCKET

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element I Require "Good Structure": FLUE Gale PZC LDRs neighborhoods, blocks, streets, public Stan and private spaces, defined centers and edges 2 Hire design professional on county Relates to # 11 Gale PZC BCC Consideration staff (Relates to # 11) 3 Re-visit policies and regulations to Relates to # 11 Gale PZC BCC Consideration provide architectural guidelines and (Relates to #11) require more usable open space 4 Develop vision images of standards FLUE Gale PZC and what is desired: must get predicable approval process for what is desired 5 Establish an architectural review Relates to # 11 Gale BCC Consideration board for "peer review" of (Relates # 11) development projects 6 Re-visit "buffer only'' solutions: Relates to #11 Roland PZC Chapter 926 of LDRs don't hide good development with too much buffering 7 Promote and sustain design BCC, Policy for provision education and forums of continuous education 8 Use local design talent Observation 9 Use PD (planned development) process FLUE Gale PZC to promote desired forms and mixed use (Pointe West TND examole) 10 Re-visit certain "GAC regulations" FLUE Gale PZC LDRs to promote more usable and visible planting and green soace 11 Establish architectural guidelines and FLUE Gale PZC architectural review board Note: Local AIA chapter (Greg Burke) to prepare proposal for PZC to consider Fall 2007

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 7 TRANSPORTATION BUCKET Specific, overall responsibility NOT yet defined

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element 1 Define appropriate road and public Transportation Phil MPOandPZC LDRs improvement designs for rural, Stan suburban and urban areas 2 Require connectivity and walk ability Transportation Phil MPOandPZC LDRs Stan 3 Emphasize design and qualitative Transportation Phil PZC approach equally with engineering/ Chris quantitative approach Mora (Transportation LOS) 4 Build-out the roadway network to Transportation Phil MPOandPZC establish the grid on the ground and promote interconnectivity 5 Promote multi-modal transportation Transportation Phil MPO LDRs Stan 6 Focus on intersection improvements Transportation Phil MPO 7 Allow flexibility and special study CIE Bill PZC LDRs approaches to concurrency Stan 8 Re-visit operational approaches to Chris Traffic Engineering traffic management Mora Consideration 9 Re-visit engineering standards to Transportation Jim Davis allow/ promote street trees 10 Recognize safety concerns of FLUE and Jim Davis residents regarding through-streets Transportation 11 Promote public/private partnerships CIE Bill BCC for providing infrastructure improvements (reduces costs and delivery time)

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\STAN\2007\Bucketschart.rtf 8 REMAINDER BUCKET The balance of items; individually assigned or no action required

# Item EAR Implementation Staff Review Committee Implementation Element 1 Appoint design professional( s) to the Relates to # 11 in Attorney's BCC consideration for Planning and Zoning Commission Architectural Bucket Office revision to section 103.03 of the county code 2 Recognize need for a shift in Observation paradigms and ways of thinking by leaders and citizens 3 Contract with Treasure Coast FLUE Gale PZC Staff will coordinate with Regional Planning Council to TCRPC prepare plan 4 Apply GAC regulations in as many Legal Issue projects as possible (limit grandfathering) 5 License site work contractors: pull Public Legal Issue licenses of those who do bad work Works 6 Perform key inspections during road- Public Budget Issue (More Staff) building within projects Works 7 Recognize that costs and risks Observation associated with commercial development are making such development economically infeasible 8 Recognize that a predictable PZC review its role and approval process is essential responsibility 9 Consider reducing impact fees for CIE Bill BCC commercial development

F:\Communi ty Deve\opmen t\Users\CurDev\S TAN\2007\Bucketschart. rtf 9