PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION (P&Z)

Robert E. Bruce-District 2 Craig Fletcher-District 3 Currently vacant-District 4 George Christopher-District 5

George Gross-Member at Large George Hamner-Member at Large Ann Reuter – Non-voting liaison School Board

Donna A. Keys, Chairman-District 1

The Planning and Zoning Commission will meet at 7:00 p.m. ON THURSDAY, January 11, 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. December 14, 2006 Meeting

B. December 18, 2006 Meeting

ITEM #3 ITEMS ON CONSENT

A. Grace Woods: Request for preliminary plat approval for a 36-lot single-family small lot subdivision to be known as Grace Woods. Habitat for Humanity, Owner. MBV Engineering, Inc., Agent. Located at 1510 11th Street SW, between 18th Avenue SW and 12th Avenue SW. Zoning Classification: RS-6, Residential Single- Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Density: 4.42 units/acre. (SD-06-09-32/2005110219- 55291) [Quasi-Judicial]

C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK347\1-11-07 Agenda (2).rtf 1

B. Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2: Request for preliminary plat approval for a 5- lot affidavit of exemption project to be known as Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2. Dr. Garrick Kantzler, Owner. Carter Associates, Inc., Agent. Located on the west side of 84th Avenue, north of 66th Street. Zoning Classification: A-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Land Use Designation: AG-1, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres). Density: 0.18 units/acre (SD-06-06-19/96010022-53319) [Quasi-Judicial]

C. Water Oaks Village: Request for modification of an approval condition for the Water Oaks Village development at the Indian River Club. Indian River County Club Ltd, Owner. Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., Agent. Located on the south side of 23rd Street SW (Highland Drive). Zoning Classification: RM-6, Residential Multi-Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: L-2, Low Density 2 (up to 6 units/acre). (PD-04-03-05/99110164-38192) [Quasi-Judicial]

D. Protransmaster II: Request for preliminary plat approval for a 2 lot commercial subdivision to be known as Protransmaster II. Bill Boydston, Owner. W. F. McCain & Associates, Inc., Agent. Located on the east side of US Highway 1, just south of Rock City Nursery. Zoning Classification: PD, Planned Development. Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial Industrial. (PD-06-11-10/2001060194- 55821) [Quasi-Judicial]

ITEM #4 ITEM NOT ON CONSENT

A. Century Town Center: Request for major site plan approval for a shopping center to be known as Century Town Center. Century Realty Funds Panther IX, LLC, Owner. Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., Agent. Located on the south side of SR60, just west of Home Depot. Zoning Classification: CG, General Commercial. Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial Industrial. (SP-MA-06-07- 31/2004060358-53892) [Quasi-Judicial]

ITEM #5 PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. Chesnut and Smith's: Request to rezone ±3.35 acres located east of US Highway 1 and approximately 1,000 feet south of 77th Street from CL, Limited Commercial, to CG, General Commercial. Kenneth Chesnut and Victor and Kathy Smith, Owners. MBV Engineering, Inc., Agent. (REZON 2006110122-56987) [Quasi- Judicial]

B. United Indian River Packers LLC: Request for a small scale land use map amendment to redesignate 8.36 acres from L-2, Low Density Residential-2 (up to 6 units/acre) to C/I, Commercial Industrial, and to rezone those 8.36 acres from RM- 6, Multi-Family Residential (up to 6 units/acre) to IL, Light Industrial; and Highpointe LLC Request to Redesignate 8.36 Acres from C/I, Commercial Industrial to L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units/acre). United Indian River Packers

C:\Documents and Settings\sjohnson\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK347\1-11-07 Agenda (2).rtf 2 LLC and Highpointe LLC, Owners. William Caldwell, Agent. (LUDA 2006070097-57058 and LUDA 98100081-57057; REZON 2006070097-57058) [Legislative]

ITEM #6 COMMISSIONERS MATTERS

ITEM #7 PLANNING MATTERS

A. Planning Information Package

B. Public Notice for Indian River County Affordable/Workforce Housing Workshop

ITEM #8 ATTORNEY'S MATTERS

ITEM #9 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 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\1-11-07 Agenda (2).rtf 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

There was a meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Thursday, December 14, 2006 at 7:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.

Present were members: Chairman Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Bob Bruce, District 2 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; Scott Chisholm, District 4 Appointee; George Christoph~r, District 5 Appointee; George Gross, Member-at-Large; and Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison.

Absent was member: George Hamner, Member-at-Large (excused).

Also present were IRC staff: Joseph Baird, County Administrator; Will Collins, County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Chris Mora, Assistant Public Works Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Gale Carm6ney Senior Planner, Long Range Planning; John McCoy, Senior Planner, Current Development; Rachel Clyne, Planner, Long Range Planning; W. Erik Olson, Utilities Director; and Victoria Phillips, Staff Assistant IV.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Keys called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance. ·

Approval of Minutes

ON MOTION BY Mr. Christopher, SECONDED BY Mr. Fletcher, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the November 9, 2006 meeting minutes as presented.

Items on Consent

A. Estancia Subdivision: Request for preliminary plat approval for a 17-lot conventional single-family subdivision to be known as Estancia Subdivision. Carley Homes of Vero-1, Inc., Owner.

P&Z/Unapproved - 1 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCC\A!I Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc W. F. McCain and Associates, Inc., Agent. Located on the south side of 65th Street, east of 58th Avenue. Zoning Classification: RS-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acre). Land Use Designation: L~2, Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre). Density: 2.09 units/acre. (SD-05-O8-43/2004120073-47958) [Quasi-Judicial]

B. Round Island Plantation: Request for preliminary plat approval for a 6-lot conventional single-family portion of a subdivision to be known as Round Island Plantation. Round Island Plantation LLC, Owner. Culpepper and Terpening, Inc., Agent. Located on the barrier island and straddles the Indian River County/St. Lucie County line. Zoning Classifications: RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre) and CON- 2, Conservation 2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres). Land Use Designations: L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units/acre) and C-2, Conservation 2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres). Density: .97 units/acre (2005090377-56777/SD-07-01-01) [Quasi-Judicial]

Chairman Keys asked if there were any questions on the two items under consent, there were none.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Chisholm, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve both Items A and Bas presented.

Public Discussion

Chairman Keys read the following into the record:

A. Appeal by Steven & Erin Metz of A Decision by Community Development Staff That the Nonconforming Residential Treatment Center Use at 5925 37th Street Did Not Cease for More Than One Year and the Use May Continue Under Different Ownership.

Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the appellants, stated this case was an appeal, not a site plan approval, rezoning or change in the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. He explained under the appellant

P&Z/Unapproved - 2 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc procedures ordinarily the people taking the appeal speak first and last, and he requested that accommodation. Attorney Will Collins, IRC Attorney, stated he had spoken with Attorney O'Haire this afternoon and it was the customary procedure for the person taking the appeal to present first. Staff felt they would like to get the issues on the floor so that the P&Z was concerned with the proper matters, and because P&Z procedures did not address who went first, it has been the custom to allow staff to present a report and then the people either in support of, or opposed to a proposal to speak after that. He continued without an expressed rule, it was up the Chairman to rule on a point of order and she had met with him prior to the meeting and stated she would like a presentation made by staff first.

Attorney O'Haire related while he understood Attorney's Collins statement, he objected, and asked to have his objection as part of the record.

Mrs. Phillips administered the testimonial oath to all those wishing to speak on the quasi-judicial matters.

Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, reported this was an appeal from Steven and Erin Metz regarding a decision by the IRC Community Development staff on the use of property at 5925 3th Street. He continued the site was a little over 2 acres and on the south side of 3th Street, with the Metz's living across the street from the facility. As referenced in staff's report, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office, the petitions for the appeal were signed by many others living near the facility.

Mr. Boling presented the issue central to this appeal, and the decision the P&Z must make at this meeting was in regard to nonconformities and looking at the IRC nonconformities regulations. He explained nonconformities were where a use of land or a facility on a particular piece of property do not conform to the current regulations adopted by the County. Mr. Boling noted nonconformities were usually not desirable, there was a reason why the regulations changed, there was a new standard, but the County regulations and Comp Plan also recognize there were many grandfathered-in uses of property that were legal nonconformities and they were allowed to continue.

•

P&Z/Unapproved - 3 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Mr. Boling noted there were thousands of nonconformities in IRC, · and for many different reasons. He noted nonconforming uses could not be expanded, and there was an allowance to continue the nonconforming use until it ceases for a continuous period of up to 12 months. There were also nonconforming regulations which essentially apply when there had been a declared disaster, such as the 2004 hurricanes, and things were allowed to be rebuilt that had been destroyed or damaged.

Mr. Boling explained the site itself was comprised of two parcels, the north parcel was currently zoned Residential Multi-Family, up to 6 units/acre (RM-6); and the smaller south parcel was zoned Residential Single-Family, up to 3 units/acre (RS-3). Currently the surrounding area of this property was zoned RS-3. He reviewed the history of the zoning of the property, around and including the subject parcel, noting according to the 1969 IRC Zoning Atlas, this site with both parcels together, was zoned R-3 Transient until 1985. This type of zoning allowed commercial lodging uses and multi-family up to 15 units per acre. The remaining properties around this site were zoned for single-family residential. From 1985 to 1992, the northern parcel was zoned to a more current classification of Residential Multi-Family, up to 8 units per acre (RM-8) and the southern parcel was rezoned to its current RS-3. In 1992 the northern parcel was rezoned to RM-6, at which time the nonconforming use status occurred, because in the RM-8 zoning district by special exception use, a residential treatment center was allowed, but not in the RM-6.

Mr. Boling then showed the layout of the existing facility, copies of which are in file in the Commission Office. He explained when Alcohope was running their residential treatment center on the site up until April 2005, the uses were mainly as offices and group housing with a dining area. He added the distinguishing characteristics between a residential treatment center, which could only be in the higher density zoning districts, and a group home which generally had counseling and other care, but was not as intensive as a residential treatment center, and had longer term residential stays. He added a group home would be allowed on this site's zoning, and the residential treatment center would be considered a nonconforming use.

Mr. Boling pointed out one of the items raised in the appeal was that this particular use on the site was not compatible with the surrounding area, with that being low density residential with families having young children.

P&Z/Unapproved - 4 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc The evidence from staff's perspective was that because Alcohope operated a residential treatment center on the site for over 20 years, limiting the facilities that were in place now and could not be expanded as a legal nonconforming use, was not incompatible with the surrounding area. There were no code enforcement complaints from neighboring residents during the operation of Alcohope, and with the isolated site characteristics including a limited amount of building area and limited resident/client licensing also in place on the site at 18 residents/clients and staff, would limit the number of people and activity on the site.

Mr. Boling continued if the uses proposed by The Source as a transitional housing program were not the same as Alcohope's, then obviously the nonconforming use would not be continuing as the same use. He explained in staff's opinion, after reviewing the use categories of both Alcohope and The Source, they determined both were in the same use category insomuch as both facilities had programs in place for rehabilitation counseling done in a residential setting.

Mr. Boling reported another point raised in the appeal was Alcohope's use of the site ceased for more than 12 continuous months when they relocated to New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc. (New Horizons): He continued after research by staff it was determined Alcohope left the site by April 2005. He felt the real focus of what happened from April 2005 until present was did the residential treatment use on the site cease. The County's practice of what constitutes "cease" was all aspects of the use would have to terminate on the site. It was confirmed that New Horizons had used the front building from April 2005 to July 2006 as an office for administration and counseling for a mobile crisis program. Use of the dormitories ceased with the 2004 hurricanes due to water damage.

In summary, Mr. Boling explained the four areas P&Z would need to determine at this meeting were:

• Did staff follow appropriate procedures in analyzing the use of the property.

• Did staff in making their decision, act in an arbitrary or capricious manner.

P&Z/Unapproved - 5 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc • Did staff fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation or public health, safety and welfare.

• Did staff fail to evaluate the application with respect to the Comp Plan and the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) of IRC.

Mr. Christopher referred to the booklet distributed by The Source, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He asked if the rules and policies outlined in the booklet were reviewed by staff for reasonableness of those rules. Mr. Boling responded staff had not reviewed operational characteristics of the site itself, which may or may not be the purview of the P&Z when reviewing the appeal. Staff looked at the fundamental aspects such as not being able to expand the use and there would be a limit of the residents/clients and staff at 18 total on the site.

Mr. Bruce asked for clarification if the pivotal point was whether or not the facility ceased use at the site for over one year. Mr. Boling replied in the affirmative.

Mr. Bruce inquired if staff had actually been on the site after April· 2005 to verify the interim use of the property. Mr. Boling replied he had not been on the site until September 2006 when building permits were being obtained for repairs to the site. Mr. Bruce questioned if it should be more clearly defined what "ceased" would entail. Mr. Boling replied it was difficult since the 2004 hurricanes because IRC was declared a disaster area, and there were provisions in the nonconformities regulations that if a structure was destroyed during a disaster, it could be rebuilt on the original foundation.

Mr. Bruce queried if utility records could be obtained to prove the facility was in use from April 2005 to July 2006. Chairman Keys noted the booklet provided to the P&Z addressed Mr. Bruce's request.

Mr. Gross asked who prepared The Source booklet. Mr. Boling responded it was not prepared by staff, but was submitted by an area resident.

P&Z/Unapproved - 6 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCC\All Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Mr. Fletcher asked if IRC held to the policy if more than 50% of a building were destroyed by disaster, the replacement building would have to meet the current requirements. Mr. Boling replied in the affirmative, citing LOR 904.07(1) as: "If any nonconforming structure or use of an establishment containing a site-related nonconformity is damaged by causes including but not limited to fire, flood, explosion, collapse, wind, neglect, age, or is voluntarily razed or disassembled to such an extent that the cost of repair or reconstruction will exceed 50% of the building's value as shown on the tax assessment roll at the time of damage or proposed reconstruction, the . nonconformity shall be deemed terminated, and shall not thereafter be reestablished. In the event a nonconformity may be repaired by an investment of less than 50% of the value of the nonconformity as shown on the tax assessment roll at the time of the damage or proposed reconstruction, such repair shall be permitted, and the nonconformity may continue."

Mr. Boling pointed out there was that rule, but the disaster provisions relating to hurricanes overrode the LOR Chapter 904 rules.

Mr. Chisholm questioned how much of the decision would be based on the length of time the existing facility had not used the residential portion. Mr. Boling replied there were two components related to the residential treatment center use. One was the counselors, social workers and office workers side and then the resident/client side. The resident/client side where the dormitories were could not have continued without repairs, but the part of the use dealing with rehabilitation counselors and social workers was continued on the site.

Chairman Keys queried if staff was at any time advised by New Horizons they had no intention of continuing the residential treatment at that location. Mr. Boling responded staff knew Alcohope was moving their entire operation out, but had never been informed by New Horizons that use would cease.

Attorney O'Haire wished to note he had objected at the beginning of the hearing because Mr. Boling could do a good job as an advocate. He continued it had been his client's position since the beginning of the appeal, that staff, because of sympathy with the occupant and current owner of the •

P&Z/Unapproved • 7 • December 14, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc property, had deliberately bent the rules to accommodate the use to which the property owner was proposing. He opined the spiel was not about the homeless or religion, it was about the IRC LDR's and what those regulations required. Attorney O'Haire quoted LOR 904.08(1) as:

"Cessation of a nonconformity for one year. If, for any reason, a nonconforming use of land, a nonconforming structure or an establishment having a site-related nonconformity ceases operation for a continuous period of one year or more, all nonconformities shall be considered terminated and shall not thereafter be reestablished. This provision shall not be construed to apply to nonconforming single-family residential homes."

Attorney O'Haire pointed out Alcohope admittedly stopped using the property in April 2005, and furthermore had proof they stopped using the property pre-hurricanes in 2004. He continued the property was zoned RM-6 and a residential treatment facility was not allowed in such a zoning, but was allowed in commercial zonings and in the high multiple family density zonings, RM-8 and Multi-Family Residential, up to 10 units/acre (RM-10). This was a single-family residential area and was populated with young families. The use in 1969 was in a different time and there was not much else in the area at the time. He would call people to testify Alcohope abandoned the property before the 2004 hurricanes and had indicated in the appeals papers filed that staff came up with the idea there was storm damage to excuse the 12 month hiatus in use only after it was pointed out what they had permitted was in clear violation of Section 904.08(1 ).

Attorney O'Haire reported attached to the packet provided to the P&Z was a lease, dated October 2003, that Alcohope entered into with a subsidiary of Indian River Medical Center for a property located on the hospital campus. He indicated the lease, under Article XI, required the property be used by Alcohope as a residential treatment facility and Article XII required that Alcohope proceed with construction of a new facility within the hospital campus, which they did, and moved to the new facility in April 2005.

Attorney O'Haire asked when the residential aspect of the previous facility should be focused upon, and his client's opinion was it should be focused upon a great deal because that was what was really incompatible.

P&Z/Unapproved - 8 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc He opined the homeless situation was much different from the alcoholic situation in that alcoholism was a treatable disease.

Attorney O'Haire presented for the record, a copy of the Florida Department of State, Division of Corporations, Florida Non Profit reports on Alcohope of the Treasure Coast, Inc. based in Vero Beach, New Horizons of the Treasure Coast, Inc., another entity based in Ft. Pierce, and I Am Ministries, Inc. doing business as The Source, a third separate entity. He added all three had separate Boards of Directors, were not interrelated, and their identities and uses were different. The reports are on file in the Commission Office.

Mr. Christopher asked when the residential use ceased on the property. Attorney O'Haire replied Alcohope reported residency ceased in April 2005, but he would present testimony that it ceased before September 2004. Mr. Christopher asked when the office on the property was vacated, Attorney O'Haire replied he had testimony the office uses also ceased before the 2004 hurricanes.

Mr. Steve Metz, 3980 3ih Street, testified he had resided with his wife and two children at that address since 1986 and he was one of the appellants filing the appeal. · He continued his home was directly to the north of the former Alcohope site across 3ih Street.

Attorney O'Haire asked if where Mr. Metz lived was a type of family compound. Mr. Metz replied in the affirmative explaining his brother lived next door and his parents lived 200 feet down the street.

Attorney O'Haire asked to Mr. Metz's knowledge, did Alcohope at some point in time abandon their facility across the street from his home. Mr. Metz replied yes, when he was putting up hurricane shutters for Hurricane Frances in September 2004, he noted there was nothing being done at the Alcohope facility because there was no one there, he could not give the exact date the premises were abandoned, but he knew it was before Hurricane Frances.

Attorney O'Haire asked if the Board of Directors from The Source had met with Mr. Metz to persuade them to go along with the proposed use of the property. Mr. Metz responded he had met with Mr. Tom King and voiced his concerns with having the homeless population in their

P&Z/Unapproved - 9 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCC\All Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc neighborhood. He did not feel the use was the same as Alcohope and was not compatible for the neighborhood.

Mr. Gross asked if Mr. Metz had a clear view of the facility, he responded in the affirmative, and added there was some vegetation on the property, but not to the point the view was obstructed.

Mr. Keith David Hedin, 6030 3yth Street, Vero Beach, stated he lived next door to the west of Mr. Metz with his wife and children. He lived in his home since 2002, could see Alcohope property clearly, and had been on their property several times. He had noted the doors were left open, and the property had been abandoned before the 2004 hurricanes. In July 2006 a tree that had fallen into the driveway heading toward the dormitories in 2004 had finally been removed, doors were secured and the lawns were cleaned up by The Source representatives.

Mr. Christopher asked when Mr. Hedin last saw use of the property by Alcohope. Mr. Hedin responded it was prior to September 2004.

Mr. Hedin stated he was very upset The Source was planning a homeless assistance center on the property. He was further angered the surrounding property owners were not notified of such a facility to be located in their residential neighborhood.

Attorney O'Haire asked Mr. Hedin if he was the person responsible for the large binders presented to the P&Z members. Mr. Hedin responded in the affirmative and explained how he had contacted all the residents by sending out over 850 letters. The book was comprised of petitions with 719 signatures in response to his mail out expressing their disapproval of the center. He noted there were also police reports from The Source's previous location at 1372 Commerce Avenue, Vero Beach, totaling 100 police calls to that location from 1998 to 2002, and there were 64 !RC Sheriff's calls to the current address of 1015 Commerce Avenue, Vero Beach. Chairman Keys asked what the facilities were at 1372 and 1015 Commerce Avenue. Mr. Hedin responded he had not been in either building but had observed people sitting outside, and his fear was having the same type of people doing the same activities in his neighborhood.

Chairman Keys asked Attorney O'Haire to tie in the discussions as to how they applied to the appeal being presented at this meeting. Attorney

P&Z/Unapproved - 10 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc O'Haire responded he was showing the P&Z there would be a different type of use of the property than what was being used for Alcohope.

Mr. Hedin reported he asked for police reports for another homeless facility in IRC and Attorney Bruce Barkett, representing The Source, objected to the questions since The Source was not running the other homeless facility. It was determined Mr. Hedin could continue, and he stated there were 42 police visits to the other facility. He also asked for the reports for the Alcohope Center and there were 3 total.

Attorney Steve Henderson, also representing The Source, asked Mr. Hedin to identify the letter he sent to neighboring property owners notifying them of the homeless center, The Source, being brought into their neighborhood. Attorney Henderson asked Mr. Hedin how he knew the residents would not be screened going into the facility. Mr. Hedin responded he had asked Mr. King those questions when they met and Mr. King was not able to answer them. Chairman Keys read the letter into the record, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Attorney Henderson stated the letter identified The Source as housing unscreened residents that included child molesters, rapists, and other unsavory characters which were slanderous and malicious statements that were unsubstantiated.

Mrs. Jennifer Hedin, 6030 3yth Street, Vero Beach, related on December 12, 2006 at approximately 3:00 p.m. she went out to get the mail and noticed a car parked in the parking lot at the former Alcohope facility. She stated there was an older woman in the car who asked for money since she had tried a couple of churches and had been unable to obtain assistance. Mr. Gross asked if someone had sent the woman to that location. Mrs. Hedin replied she did not know how the woman knew about the site.

Attorney O'Haire summarized with the testimonies of the two closest residents to the facility, there was proof Alcohope had abandoned the facility prior to September 2004 and the buildings ceased to be used at that time. He felt the IRC Code of Ordinances must be adhered to since the facility had not been in use for over 12 months.

•

P&Z/Unapproved - 11 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Mr. Christopher asked what the utility bills included in the packet were to prove, he felt they showed normal usage from September 2004 until November 2005, and after that time the usage dropped off significantly. Mr. Hedin rebutted when the building was abandoned, the doors and windows were left open with the utilities running. He added the $18.00 monthly charge after November 2005 was just a standard charge to keep the utilities on. Chairman Keys noted it appeared the buildings were in use up to November 2005 because of the higher utility bills.

Attorney Barkett pointed out the issue was not whether the P&Z would or could approve the zoning, and the residents had moved into the area knowing there was a rehabilitation facility that had been in operation for 20 years. He noted the appeal was not filed timely, and pointed out the four items Mr. Boling presented for the P&Z to determine. Attorney Barkett indicated staff acted according to the proper IRC Comp Plan and LOR review procedures. He added the site was on 2.5 acres, well set back from the road, and surrounded by vegetation.

Attorney Barkett gave the definition of "cease" as completely stopped, and stated there was proof through the utility records there was activity on the site up until at least November 2005. He continued The Source did exactly what they were supposed to do in relation to their dealings with the County in obtaining written confirmation for the use of a life recovery center, not a homeless assistance center.

Attorney Steve Henderson addressed the drop off in the utility use in November 2005, but noted there was an increase beginning in March 2006 showing an indication the property was being used in a limited manner. With the respect to the timeliness of the appeal, the notification and decision letter was dated July 10, 2006; 36 days later on August 15, 2006, a copy of that letter was faxed to Mr. Hedin; and the appeal was filed November 1, 2006, which was 113 days after entry of the decision. He indicated failure to file a timely appeal within the 21 days given rendered the case to not be under · the jurisdiction of the court. He felt an administrative decision made by the IRC staff had to be relied upon and there could not be a "traveling" appeal process. In fact, Attorney Henderson opined the appeal was untimely and did not qualify to be heard by the P&Z.

P&Z/Unapproyed - 12 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Mr. Tom King, Executive Director, of The Source, gave a brief PowerPoint presentation, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office. He highlighted a document he presented when he met with the residents inducting Mr. Metz and Mr. Hedin, which indicated the residents of The Source would be screened, including the running of background checks. Those convicted of violent crimes and sexual predators would not be allowed to reside at the facility.

Mr. Chisholm asked Mr. King if the current location of The Source would remain open. Mr. King responded in the affirmative, noting it was a walk-in help center.

Chairman Keys told those present wishing to speak, they must present only facts that had not yet been presented.

Dr. George Woodley, Florida Department of Children and Families Substance Abuse and Mental Health Program Director for District 15, which included Indian River County, related his organization funded Alcohope until they relocated to the New Horizons facility. He also operated the mobile crisis unit that went to sites to determine the status of the clients. He explained The Source as it would operate, would also receive funding through his office for clients with substance abuse rehabilitation. He reported when Hurricane Frances came in September 2004, clients were moved from Alcohope to another facility according to Alcohope's Emergency Disaster Plan, and his organization continued to pay for their care for one year after that date.· Mr. Fletcher stated there was conflicting information being presented and he asked Dr. Woodley if he had physically seen residents at the facility in September 2004. Dr. Woodley responded he had not physically visited the site, but had been charged for resident care during that time.

Mr. Spencer Simmons, 6435 Tropical Way, reported the facts had been presented by staff, he had dealt with staff before and knew they were by the book and fair.

Ms. Sharon Hyatt, 6066 3ih Street, reported in June 2006 she had met with the two men working at the Alcohope site and spoke with them. She had seen people coming and going on the site after the September 2004 hurricanes, no residents but people using the front building.

P&Z/Unapproved • 13 • December 14, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Mr. Douglas Mew, 5785 36th Lane, related he was one of the 719 people responding to the letter sent out by Mr. Hedin. He lives in the area · and does not want the facility in his neighborhood.

Ms. Susan Hunter, 726 19th Place, Apt. 8, Vero Beach, stated she had been an employee of Alcohope until it. moved to New Horizons and stayed with New Horizons until it was bought out in June 2006. She was also a recovering alcoholic and attended Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) meetings at Alcohope until November 2005 when the dormitory building was no longer safe due to the hurricane damage. She confirmed clients had been living in the dormitories until September 2004, and the office had been in use until June 2006.

Mr. Raymond Holtzclaw, 5635 39th Street, Vero Beach, related he had lived at his ·residence for 28 years passing the Alcohope site daily, and stated there had not been vehicles or lawn maintenance at the site since 2004. He has three young daughters and would not feel comfortable working out of town with his wife and children home alone with the questionable backgrounds of the clients living at The Source.

Mr. Chisholm stated the P&Z was here to rule on the zoning, they could not rule on anything else.

Mr. David Gambell, 4700 Highway A1A, explained he had come to Vero Beach in 2001 and found The Source through their soup kitchen. He joined AA and through Mr. and Mrs. King, he found employment. He attended meetings at the Alcohope buildings until the hurricanes of 2004 at which time the meetings then moved to the offices on the property until May 2005.

Mr. Peter Booza, Port St. Lucie, an employee of Passage Island Homes in Vero Beach, was asked to visit the site to determine what repairs needed to be made prior to the purchase of the property by Mr. King. He made several visits in June and July 2006 and got the keys for the buildings from the counselors working out of the Alcohope offices.

Mr. Ray Metz, 5960 3?1h Street, stated the buildings were abandoned prior to the 2004 hurricanes. He related the utility records showed there was use in the "supposedly" destroyed dormitories, and there was no electric use indicated in the office the "supposedly" mobile crisis team used

P&Z/Unapproved - 14 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc for the time they were. supposed to be there. He did not agree with the testimonies the buildings were being used.

Mr. Christopher asked staff where they obtained the information the Alcohope facility had been used until July 2006. Mr. McCoy replied the · information was obtained from the Chief Executive Operating Officer for New Horizons, Mr. Ray Romano, and Mr. Tom King from The Source. Mr. Boling added he was the person who had talked to Mr. Romano who confirmed the mobile crisis unit used the office from April 2005 until June 2006.

Mr. Metz felt there should be some type of investigation to prove the property was abandoned and there had not been anyone using the offices. He requested the P&Z not allow The Source to operate their facility in his neighborhood. Discussion was held regarding the utility bills and for which of the three meters on the property they were for.

Ms. Carol Rutland, 2415 4th Lane, Vero Beach, also felt all the bills from the three meters on the property should have been submitted. She questioned the 21 day time period to file an appeal. Mr. Christopher asked Attorney Collins if the appeal was filed timely. Attorney Collins related the series of events all correspondence took place. Ms. Rutland wished to state for the record she found it frightening changes could be made when a process was followed by a IRC resident, and then an appeal could take place after the time period allowable.

Attorney Henderson again reviewed the series of events and stated the use of the ·property, although not continuous, was still less than the period of one year.

Attorney O'Haire rebutted Attorney Henderson's statements and felt the appeal was timely.

Chairman Keys closed the public discussions.

A lengthy discussion ensued between the P&Z and staff regarding clarification of continuous use, including the difference between the residential and office types of use on the property. Mr. Boling stated the use on the property was being applied as any use on the property overall, which did not cease.

P&Z/Unapproved - 15 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Zl2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Chairman Keys related the residential use on the property had ceased. Mr. Fletcher agreed and stated P&Z had to assign a value to each person's testimony, and took the word of the residents since they live in the area.

Mr. Chisholm asked staff again how heavy the residential use of the property was in weighing their decision. Mr. Boling responded the counseling and treatment use did not cease, although the residential portion could not continue since the time the damage had occured to the dormitories.

Mr. Christopher felt The Source was a good organization and they deserved an opportunity to work with the surrounding residents to come to an amicable agreement on working together to provide the services The Source could provide. He did have to agree with Mr. Fletcher although, because of the evidence presented.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Christopher to uphold the appeal filed by Steven and Erin Metz because the use as a residential treatment center had ceased for more than one year.

UNDER DISCUSSION Mr. Gross related facts had been dealt with at this meeting, but he felt it was based more on emotion. He agreed young people should be protected from inappropriate activity, but explained the differences between the treatment being received at the walk in facilities The Source had currently and the residential treatment center being proposed. He further reported he had visited a homeless assistance center today and was impressed with the rules in place and the rehabilitation available. He supported staff and would be voting against the appeal.

THE MOTION WAS CALLED, and the members voted (5-1) in favor of the motion. Mr. Gross opposed.

Chairman Keys called for a break at 10:20 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 10:30 p.m.

'

P&Z/Unapproved - 16 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Chairman Keys stated due to the lateness of the evening, and the length of the agenda, the Grand Harbor Items C, D, and E, would be moved to a special meeting. It was decided the meeting would be scheduled for Monday, December 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers.

Mr. Christopher requested additional traffic information to be provided to the P&Z before the meeting. Staff agreed to make the information available.

Chairman Keys read the following into the record:

A. Vero 45, LLC: Request to rezone ±1.81 acres located on the southeast corner of US Highway 1 and 45th Street, from CH, Heavy Commercial, district to CG, General Commercial, district. Vero 45, LLC, Owner. New Urban Group, LLC, Agent. [REZON 91070027-51863] [Quasi-Judicial]

Mrs. Rachel Clyne, IRC Planner, Long Range Planning, reviewed the information contained in her memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Mr. Bruce was concerned with the intensity of the use. Mrs. Clyne explained the trips were calculated to the maximum use the property could accommodate, but noted it usually was not built out to that amount. She added the concurrency test showed the roads involved would not be impacted in a negative way and concurrency would be met.

Mr. Christopher questioned why staff was proposing rezoning the property to CG. Mr. Keating explained in this particular area, heavy commercial zoning was not as appropriate as it once may have been, but along US Highway 1 being a high volume multi-lane roadway, it was more appropriate for a zoning that would allow retail.

Mr. Christopher asked for identification of the traffic data, where it was derived, both the counts and the vesting to be put on all information coming before the P&Z. Mr. Chris Mora, IRC Assistant Public Works Director, again explained the methods for calculating traffic used by staff and stated figures could change daily. A lengthy discussion ensued regarding traffic and how it was calculated for Waterway Village and Grand '

P&Z/Unapproved - 17 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc Harbor. Mr. Christopher stated he kept asking for the information and he continuously does not get what he was asking for. Mr. Mora assured Mr. Christopher compilation dates would be put on the traffic reports in the future.

Chairman Keys opened the public hearing at 10:54 p.m.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Bruce, SECONDED BY Mr. Fletcher, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to continue the meeting an additional 30 minutes, until 11 :30 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Baird, IRC County Administrator, explained the history and the reasons for vesting the 733 units for Waterway Village as they were. Mr. Christopher stated outside legal counsel, Attorney John Shubin, had warned if Waterway Village was not grandfathered, they could not vest until they pulled a building permit. He felt this matter should go to the BCC. Mr. Baird reported this item would be going before the BCC in January 2007 along with the prior P&Z minutes showing how vesting was handled.

Chairman Keys closed the public hearing at 11:10 p.m.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Bruce, SECONDED BY Mr. Chisholm, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to approve the rezoning request as presented.

Chairman Keys read the following into the record:

B. Triple S Properties Inc: Request to rezone 9.63 acres located west of Indian River Boulevard and 550 feet south of t the intersection of Indian River Boulevard and 41 s Street from MED, Medical to OCR, Office Commercial, Residential. Triple S Properties, Owners. Bruce Barkett, Agent. (RZON 20061000078-56575) [Quasi-Judicial]

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

Mr. Bruce asked if this property were to be developed as residential, how would it be developed. Mr. Keating responded there could be 6

P&Z/Unapproved - 18 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc units/acre under the OCR zoning but in this case general nonmedical office buildings were anticipated.

Chairman Keys stated she would not be voting in favor of the rezoning request because the surrounding properties were mainly medical and she did not feel this rezoning would be consistent with the Comp Plan.

Chairman Keys opened the public hearing at 11: 15 p.m.

Ms. Virginia Sines, representing The Place of Vero Beach, a 120 unit Assisted Living Facility located adjacent to the subject property, read a letter submitted by Mr. Robert G. Adams, President of National Health Realty, Inc. opposing the rezoning request. This letter is on file in the Commission Office.

Ms. Honey Minuse, 27 Starfish Drive, also opposed the rezoning request.

Attorney Bruce Barkett, addressed the opposition presented and explained there would not be commercial use on the property, but general office use which was not permitted in the medical district. He also pointed out this was not a violation with the Comp Plan, but was currently inconsistent with the zoning. He stated there would have to be substantial competent evidence to prove their request was not supported by the IRC LDR's.

Mr. Warren Schwerin, owner of Triple S Properties, gave the history of the property. He explained the property was originally planned for a clinic to called the Cooper Clinic, which never came to fruition. He would like to build an office. park compatible with the medical community.

Mr. Joseph Paladin, Chairman of the Growth Awareness Committee, felt the property was in a medical node and should remain zoned medical.

Chairman Keys closed the public hearing at 11: 25 p.m.

Mr. Christopher stated he knew Mr. Schwerin personally but had no financial investments in any business or property owned by Mr. Schwerin. He stated this was a vibrant medical node and asked if there was a way Mr. Schwerin could relate his property to that use. Mr. Schwerin responded he '

P&Z/Unapproved - 19 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc had a problem with the restrictions on the medical zoning in that he could not have office space used by medical doctors, insurance companies or banks.

Mr. Keating explained staff was adamant in protecting the property around the hospital and recommended approval to allow for the uses Mr. Schwerin proposed.

Mr. Fletcher agreed with Mr. Keating.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. · Bruce to approve the rezoning request as presented.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Bruce, the members voted unanimously (6-0) to continue the meeting another 15 minutes.

UNDER DISCUSSION the members held a lengthy discussion on the future of the property in the medical zone.

THE MOTION WAS CALLED and the members voted (4-2) to approve the rezoning. Chairman Keys and Mr. Christopher opposed.

Commissioner's Matters

Chairman Keys wished to address the Three Year Maintenance Bonds for a plat over site plan. Attorney Collins stated neither Maintenance Bonds or Construction Bonds existed for plat over site plans. Mr. Boling explained there had not historically been a problem with this issue, and that was the reason there had never been bonds for this type of project.

Mr. Bruce asked if the term "cease" needed to be more clearly defined, as in The Source case presented tonight. A lengthy discussion ensued on the matter.

Mr. Christopher inquired when 2006 traffic numbers would be loaded onto the system. Mr. Mora responded the traffic counts would be loaded in early 2007. '

P&Z/Unapproved - 20 - December 14, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc •

Discussion was held regarding future water issues in Florida and the efforts being taken to provide alternative water sources. Mr. Keating reported staff would be bringing the P&Z water supply issues over the next year in the process of working on the Evaluation and Appraisal Report which had a completion due date of December 2008.

Mr. Fletcher asked Attorney Collins for an opportunity to discuss an interlocal agreement not presented on the Round Island Plantation. Attorney Collins responded an interlocal agreement was not requested, and offered to discuss the policy issues with Mr. Fletcher.

Chairman Keys announced this would be Mr. Chisholm's last meeting and thanked him for his service on P&Z. She also welcomed Mr. Bruce as a returning P&Z member.

Planning Matters

Mr. Boling stated he would address those matters at the December 18, 2006 meeting.

Attorney's Matters

There were none.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 11 :46 p.m.

Donna Keys, Chairman Date

Victoria Phillips, Staff Assistant IV Date

•

P&Z/Unapproved - 21 - December 14, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-14-06.doc

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

There was a special meeting of the Indian River County (IRC) Planning and Zoning Commission (P&Z) on Monday, December 18, 2006 at 6:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida.

Present were members: Chairman Donna Keys, District 1 Appointee; Craig Fletcher, District 3 Appointee; George Christopher, District 5 Appointee; George Gross, Member-at-Large; and Ann Reuter, non-voting School Board Liaison.

Absent were members: Bob Bruce, District 2 Appointee; Scott Chisholm, District 4 Appointee; and George Hamner, Member-at-Large (all excused).

Also present were IRC staff: Joseph Baird, County Administrator; Bill DeBraal, Assistant County Attorney; Bob Keating, Community Development Director; Chris Mora, Assistant Public Works Director; Stan Boling, Planning Director; Gale Carmoney, Senior Planner, Long Range Planning; John McCoy, Senior Planner, Current Development; W. Erik Olson, Utilities Director; and Darcy Vasilas, Assistant to the Executive Aide.

Call to Order and Pledge of Allegiance

Chairman Keys called the meeting to order and led all in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Public Hearings (continued from the meeting of December 14, 2006

Chairman Keys read the following into the record:

A. Grand Harbor North Land LLC: Request to rezone +/-435.88 acres generally located between 63rd Street and the North Relief Canal and east of US Hwy 1 to the Indian River Lagoon, from PD to RS-3, RM-3, and CON-2; and BEB Investments Ltd.: Request for a small scale land use amendment to redesignate ±1.81 acres located east of US Hwy 1 and approximately 125 feet south of 63rd Street from L-1 to C/I and to rezone those 1.81 acres from PD to CG; and to redesignate

P&Z/Unapproved - 1 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc ±1.81 acres located east of US Hwy 1 and approximately 150 feet north of the North Relief Canal from C/1 to L-1 and re?one those 1.81 acres from PD to RM-3. Grand Harbor North Land LLC, et.al., Owners. Gunster, Yoakley, and Stewart P.A., Agent. (REZON 99080024-51259 / LUDA 2005120307-52561) [Quasi-Judicial]

Mr. Gale Carmoney, IRC Senior Planner, Long Range Planning, reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Mr. Christopher stated he had significant problems with all three of the Grand Harbor applications, and noted the first application relied on two legal grounds. One was there would be no increase in density or zoning, thereby exempting this application from very significant parts of the Comprehensive (Comp) Plan. The other was this project was exempt from all aspects of the Comp Plan, although conclusions could be reached as to some aspects of the Comp Plan but as to other very important aspects, the applicant was exempt.

Mr. Christopher explained he was concerned because this was a major project and not the first time there were legal issues not addressed in the information presented to the P&Z. He felt there was a past history of legal issues being wrongly interpreted by staff. Mr. Christopher felt staff legal counsel had not been spending enough time reviewing the documents before coming before the P&Z.

Mr. Christopher recommended hiring outside legal counsel to provide legal review and interpretation of the land development applications, particularly when there were deviations and whether or not those deviations would concur with the Comp Plan. He quoted an October 25, 2004 legal case decided by the First District Court of Appeals (Case #890 So.2d 256, Bay Point Club, Appellant versus Bay County, Florida) stating "Developments of Regional Impact (DRl's) previously authorized may be completed, but changes must obtain approval and comply with the Comp Plan". He stated if staff counsel felt the applicant was exempt from losing their vested rights with the change in the Development Order (DO), independent counsel review was necessary.

P&Z/Unapproved - 2 • December 18, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Zl2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc Attorney DeBraal responded as far as the independent counsel was concerned, it had been requested before, but neither staff nor he felt it was necessary. He noted in the case Mr. Christopher cited, the one determining factor that made it different from the case presently before the P&Z was that the parties got together after the case was heard, and then stipulated that the changes addressed in the facts of the case did not constitute a substantial change.

Attorney DeBraal opined the Grand Harbor case was different in that the applicant was proposing they had prior permission through the ORI to build 2,553 units, but did not build them all on the property. They were seeking to expand onto other properties and therefore, it was a non­ substantial change and they were willing to present substantial eyidence as the basis for the decision to be made on. He felt the applicant was exempt from the concurrency review, but also thought they would try to convince staff and the P&Z they were not proposing a substantial deviation so concurrency and traffic would not be substantially affected.

Mr. Christopher did not agree with Attorney DeBraal's presentation. He still felt it was necessary to have independent counsel review this case. A lengthy discussion ensued between Attorney DeBraal and Mr. Christopher regarding their legal interpretations.

Mr. Bob Keating, IRC Community Development Director, interjected he had reviewed the Bay County court case Mr. Christopher referred to, and felt the Grand Harbor application was significantly different from the Bay County court case where they were going from five stories to twelve stories and doubling the residential density. He stated those were the Comp Plan provisions that proposed ORI project was not consistent with. In this case, he thought P&Z may feel the Comp Plan provision that Grand Harbor would not be consistent with would be the concurrency requirement. He continued as Attorney DeBraal had pointed out, there was vesting in the ORI, with a concurrent request to make a minor change that would expand the area, and there was already vesting for the units for concurrency. The capacity was deemed to be there because of the vesting, and therefore, the concurrency was met. Staff felt they were not circumventing any Comp Plan rules because of the vesting of the units, trips, and the demand under the Comp Plan requirements.

P&Z/Unapproved - 3 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc Mr. Gross inquired about the fronting on US Highway 1 (US 1) and was concerned about the residential piece of property on the corner which was next to commercially zoned property with traffic on two sides. Mr. Carmoney responded there would most likely be a berm or other type of buffering. Mr. Stan Boling, IRC Planning Director, explained how conventional zoning handled mixed use was to have a berm or other buffering, especially in cases where the same owner had the commercial and residential property abutting.

Chairman Keys asked Ms. Vasilas to administer the testimonial oath to everyone who would be testifying at today's hearing regarding the three quasi-judicial matters being presented.

Attorney Bob Raynes, from Gunster, Yoakley & Stewart, P.A. for Grand Harbor North Land, LLC, thanked P&Z for rescheduling this meeting for tonight. He asked Mr. Jason Matson, Vice President from Kimley-Horn & Associates, to come forward to answer questions regarding traffic.

Mr. Matson related he had been involved in the Grand Harbor traffic analysis since 1985, when the original ORI approval was granted. The re­ analysis was begun over a year ago when they met with IRC staff and at Pre-Application meetings with the State of Florida and the Regional Planning Council, and ultimately came to an agreement on the traffic re­ analysis which is a document included in the agenda packet and on file in . the Commission Office. The question recently came forward regarding the movement of the units north of 53 rd Street and after meeting with staff several times where they were asked to go back to look at the 1985 ORI and the assignment of trips on US 1.

Mr. Matson explained they did review the 1985 ORI and came to the consensus that the traffic on US 1 adjacent to the property had less impact on US 1 than was previously evaluated in the original ORI. As staff had presented, the number of units had decreased from the 2,553 units which applied to the properties north and east of Indian River Boulevard, to the 2,243 existing units. He noted also on the properties west of Indian River Boulevard, there was a current trip threshold of 1,137 peak hour external trips. The current analysis for the five-year build out timeframe actually,i showed 761 peak hour external trips. He concluded the west side actually had a residential threshold of up to 653 units, and 332 units were being shown in the projected analysis in the five-year plan.

P&Z/Unapproved - 4 - December 18, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc Chairman Keys inquired how many units were being proposed on the west side of Indian River Boulevard. Mr. Matson replied the exisiting analysis showed 257 units, the five-year analysis was 322 units with some commercial and office that had not yet been built.

Chairman Keys asked how many units were on the east side of Indian River Boulevard. Mr. Matson responded 1,103 existing units were on the east side.

Mr. Christopher asked for Attorney Raynes' legal opinion regarding the previously mentioned Bay County case. Attorney Raynes responded he had come across that particular case previously in other issues, but could not cite the case. He continued his position was a mere change did not make a substantial deviation, and the key phrase was "additional impacts to the region". He felt his client had shown through their reports there were no additional impacts.

Mr. Christopher asked if Attorney Raynes' partner was familiar with the Bay County legal case, and if so, what his opinion was. Attorney Brian Seymour, Gunster, Yeakley, and Stewart P.A., felt Attorney DeBraal's analysis of the holding was correct to the extent that it was a narrow holding and it was not on the four corners. He understood what Mr. Christopher was saying conceptually, that the real question came down to if there was an additional impact and did the vesting occur if there was an additional impact. He did not believe that case directly holds one way or the other.

Discussion ensued between Mr. Christopher and Attorney Seymour on the legal interpretation of the Bay County legal case. Attorney Seymour concluded the discussion by stating he would not counter the advice given by staff counsel, as he agreed with that advice. He continued his client had certain vested rights in accordance with the DO, and the ORI that was already approved.

Chairman Keys opened the public hearing at 6:43 p.m.

Mr. Ed Stewart, 8875 Orchid Island Court, stated he had been a resident of Grand Harbor since 1987. He was not present to oppose the rezoning but was concerned about the traffic. He thanked IRC Traffic and Planning Departments for including a traffic light at the entrance of Grand Harbor on the list of road and traffic improvements. The traffic light was on ·

P&Z/Unapproved - 5 - December 18, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc the list to be installed in 2009 and he asked the to be moved up if the site plan were approved. Mr. Stewart also expressed concern regarding the access non-residents had to Grand Harbor property via 53 rd Street.

Chairman Keys asked Mr. Carmoney if the. issues presented by Mr. Stewart had any bearing oh the case currently before the P&Z. Mr. Carmoney responded in this particular rezoning request, the issues could not be addressed, but they could address the issues in the subsequent requests.

Mr. Jens Tripson, 2525 14th Street, Vero Beach, representing Pelican Island Audubon Society, asked staff if there was any change in the construction zone around the eagles nest existing on the property. Mr. Carmoney responded it was still a "no build zone" for a perimeter of 750- feet.

Mr. Dan Richey, 2625 63 rd Street, commended !RC staff for the outstanding job they had done. He felt since the property ownership was fragmented, it would not be advantageous to zone the property around the eagles nest as multi-family residential, up to 3 units per acre (RM-3) which could yield up to 90 units in the 15 available acres available for building.

Mr. Richey asked if he had the same vesting rights, in regard to concurrency, as Grand Harbor. Mr. Keating responded there were not any concurrency vested· rights for the Planned Development (PD). The concurrency vested rights being discussed were associated with the Grand Harbor ORI.

Mr. Richey remarked Grand Harbor had created a project that was very well done and worthy of consideration. He applauded them for the collection of water run off from US 1 in a series of lakes to filter it long before it reached the Indian River Lagoon. Mr. Richey suggested since amending the PD was not an option in this case, reverting back to the zoning which existed prior to the PD, which split the parcel into RS-3, single family residential, up to 3 units per acre, and RM-3. He did not feel it would be a good plan to zone the entire parcel as RM-3.

Discussion ensued regarding the water run off into the Indian River Lagoon and the history of the property. Mr. Fletcher inquired who would be responsible for the ditch. Mr. McCoy responded through the PD process the developer would be obtaining a permit from the Florida

P&Z/Unapproved - 6 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc Department of Transportation (FOOT) to do the construction and rerouting the ditch. He continued the FOOT would have control over the ditch through the permitting process and it would be the responsibility of the developer for maintenance.

Mr. Steve Moler, Masteller & Moler, Inc., representing Grand Harbor, explained the adjoining Riverbend PD had a series of lakes that intersected with the FOOT ditch with the intent of trying to clean up the water as it passed through the site prior to discharge into the Indian River Lagoon. When reviewing the development of the Grand Harbor site they felt it was an attribute which should be presented as part of the project to gain favor in the approval process from P&Z. He continued when FOOT was contacted, they were amenable to also doing the Grand Harbor project.

Mr. Fletcher inquired what type of access would be available to the conservation area. Mr. Moler responded in the agreement IRC had with Grand Harbor for Spoonbill Marsh, there was language that allowed for public access by school or environmental groups, such as the Early Learning Center, to the Spoonbill Marsh site by appointment or invitation only.

Mr. Fletcher asked for clarification on the designation of the 750-foot perimeter around the eagles nest as a no build zone to be held in perpetuity. Attorney DeBraal explained when there was a designation made such as the property around the eagles nest, it was dedicated to an entity, and the only people who could give up that easement would be the people that received the dedication.

Discussion was held regarding the designation of the 62 acres to be known as Spoonbill Marsh and used as a brine disposal site and it was noted by Attorney Seymour that there was nothing with this 62 acre Spoonbill Marsh agreement that affected the rezoning currently before the P&Z. He continued part of the project was the addition of 7.21 acres to provide an enhancement to the project.

Mr. Christopher asked what the nature of the urgency was for this case coming before the P&Z at this time. Attorney Seymour responded IRC was looking to permit Spoonbill Marsh and do the brine disposal in an environmentally sensitive and positive manner. He continued the 7.21

P&Z/Unapproved - 7 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc acres being donated by Grand Harbor_ was needed to complete the permitting process.

Chairman Keys asked what approval process the brine disposal needed to go through. Mr. W. Erik Olson, IRC Director of Utilities explained IRC entered into an agreement with Grand Harbor on May 3, 2005 and that agreement was very specific in that it dealt with the 62 acres referred to as the original Spoonbill Marsh project site. He continued this particular agreement had no contemplations specific, indirect or otherwise, linked to the ORI process associated with the case being presented at this meeting. The process was acknowledged as a permitting contingency in that Grand Harbor extended to the County an 18 month window of time to allow the County to get the necessary permits from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP). He noted the 18 month timeframe _ ended November 3, 2006, and full permitting had not yet been received.

Mr. Olson reported on September 6, 2006 Grand Harbor presented to the IRC Utilities Department and FDEP the opportunity to use an additional 7.21 acres. He continued it was determined in a meeting with FDEP and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers on December 14, 2006, the 7.21 acres that had been added to the site would undoubtedly enhance the project element. Mr. Olson explained there was no written agreement from Grand Harbor for those 7.21 acres. He reported this afternoon he received a voice mail from FDEP indicating the site including the 7.21 acres had been conceptually approved as a permitable project. He expected permits could be obtained as early as January or February, 2007 using those additional 7.21 acres.

Mr. Olson described the alternatives if the 7.21 acres were not permitted, one of which was alternate mitigation on the Lost Tree Islands with $200,000 - $300,000 in mitigation costs.

Chairman Keys questioned why a brine disposal area would be placed so close to the Indian River Lagoon, and why it would be considered a place equivalent to the Environmental Learning Center. Mr. Olson replied for many years the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility discharged its brine into the Wabasso Causeway and Indian River Lagoon. The FDEP mandated IRC move the direct discharge going into the Indian River Lagoon. Subsequently, IRC ended up in a resolution agreement with FDEP agreeing to do that. Mr. Olson described the other options IRC had

P&Z/Unapproved - 8 - December 18, 2006 F:\BCC\All Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc for dealing with the brine discharge and none of them were either possible or were cost prohibitive. He noted the option selected by IRC would allow boardwalks and access for environmental research and enjoyment.

Mr. Christopher asked if the Spoonbill Marsh required BCC approval to proceed. · Mr. Olson responded the original agreement with Grand Harbor Development Corporation was approved by the BCC May 3, 2005. He continued the additional 7.21 acres would be brought before the BCC as a modification to the original agreement.

Mr. Tripson asked what would happen if the Spoonbill Marsh deal fell through, specifically the conservation easement. Attorney DeBraal replied the easement would revert back to Grand Harbor. Mr. Tripson then asked what would happen to the development rights. Attorney DeBraal reported the 62 acres were not subject to the transfer of development rights, only the 7.21 acres being donated by Grand Harbor.

Mr. Joseph Paladin, 6450 Tropical Way, inquired how many units were originally approved for Grand Harbor. Mr. Carmoney responded 2,553 units had been originally approved. Mr. Paladin asked how many of those units were vested .. Mr. Carmoney replied 2,553 units. Mr. Paladin queried if the 2,553 units were vested trips and Mr. Keating reported 1,364 building permits were presently ve~ted and he noted the vesting for the total 2,553 units terminates in 2010.

Mr. Paladin questioned in order to load the rest of the trips on the model, would the units have to be built. Mr. Keating answered in the affirmative.

Mr. Paladin opined in the Bay County legal case Mr. Christopher referred to, adding 400+ acres to a ORI was a substantial change, and the · final finding was immaterial, whether it was substantial or not, because the applicant had vested rights to build what they could prior to the termination date. The applicant was not vested for concurrency under that change, and they would have to meet the concurrency standards of today and be approved by local government.

Attorney DeBraal agreed with parts of Mr. Paladin's statement, but stated it all came back to the issue of whether or not there was a substantial change and the criteria needed to be examined when determining that matter. He agreed there were facts in the Bay County

P&Z/Unapproved - 9 - December 18, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc case similar to the case before the P&Z but because of the stipulation where all agreed there was a non-substantial change, the issue was clouded to the point where he could not agree with the case as Mr. Christopher does.

A lengthy discussion ensued on determining whether or not the addition of 400+ acres would be considered a substantial change.

Mr. Paladin related at the December 14, 2006 Legislative Delegation meeting, he brought up the Spoonbill Marsh project and asked the specific question was there any tie in with the Grand Harbor rezoning and any of the changes. He had received the same "no" answer then that was received at this meeting which he found hard to understand. He asked if there was any baggage attached, in the form of environmental concerns, to the Spoonbill Marsh. Attorney DeBraal replied there was not baggage attached and, in fact, an environmental site assessment had been completed without any significant findings. Mr. Fletcher interjected sometimes there were maintenance issues attached.

Mr. Olson reported the Spoonbill Marsh project would become owned by easement and maintained and operated by IRC in perpetuity.

Mr. Paladin stated with the legal issues Mr. Christopher brought up, and the discussion held thus far on this case, he felt there was still a lot of gray area and recommended the P&Z not approve the application until definite legal answers were obtained.

Attorney DeBraal wished to address the timing of the Spoonbill Marsh negotiation issue. He noted he began the negotiations in early 2005 and had so many drafts before it came to the current form. He continued initially the project was a brine marsh discharge easement.

Chairman Keys closed the public hearing at 7:58 p.m.

Mr. Christopher asked Attorney DeBraal how many votes were needed from the P&Z to take action on this case. Attorney DeBraal · responded it depended on the number of members on a board, but in this case, since there were over five members, with seven, there must be at least four votes to make board action and since there were only four members present at this meeting, the vote would have to be unanimous.

P&Z/Unapproved • 10 • December 1a. 2006 F:\BCC\All Committees\P&Z12006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc ON MOTION BY Mr. Christopher, SECONDED BY Chairman Keys, to table this case until the next meeting scheduled for January 11, 2006.

UNDER DISCUSSION, Mr. Fletcher agreed with Mr. Christopher and felt the applicant may want to wait until the next meeting when there would be more than four P&Z members present. He pointed out even if the motion failed, it would still move on to the BCC.

Attorney Seymour stated his client wished to move forward to the BCC even if they received a denial from the P&Z.

Mr. Gross asked for staff's comment regarding the zoning of Property #1, and the comment Mr. Richie made about the possibility of not zoning the entire parcel RM-3. Mr. Carmoney replied it was the applicant's request to rezone the parcel to RM-3, the land use designation of Low Density Residential (L-1) would allow for that. He added staff felt the RM-3 zoning was more suitable for what the applicant had in mind for the design.

THE MOTION WAS CALLED, and the members voted (2-2). The motion failed with Mr. Christopher and Chairman Keys voting in favor of the motion. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gross voted against the motion. The request was therefore denied.

Chairman Keys asked for a motion on the request for rezoning.

ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Gross, the members voted (2-2) to approve the applicants request for rezoning. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gross voted in favor of the motion, Mr. Christopher and Chairman Keys voted against the motion. The request was therefore denied.

Chairman Keys read the following into the record:

B. GH Vero Beach Development LLC and Grand Harbor North Land LLC: Request For a Proposed Change to the Grand Harbor ORI Development Order to add the "Riverbend PD" Site. [Quasi-Judicial]

P&Z/Unapproved • 11 • December 1.8, 2006 F:\BCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc Mr. McCoy reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Mr. Gross asked .about Exhibit "C" provided in the agenda packet. He felt it had errors and should not be approved as submitted because the acreage did not add up and Exhibit "C" was part of the resolution. Mr. McCoy replied he would check Exhibit "C" for inaccuracies.

Mr. Fletcher asked about the road running from 63rd Street to 53 rd Street. Mr. McCoy stated the road would go through The Reserve, which was an existing roadway, and the applicant was working on an agreement with the developer of that property for maintenance. He explained one of the advantages of Grand Harbor adding the acreage to their ORI was that they would have the road connecting 63 rd Street to 53 rd Street.

Chairman Keys inquired if the acreage were to be added to the ORI, would the trips be considered vested, and if the acreage was not added to the ORI would Riverbend have to establish concurrency on 650 units. Mr. McCoy responded Riverbend was not vested so it was not rolled into the ORI. He continued any developer coming in with that acreage would have to establish concurrency.

Mr. Moler explained the difference in acreage Mr. Gross mentioned stating there was a slight difference between the land involved that Grand Harbor owned and the rezoning application versus what was being added to the ORI.

Chairman Keys opened the public hearing at 8:26 p.m.

Ms. Lyndall Soule, 12355 Roseland Road, Sebastian, asked about the portion of property north of 63rd Street. Mr. McCoy explained that property was not to be added to the ORI before the P&Z, it was a PD called the Mandala Club.

Mr. Paladin inquired if. Grand Harbor did not add the acreage to their ORI, would it be possible for them to build the remaining 1,250 units on the land they had remaining. Mr. Keating responded most likely they would not be able to build the entire 1,250 units.

Chairman Keys closed the public hearing at 8:28 p.m.

P&Z/Unapproved • 12 • December 18. 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18;06.doc ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Gross, to approve the request for a proposed change to the Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact Development Order as presented.

UNDER DISCUSSION Mr. Christopher stated he would be voting against the motion because of the interconnectivity issue, and while there may, or may not be significant deviation, as discussed in the rezoning application, there was no evidence presented proving the projects would be in compliance with the Comp Plan,· specifically with concurrency. He continued as the Bay County legal case made clear, it was required to be shown that the projects would comply with the Comp Plan, there were no vested rights created for a development that did not proceed in accordance with the original DO, and adding 400+ acres of land was not proceeding with the original DO.

Chairman Keys asked Mr. Fletcher although he did not feel there was a substantial change being made since the change would not increase density, instead it actually reduced density from the original ORI, what about the result of an increase in traffic. Mr. Fletcher responded the change would be an overall collective impact. and not a peak impact on schools or traffic.

Chairman Keys expressed her dilemma as Grand Harbor had built out 1,364 units, and Mr. Keating did not feel they could get the additional 1,200 units they were entitled to, with an actual figure closer to 300 on the ORI. Mr. McCoy interjected Grand Harbor had 300 units they had approval for but had not been constructed.

Mr. Christopher interrupted stating the applicant chose to build at a significantly lower density and now that they wished to take advantage of the approval, there would clearly be an increase in traffic. Mr. McCoy continued the applicant could get approximately 1,650 to 1,700 total units without any additional approvals.

Chairman Keys asked based on the 1,700 unit figure, with the addition of the 400+ acres with the Riverbend ORI, instead of just building out to 1,700 units, they would actually be vested and able to build the 2,353 units they originally agreed for a maximum. Mr. Boling reported the DO

P&Z/Unapproved - 13 - December 18, 2006 F:\BCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc with vesting terminates in 2010, and when factoring in how many units the applicant could squeeze into the remaining area, it should be calculated how many building permits and actual buildings could be added in three years. He added from the land use standpoint, it was better if this property was integrated into the Grand Harbor project for traffic reasons. Mr. Christopher asked if the applicant extended the DO for five years in 2009, would that be a significant deviation of regional impact. Mr. McCoy responded an extension of mo,re than seven years was presumed to be a substantial deviation and less than seven years was presumed not to be. He added Grand Harbor had already received a five year extension and would only be able to be granted another two years, unless they wanted to go through the substantial deviation process.

Chairman Keys recapped her concern as if approval was granted, the applicant would be able to vest and put 700 more trips on the road without having to go through any concurrency test.

THE MOTION WAS CALLED, and the members voted (2-2), resulting in a denial. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gross voted in favor of the motion. Mr. Christopher and Chairman Keys voted against the motion.

Chairman Keys read the following into the record:

C. Grand Harbor North Land LLC: Request for special exception use and conceptual PD plan approval for a development to be known as The Isles of Grand Harbor. Grand Harbor North Land LLC, Owner. Masteller & Moler, Inc., Agent. Located adjacent to the original Grand Harbor site, and north of the North Relief Canal, between US Highway 1 and the Indian River Lagoon, south of 63rd Street. Zoning Classification: PD, Planned Development. Land Use Designations: L-1, Low Density 1 (up to 3 units/acre) and C-2, Conservation 2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres). Proposed Zonings: RS-3, Residential Single-Family (up to 3 units/acre), RM-3, Residential Multi-Family (up to 3 units/acre) and CON-2, Conservation 2 (up to 1 unit/40 acres). Density: 1.93 units/gross acre. (PD-06-03-02/99080024-51881) [Quasi­ Judicial]

P&Z/Unapproved - 14 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06,doc Mr. McCoy reviewed the information contained in his memorandum, a copy of which is on file in the Commission Office.

Attorney Bob Raynes, representing the applicant, stated they did agree with staff's recommendations and offered to answer any questions.

Chairman Keys opened the public hearing at 8:46 p.m.

Ms. Lyndall Soule, 12355 Roseland Road, Sebastian, noted she owned property on 63 rd Street, and asked if she would have to go through a gate to get to her property. Mr. McCoy responded if the request was approved as proposed, there would be a gate at the project entrance and the applicant would be escrowing for the paving of the remainder, up to the Mandala Club entrance, after that development was completed. To go east Ms. Soule would have to go through a gate.

Mr. McCoy assured Ms. Soule arrangements would be made to provide her with access to her property and maintenance of the road would be the responsibility of the applicant. Attorney Seymour interjected the funds would come through a cost share agreement between Grand Harbor and Mandala Club, there would be access provided to Ms. Soule, and there would be no cost incurred by her.

Chairman Keys closed the public hearing at 8:49 p.m.

Chairman Keys could not approve the PD unless the ORI went through review.

Mr. Christopher would be voting no because of the interconnectivity issues, there was no evidence the applicant would be complying with the Comp Plan, and he had a problem with the significant reduction in the minimum lot size, the front, side and rear set backs compared to what would be required in a standard RS-3 zoning, and the trips had not been loaded.

Mr. Fletcher noted Grand Harbor had always done extremely good work and he liked the idea of access to the Spoonbill Marsh. He agreed there were some concerns, but they were minimal in comparison to the positive aspects provided by the project.

P&Z/Unapproved -15 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc ON MOTION BY Mr. Fletcher, SECONDED BY Mr. Gross to approve the request for special exception use and conceptual PD plan approval as presented.

UNDER DISCUSSION Chairman Keys stated she agreed Grand Harbor had developed out well, but her decision not to support this request was because there were 700 trips that would not have to go through concurrency requirements that would automatically be vested.

THE MOTION WAS CALLED, and the members voted (2-2), resulting in a denial. Mr. Fletcher and Mr. Gross voted in favor the motion. Mr. Christopher and Chairman Keys voted against the motion.

Commissioners Matters

Mr. Fletcher asked for clarification of lnterlocal Agreements between municipalities and the County, he was especially concerned about the Round Island Plantation Subdivision item discussed at the December 14, 2006 P&Z meeting where it was noted no lnterlocal Agreement existed. Mr. Boling responded in that request, there was an issue of a site located on the barrier island and straddling the IRC/St. Lucie County line. Staff contacted schools, utilities and emergency services, and none of them wanted an lnterlocal Agreement because the 6.16 acres in IRC designated for six single-family homes were entirely in IRC, resulting in no split properties or homes. Attorney DeBraal reported there was no legal requirement to force two parties into an lnterlocal Agreement.

Planning Matters

Mr. Boling reported at the December 5, 2006 BCC meeting, the Marbros LLC and First Atlantic Citrus, Inc. rezoning presented to the P&Z at their October 26, 2006 meeting, was approved as Light Industrial.

He continued the Land Development Regulations Chapter 910 and other chapters dealing with concurrency changes went to the BCC on December 5, 2006 and was tabled until January 23, 2007 to allow for a

P&Z/Unapproved - 16 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCC\AII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc workshop to be held on January 5, 2007 from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 p.m. in the Commission Chambers.

Attorney's Matters

There were none.

Adjournment

The meeting adjourned at 8:59 p.m.

Donna Keys, Chairman · Date

Darcy Vasilas Date Assistant to the Executive Aide

P&Z/Unapproved - 17 - December 18, 2006 F:IBCCIAII Committees\P&Z\2006Ag&Min\Min 12-18-06.doc ' CONSENT AGENDA PRELIMINARY PLAT 3A (QllASI-JllDICIAL) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

DE,li'fiJ!UJ.LVUONT HEAD CONCURRENCE: ·~~/

Robert M. Keating, AICP·,Comm · Development Director THROUGH: Stan Bolin~CP;..,,. Planning Dire FROM: Steven Deardeuff, Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: January 2, 2007

SUBJECT: Habitat for Humanity's Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for a project to be known as Grace Woods Subdivision [SD-06-09-32/2005110219-55291]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2007.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

MBV Engineering, Inc. on behalf of Habitat for Humanity is requesting preliminary plat approval for a small lot sin~le-family subdivision to be known as Grace Woods Subdivision. The site is located at 1510 111 Street SW, between 18th Avenue SW and 12th Avenue SW. The subject site is zoned RS-6, Residential Single-Family (up to 6 units/acre), and has an L-2, Low Density Residential, land use designation. The preliminary plat proposes 36 lots, internal road right-of-way, and tracts for stormwater management and common open space/tree preservation.

This small lot subdivision application was filed on June 28, 2006. At that time, there was a moratorium in effect on new small lot subdivision applications except for applications filed by Habitat for Humanity. The exception was based on the fact that Habitat for Humanity is a proven provider of affordable housing (see attachment #6). Therefore,, the subject application was not subject to the moratorium and is subject to the "old" small lot subdivision regulations in effect at the time the application was filed. Consequently, the small lot subdivision regulations adopted on August 22, 2006 ( see attachment #7) do not apply to this application, but will apply to all future small lot subdivision applications.

The proposed Habitat for Humanity project is a conventional, single-family subdivision that contains smaller sized lots, is serviced by public water and sewer, and is designed with special setbacks and buffering as specified in the specific land use criteria for small lot subdivisions.that were in the LDR's on June 28, 2006. The applicant is proposing to subdivide the subject 8.139- • acre site into 36 lots, resulting in a density of 4.42 units per acre.

\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeufl\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 1 A small lot subdivision is allowed as an administrative permit use in the RS-6 zoning district, the district within which the subject property is located. Uses that require an administrative permit are ones 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 applicable specific use criteria set forth in chapter 971 of the county's land development regulations.

Grace Woods Subdivision Data:

• Project Area: 8.139 acres

• Number of Lots: 36 lots

• Density: RS-6: 6 units/acre Proposed: 4.42 units/acre

• Minimum Lot Size: Required: 5,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 5,000 sq. ft.

• Minimum Lot Width: Required: 50 feet Proposed: 50 feet

ANALYSIS

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

2. Utilities: The project will have public water and sewer service provided by County Utilities. The County Department of Utilities and the Department of Health have approved these project utility provisions.

3. Traffic Circulation: Access to the proposed development will be provided by a proposed internal loop street, which will have two connection points to 11 th Street SW, an existing local street that is currently unpaved but scheduled to be paved in 2007. The grading and paving contract for 11 th Street SW from 17'h Avenue SW to 9th Court SW has been awarded, and construction is scheduled to begin in January 2007 and be completed by May 2007. The project's internal traffic circulation plan and roadway design have been approved by the County's Traffic Engineering Division.

A traffic impact analysis has been reviewed and approved by the Traffic Engineering Division. Based on the study, no traffic improvements are needed near the site, with the exception of the paving of 11 th Street SW, and none are proposed.

The approved traffic analysis assigns one (1) trip to the segment of 27th Avenue from Oslo Road to 4th Street and one (1) trip to the segment of 27th Avenue between 4th Street and 8th Street. Both segments are currently deficient in regard to available capacity but are on the County's 5-year Capital Improvement Program for widening. As such, the applicant has the

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeufl\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 2 right to enter into a proportionate share agreement for each of these segments and satisfy concurrency requirements.

In this case, the applicant has already applied for and obtained staff level approval for a proportionate share agreement. This agreement is tentatively scheduled for Board of County Commissioners approval on January 26, 2007.

4. Stormwater Management: Ti:J.e preliminary plat proposes a modified miarni curb street design and one (1) 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. Public Works has approved the preliminary drainage design and will need to approve a final design via the land development permit'review process.

5. Environmental Issues: Environmental planning staff has inspected the site and verified that one hundred (100) percent of the site is native upland plant communities. Since the site is over five acres, the native uplands set-aside requirement of Land Development Regulation section 929.05 applies.

To meet the 15% preservation requirement ofLDR section 929.05, the applicant proposes to preserve 0.586 acres of native uplands, which equates to 15.10% of total uplands that exist on the site. Prior to or via the final plat process, a conservation easement must be established over the 0.586 acres of native uplands being preserved. The preliminary plat design proposes one open space tract, which is located to ensure preservation of a large number of the existing trees on site. ln addition to the preservation of existing trees within the preservation tract, tree protection ordinance mitigation requirements will result in an additional sixty­ . seven oak trees planted within the disturbed areas of the preservation tract and within required buffers. Detailed tree protection requirements will be applied prior to issuance of land clearing and tree removal permits for the project.

6. Required Improvements: For projects in the RS-6 zoning district, bikeway, sidewalk and streetlight improvements may be required pursuant to section 911.07(6) of the LDRs. For this project, the following improvements are required:

1. Internal Sidewalks and External Pedestrian Connections: The preliminary plat proposes an internal sidewalk system located on the inside of the proposed internal loop street. This internal sidewalk system will have two connection points to 11 th Street SW at the project's entrances.

2. Streetlighting: Streetlighting is required and proposed at the project's two entrances as well as along the proposed internal road. A property owners' association will be responsible for maintaining the streetlights. Streetlight improvements will be incorporated into the project land development permit.

3. Buffers and Open Space: Required buffers and open space tracts meet or exceed the current "G.A.C." requirements for subdivisions and also the requirements of the "old" small lot subdivision criteria of Chapter 971.

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 3 7. Concnrrency: As previously stated in the "Traffic Circulation" section of this report, the project meets conditional concurrency requirements subject to a condition that the applicant enters into a proportionate fair share agreement with the County. The Board of County Commissioners is scheduled to approve such an agreement for this project at its January 26, 2007 meeting. Prior to issuance of a land development permit and within twelve (12) months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant must enter into· the proportionate fair share agreement.

8. Specific Land Use Criteria: Pursuant to LDR section 971.41(9), the following administrative permit criteria for small lot subdivisions apply to this project:

a. The small lot subdivision shall be serviced by centralized water and wastewater.

Note: County water and wastewater (sewer) service will be provided.

b. The gross density of any small lot subdivision shall not exceed the maximum density allowed within the zoning district in which the subdivision is located.

Note: The proposed ·density is 4.42 units/acre, which is below the 6 unit/acre maximum allowed. ·

c. Perimeter lots are those lots, which abut or are adjacent to areas not included in the proposed small lot subdivision. Perimeter lots which abut property having a residential or agricultural zoning designation shall:

1. Conform to the standard applicable size and dimension criteria of the respective zoning district in which the project is located; or

11. Comply with the following size and dimension criteria:

Minimum Lot Width: 50feet Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum Yard Setbacks: Front: 20feet Side: 7 feet; 5 feet on lots fronting a cul-de-sac circle

Rear: Minimum rear yard setbacks shall be provided, based upon lot width, as indicated in the table below:

Lot Width Rear Yard 50'& < 55' 30feet 55' & < 60' 27feet 60' & < 65' 24feet 65'& < 70' 22feet •

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 4 Note: All perimeter lots proposed in this subdivision comply with the above-cited criteria. The minimum lot width proposed is 50 feet. This meets the minimum lot width allowed for a small lot subdivision.

d. Interior lots (those determined not to be perimeter lots) and those perimeter lots which abut a property having a commercial/industrial land use designation shall comply with the following size and dimension criteria:

Minimum Lot Width: 50/eet Minimum Lot Size: 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum Yard Setbacks: Front: 20feet Side: 7feet; 5 feet on lots fronting a cul-de-sac circle Rear: 15feet

Note: All interior lots proposed in this subdivision comply with the above-cited criteria. The minimum lot width proposed is 50 feet. This meets the minimum lot width allowed for a small lot subdivision.

e. Accessory structures may encroach into required yards as allowed in Section 911.15 ofthe Land Development Regulations.

Note: In accordance with standard procedures, staff reviews all proposals for accessory structures (pools, sheds, etc.) at the time an applicant submits for a building permit for a structure. Thus, the 911.15 setback allowances will be applied at that time.

f. A buffer maintenance easement, having a minimum width of ten (JO) feet, shall be provided along the perimeter of the small lot subdivision between the small lot subdivision and all abutting residentially designated properties, except where the proposed small lot subdivision abuts another approved small lot subdivision or abuts on older, "grandfathered-in" subdivision where 50% or more of the lots have been developed as 50 foot wide single family lots. Where required, the buffer easement shall comply with the following criteria:

i. A 6 foot opaque buffer improvement shall be provided within the easement and shall consist ofone of the following: Existing and/or planted vegetation. A combination ofa landscaped berm and vegetation. A wall or opaque fence. Any other buffer improvement(s) allowed under the provisions of Section 926. 08 of the Land Development Regulations.

11. The buffer improvement(s) shall be located within a buffer easement(s) as designated on the small lot subdivision plat. Said easement(s) shall be depicted on the final plat and shall be dedicated to the subdivision's property owners'

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 5 association to ensure maintenance of the buffer improvements. The buffer easement improvement(s) shall be considered a required subdivision improvement and shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of section 913.08 of the Land Development Regulations.

m. No structure(s), other than those related to buffering, drainage or utilities shall be located in the buffer easement.

Note: The applicant is proposing a type C landscape buffer tract along the East, West, and South perimeters of the subdivision. These tracts will be dedicated to a property owners' association. By dedicating these tracts to the property owner's association, the buffer maintenance easement requirement has been met. Within this tract, a 6-foot berm/hedge combination will be installed to meet the 6-foot opaque feature requirement. Six lots on the North perimeter of the subdivision abut Commercial Zoning and are exempt from this buffer requirement.

g. Minimum building setbacks as specified in 971.41(9)(b)3 and 4, above, shall be depicted as a residential building envelope on the preliminary plat. Language shall be noted on the final plat to the effect that specially-approved setbacks are in effect on the lots.

Note: The applicant has shown the building envelopes on the preliminary plat and has acknowledged that specific language related to the approved setbacks must be noted on the final plat.

The proposed subdivision complies with all of the applicable administrative permit criteria. All of the proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot dimension criteria. In addition, the preliminary plat proposes a 6-foot opaque perimeter buffer consisting of a combination of berm with hedge and trees on the east, west, and south property boundaries.

This application was reviewed under the small lot subdivision criteria referenced above because, as a Habitat for Humanity project, it was exempt from the moratorium and subject to the "old" small lot subdivision criteria. Therefore, staff is recommending a condition that the subdivision be developed as a Habitat for Humanity project.

9. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:

North: CH I Unplatted acreage East: RS-6 RM-6/ Unplatted acreage South: RS-6 /11 th Street SW, Residential Single Family; 6.74 units/acre West: RS-6 I The Christian Fellowship Church

RECOMMENDATION Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant administrative permit and preliminary plat approval for Grace Woods Subdivision, with the

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 6 following conditions:

1. The subdivision shall be developed as a Habitat for Humanity project. 2. Prior to issuance of a Land Development Permit and within twelve (12) months of preliminary plat approval, the applicant shall enter into a proportionate share agreement with the county for the one (1) trip impacting the segment of 27th Avenue from Oslo Road to 4th th th Street and the one (1) trip impacting the segment of 27'h Avenue between 4 Street and 8 Street.

3. No certificate of occupancy shall be issued prior to completion of the 11 th Street SW paving project.

ATTACHMENTS 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Preliminary Plat 4. Aerial 5. Landscape Plan 6. Traffic Summary 7. Small Lot Subdivision Moratorium and Exception for Habitat for Humanity 8. New Small Lot Subdivision (Ordinance 2006-024)

F:\Community Development\Users\Steven Deardeuff\Prelim Plats\Grace Woods\Grace Woods.rtf 7 \ ,/

PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FORM (PLTP) PROJECT NAME (PRINT): Grace Woods Subdivision COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#: 2005110219 - 55 d< Cf I

ASSIGNED FILE#: P._,L=T,...P~-...,5=1_.,_,79"'2'------~------­

CORRESPONDING PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME AND IRC ASSIGNED FILE NUMBER: SD- O{p - 0 C, - ~~~J~o<~-

OWNER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) Habitat for Humanity NIA NAME NAME 4568 N. US Hwy. 1 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach Florida CITY STATE CITY STATE 32967 772-562-9860 ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE 772-562-8732 FAX NUMBER FAX NUMBER NIA E-MAIL E-MAIL Mr. Andrew Bowler CONTACT PERSON _,d , CONTACT PERSON 'f..~ffi..L::..:::=::=-..::~::...:....-~&:':!::=::'::::e::::::=,,______SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AGENT PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT SURVEYOR: (PRINT) MBV Engineering, Inc. Masteller, Moler, Reed & Taylor, Inc. NAME NAME 2455 14th Avenue 1655 27th Street, Suite 2 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach Florida Vero Beach Florida CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 772-569-0035 32960 772-564-8050 ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE 772-778-3617 772-794-0647 FAX NUMBER FAX NUMBER [email protected] EMAIL EMAIL Mr. Aaron J. Bowles, P.E. Mr. l)avidTaylor • CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

Revised 2006 Page 1 of3 SITE TAX ID#'S: 33-39-26-00001-0010-00004.0 & 5.0

PROJECT USE: Single Family Residential Subdivision

IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE" AREA AS ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE? YES___ NO X

• ZONING: --~R=S~-~6____ _ CLUP: __~L=-~2~------

• TOTAL (GROSS) ACREAGE OF PARCEL: ___-"'8.~1""39'------

• AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE:_~8=.1=3=9 ______

• TOTALNUMBEROFLOTS: 36 DENSITY (UNITS PER ACRE):_-"'4.""42,.__ __

**PLEASE FILL-OUT APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST**

FOR OFFICE USE ONLY:

DATE RECEIVED: ______-'/ /___ _

DATE APPLICATION COMPLETE: ______-'/ / ____

SUBDIVISION FILE NUMBER: SD-__- __- __

REVIEWING PLANNER: ______

•

· ReviseO. 2006 Page2of3 --- • --· ... .,,..,. I I I 00001 I 21) ~l ; ! RM-6 1 ~ 1' I 00001 11 20 2 "' .,,_ - 00001 10 1 RS-6

00001· 20 0001 5 RS-8 .20 • 4.2

Thompson Item. School

1 • • ' Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

GRACE WOODS -TRAFFIC IMPACT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY (October 2006) II Suite B-100 1. Location: Nortbside of 11 'h Street SW between 18" Avenue SW and 12"' Avenue SW 120119~ Place Vero Beach, Florida 32960 2. Size: 36 Single-Family Detached Residential Units

3. Trip Generation: Net New Daily Trip Volume= 345 vehicular trips Net New A.M. Peak-Hour Volume= 27 vehicular trip Net New P.M. Peak-Hour Volume= 36 vehicular trips

4. Area of Influence Boundaries: .. Nortb - 21st Street • Soutb - Oslo Road • East - Indian River Boulevard • West-43'd Avenue

5. Significant Roads: • Indian River Boulevard- 4" Street to 21st Street • US 1 - Oslo Road to 8" Street • 27"' Avenue - Oslo Road to 4" Street • Oslo Road- 43'd Avenue to US 1 • 20"' Avenue - Oslo Road to 16"' Street

6. Significant Intersections: • 11"'StreetSW/18"'AvenueSW RECEIVED 7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A . OCT l 8 2006 8. Internal Capture: none TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 9. Pass-by Capture: none

10. A.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/ egress): Single-Family Detached Housing - 25% entering/ 75% exiting

11. P.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): Single-Family Detached Housing- 63% entering/ 37% exiting

12. Traffic Count Factors Applied:

APPROVED BY INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

II T~NG~ING TEL 772 562 7981 FAX 772 794 9368 DATE I Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

• Annual Growth Rate 3.34%was calculated. However, minimum allowed growth rate allowed by the County is 5.00% which was utilized in all calculations.

13. Off-Site Improvements: • Applicant will be required to enter into a Proportionate Fair Share Agreementto mitigation for capacity deficiencies on roadway link 2420S. (27"' Avenue between Oslo Road and 4"' Street)

14. Roadway Capacities (IRC Link Sheets): See Appendix B

15. Assume roadway and / or intersection improvements: • Oslo Road Capacity Improvements - 5 lane widening; 58"' . Avenue to US 1 · • US 1 Capacity Improvements - 6 lane widening; 4"' Street to Oslo Road

16. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: April 2005

b) Traffic counts:

Intersection AM Count AMPeak Peak Season PM Count PM Peak Peak Season Date Hour Factor Date Hour Factor 11'" Street SW/18111 Avenue 09/27/06 8:00-9:00 1;09 09/28/06 4:00-5:00 1.()9 SW

c) Study approval: ...... lo/31/1/ft

lI:\47716000\36 units\11th Street~ Traffic Impact fo;erutive Summruy.doc :----­ __1, __ 1' • r• ------'

·. .,.I.------! 5R (oD ...... ,>-- • .. ·--, ,

~- ,---- 1\ -.. 4:.--- ; _:1__ t------';-. ·------. ' r--.... __ :' I :' '!, 'v :' ,/ • '\ \ / 2.. . ---- '• •\ i _,>----' ------~--,--- ' ,r,.. :' ((- ' : •...... ,' .' • " "" !" • • OSLO 121). •' 2. I"!> :• ' ' ' (') M ~ • -~ ~.,., __ :...:.:1..::i- ...... -----"------

p~ot S•1•ct %on• Uad -- P•rcant D~ Proj•e-t AIHI. ttt ct P J;( t:h1 MO~%F%ED %RC 20p ::Z2KAY06 1!);3'4t0-4 TABLE I Grace Woods TRIP GENERATION Land Use Intensity Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Trios Total In Out Total In Out Proposed Site Traffic Single-Family Detached Housing 36 units 345 27 7 20 36 23 13

345 27 7 20 36 23 13

NET NEW SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 345 27 7 20 36 23 13

Notes: Trip generation was calculated using the following data from ITE Trip Generation, Seventh Edition:

Daily Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing* [ITE210] = T= 9.57(X)

AM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing* ~TE210] = T = 0.75(X) (25% in, 75% out)

PM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing* ~TE 210] = T = 1.0l(X) (63% in, 37% out) h:147716000\36 units\[Jlth street subdivision - trip gen - rates.xls]lrip_gei, 11"'7-1"11 ~mley-Hom 10/16/200610:31 ....i 1111~ and Associates, lr.c. ©2006 "ITEAVERAGE TRIP GENERATION RATES WERE USED TO MORE ACCURATELY PORTRAY ACTUAL TRIP GENERATION, DUE TO THE MINlMUAL INTENSITY OF THE SITE. GRACE WOODS SUBDIVISION - 36 units Date of compilation 10/12/2006 (Tables published 09119/2006)

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

1010N S.R.A1A S. COUNTY LINE S. VB CITY L. 950 325 28 0 597 37¾ 1010S S.R.A1A S. COUNlY LINE S. VBCITYL. 950 396 16 0 538 43% 1020N S.R. A1A S. VB CITY L. 17TH STREET 860 830 18 0 12 99% 1020S S.R.A1A S. VB CITY L. •17TH STREET 860 900 7 0 -47 105% 1030N S.R.A1A 17TH STREET S.R. 60 860 604 54 0 202 77% 1030S S.R.A1A 17TH STREET S.R.60 860 635 5 0 220 74% 1040N S.R.A1A S.R.60 N. VB CITY L. 860 836 5 0 19 98% 1040S S.R.A1A S.R.60 N. VB CllYL. 860 910 6 0 .55 107% 1050N S.R.A1A N. VB CITYL. FRED TUERK RD. 860 836 2 0 22 97% 1050S S.R.A1A N. VB CITY L. FRED TUERK RD. 860 910 0 -51 106% 1060N S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WINTER BEACH RD 860 580 0 279 68% 1060S S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WINTER BEACH RD 860 468 0 0 392 54% 1070N S.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N. IRS L. 860 534 4 0 322 63% 1070S S.R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N. IRS L. 860 472 6 0 382 56% 1080N S.R.A1A N. IRS LN. C.R. 510 860 534 53 0 273 68% 1080S S.R.A1A N. IRS LN. C.R. 510 860 472 37 0 351 59% 1090N S.R.A1A C.R.510 N. COUNTY LINE 998 354 43 0 601 40% 1090S S.R.A1A C.R. 510 N. COUNTY LINE 998 513 92 0 393 61% 1110N lNDIAN RIVER BLVD. 4TH ST.@US1 12TH STREET 1,860 740 3 0 1117 40% 11105 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 4TH ST.@US1 12TH STREET 1,860 1,366 27 2 465 75% 1120N lNDIAN RIVER BLVD. 12TH STREET S. VB CITY L. 1,860 999 0 0 861 54% 1120S !NDIAN RIVER BLVD. 12TH STREET S. VB CITYL. 1,860 1,425 0 2 433 77% 1130N INDIAN RIVER BL VD. S. VB CITYL. 17TH STREET 1,860 899 8 0 853 54% 1130S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S. VB CITY L. 17TH STREET 1,860 1,425 0 2 433 77% 1140N INDJAN RIVER BLVD. 17TH STREET 21ST STREET 1,860 1,024 2 0 834 55% 1140S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 17TH STREET 21ST STREET 1,860 1,395 0 2 463 75% 11SON INDlAN RIVER BLVD. 21ST STREET S.R.60 1,860 1,420 15 0 425 77% 1150S INDIAN R!VER BLVD. 21ST STREET S.R.60 1,860 1,661 0 0 199 89% 1160N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S.R.60 W. VB C!TY L. 1,860 1,049 70 0 741 60% 1160S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S.R. 60 W.VBCITYL 1,860 1,120 18 0 722 61% 1170N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. W. VB CITI'l. US 1 @53RD ST. 1,860 588 133 0 1139 39% 1170S 1NDIAN RIVER BLVD. W. VB CITY L. US 1 @53RD ST. 1,860 832 115 0 913 51% 1210N !-95 N. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 2,740 1,504 10 0 1226 55% 1210S 1-95 N. COUNTY LINE C.R.512 2,740 1,509 15 0 1216 56% 1220N l-95 C.R. 512 S.R.60 2,740 1,510 40 0 1190 57% 1220s 1-95 C.R. 512 S.R.60 2,740 1,519 41 0 1180 57% 1.g5 1230N S.R.60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,726 55 0 1109 62% 1230S 1-95 S.R.60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,712 42. 0 1136 61% 1240N 1-95 OSLO ROAD S. COUNTY LINE 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 62 0 601 68% 1306S U.S.1 S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,860 1,590 51 0 219 88% 1310N U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 4TH ST,@IR BLVD. 2,790 1,412 30 3 1345 52% 1310S U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 4TH ST.@ IR BLVD. 2,790 1,749 54 6 981 65% 1315N U.S.1 4TH ST,@ IR BLVD. 8TH STREET 1,860 1,195 7 0 658 65% 1315S U.S.1 4TH ST.@ IR BLVD. 8TH STREET 1,860 1,484 18 2 356 81% 1320N U.S.1 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,860 1,28S 14 0 557 70% 1320S U.S.1 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,860 1,472 33 0 355 81% 1325N U.S.1 12TH STREET S. VB CITY L. 1,710 1,221 32 0 457 73% 1325S U.S.j 12TH STREET S. VB CITY L. 1,710 1,301 46 0 363 79% . REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT "D" 1330N U.S.1 S. VB CllY L. 17TH STREET 1,710 1,120 32 0 558 67% 1330S U.S.1 S. VB CllY L. 17TH STREET 1,710 1,329 49 0 332 81% 1335N U.S.1 17TH STREET S.R.60 1,510 1,175 56 0 279 82% 1335S U.S.1 17TH STREET S.R.60 1,510 1,207 68 0 235 84% 1340N U.S.1 S.R.60 ROYAL PALM PL 1,510 901 82 0 527 65% 1340S U.S.1 S.R.60 ROYAL PALM PL 1,510 1,124 166 0 220 85% 1345N U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL ATLANTIC BLVD. 1,710 1,084 105 0 521 70% 1345S U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL ATLANTIC BLVD. 1,710 970 141 0 599 65% 1350N U.S,1 ATLANTIC BLVD. N. VB CITYL. 2,010 1,508 132 0 370 82% 1350S U.S.1 ATLANTIC BLVD. N. VB CllYL 2,010 1,612 162 0 236 88% 1355N U.S.1 N. VB CllYL. OLD DIX!E HWY 2,010 1,634 157 0 219 89% 1355S U.S.1 N. VB CllY L. OLD DIXIE HWY 2,010 1,298 165 0 547 73% 1360N U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 2,010 1,712 157 0 141 93% 1360S U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 2,010 1,079 125 0 806 60% 1365N U.S.1 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 2,010 1,451 180 0 379 81% 1365S U.S.1 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 2,010 1,021 154 0 835 58% 1370N U.S.1 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 2,010 1,425 186 0 399 80% 1370S U.S.1 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 2,010 930 162 0 918 54% 1375N U.S.1 49TH STREET 65TH STREET 2,010 1,728 264 0 18 99% 1375S U.S.1 49TH STREET 65TH STREET 2,010 1,087 212 0 711 65% 1380N U.S.1 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 2,232 1,711 173 0 348 84% 138DS U.S.1 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 1,860 1,070 163 0 627 66% 1385N U.S.1 69TH STREET OLD DIX!E HWY 2,232 1,675 164 0 393 82% 1385S U.S.1 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY 1,860 1,034 f37 0 689 63% 1390N U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR 2,210 1,411 154 0 645 71% 1390S U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR. 1,860 915 132 0 813 56% 1395N U.S.1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 512 1,860 1,300 83 0 477 74o/. 1395S U.S.1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 512 1,860 973 99 0 788 58% 1400N U.S.1 C.R. 512 N. SEB. CllY L. 1,710 1,272 59 0 379 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. CllY L. ROSELAND RD. 1,860 1,318 41 0 501 73% 1405S · U.S.1 N, SEB. CllY L. ROSELAND RD. 1,860 1,323 58 0 479 74% 1410N U.S.1 ROSELAND RD. N. COUNTY LINE 1,860 1,158 8 0 694 63% 1410S U.S.1 ROSELAND RD. N. COUNlY LINE 1,860 965 33 0 862 54% 1510N SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 510@ 66TH AVE. S. SEB. CllY L. 860 705 10 0 145 83% 1510S SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 510@ 66TH AVE. S. SEB, CllY L. 860 337 15 0 508 41% 1520N SCHUMANN DR. s: SEB. CllY l. U.S.1 860 118 7 0 735 15% 1520S SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB. CllY 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. CllY L. 860 335 16 0 509 41% 1620E ROSELAND RD. N. SEB. CllY L. U.S.1 860 301 18 0 541 37% 1620W ROSELAND RD. N. SEB. CllY L. U.S.1 860 377 6 0 477 45% 1710E C.R. 512 S.R. 60 1-95 860 386 BO 0 394 54% 1710W C.R.512 S.R.60 1-95 860 704 14 0 142 83% 1720E C.R. 512 1.. 5 C.R.510 1,860 855 241 0 965 48% 1720W C.R. 512 096 C.R.510 1,860 823 30 0 1007 46°/,, 1730E C.R.512 C.R.510 W. SEB. CllY L. 1,860 730 41 0 1089 41% 1730W C.R.512 C.R.510 W. SEB. CllY 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% 1740W C.R.512 W. SES. CllY L. ROSELAND RD. 1,860 732 44 0 1084 42% REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT "D" 1750E C.R. 512 ROSELAND RD. U.S.1 1,860 611 25 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. 1,860 538 458 0 864 54% 1810W C.R. 510 C.R.512 66THAVE. 1,860 776 104 0 980 47% 1820E C.R. 510 66TH AVE. 58TH AVE. 1,860 512 114 0 1234 34% 1820W C.R. 510 66THAVE. 58TH AVE. 1,860 718 116 0 1026 45% 1830E C.R. 510 58TH AVE. U.S.1 1,860 544 133 0 1183 36% 1830W C.R. 510 58TH AVE. U.S.1 1,860 774 122 0 964 48% 1840E C.R. 510 U.S.1 S.R.A1A 1,900 571 189 0 1140 40% 1840W C.R. 510 u:s.1 S.R.A1A 1,900 1,021 210 0 869 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 15% 1907E S.R.60 C.R. 512 100TH AVE. 1,810 258 0 1551 14% 1907W S.R. 60 C.R. 512 100THAVE. 1,810 257 3 0 1550 14% 1910E S.R. 60 100TH AVE. l-95 1,860 325 149 0 1386 25% 1910W S.R.60 100THAVE. 1-95 1,860 286 224 0 1350 27% 1915E S.R. 60 1-95 82NDAVE. 1,860 1,391 312 0 157 92% 1915W S.R. 60 1-95 82NDAVE. 2,000 1,593 288 0 119 94% 1920E S.R. 60 82ND AVE. 66TH AVE. 2,120 1,550 471 0 99 95% 1920W S.R. 60 82ND AVE. 66TH AVE. 2,120 1,865 367 0 ·112 105% 1925E S.R. 60 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 2,790 1,641 343 0 806 71% 1925W S.R. 60 66TH AVE. SBTHAVE. 2,790 1,652 391 0 747 73% 1930E S.R, 60 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 2,790 1,399 284 0 1107 60% 1930W S.R. 60 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 2,790 1,497 381 0 912 67% 1935E S.R. 60 43RD AVE. 27TH AVE. 2,790 1,315 241 0 1234 56% 1935W S.R. 60 43RD AVE. 27TH AVE. 2,790 1,544 345 0 901 68% 1940E S.R.60 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 2,790 1,158 184 0 1448 48% 1940W S.R.60 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 2,790 1,371 281 0 1138 59% 1945E S.R. 60 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,135 130 0 1987 39% 1945W S.R. 60 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,268 181 0 1803 45% 1950E S.R. 60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10THAVE. 3,252 1,258 77 0 1917 41% 1950W S.R. 60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10TH AVE. 3,252 1,051 107 0 2094 36% 1955E S.R. 60 10TH AVE. U.S.1 3,252 1,100 76 0 2076 36% 1955W S.R.60 10THAVE. U.S.1 3,252 757 92 0 2403 26% 1960E S.R. 60 U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 3,252 789 17 0 2446 25% 1960W S.R. 60 U.S.1 IND!AN RIVER BLVD. 3,252 513 15 0 2724 16% 1965E S.R. 60 IN• lAN RIVER BLVD, ,c_ 1,860 908 5 0 947 49% 1965W S.R. 60 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. IC- 1,860 1,253 2 0 595 68% 1970E S.R. 60 ICWW S.R.A1A 1,860 920 3 0 937 50% 1970W S.R. 60 ICWW S.R.A1A 1,860 991 4 0 865 53% 2020E 16TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RD AVE. 860 355 47 0 458 47% 2020W 16TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 279 38 0 543 37% 2030E 16TH STREET 43RD AVE. 27THAVE. 860 367 47 0 446 48% 2030W 16TH STREET 43RD AVE. 27TH AVE. 860 551 36 0 271 68% 2040E 16TH STREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 355 32 0 473 45% 204DW 16TH STREET 27TH AVE. 20TH AVE. 860 543 53 0 264 69% 2050E 16TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 659 31 0 210 74% 2050W 16TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 730 45 0 35 96% 2060E 16TH/17TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,710 686 52 0 972 43% 2060W 16TH/17TH STREET OLD DIXIE H\"IY U.S.1 1,710 764 50 0 896 48% 2110E 17TH STREET U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 1,710 560 28 0 1122 34% 2110W 17THSTREET U.S.1 INDIAN R!VER BLVD. 1,710 754 23 0 933 45% 2120E 17TH STREET INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S.R.A1A 1,860 1,049 25 0 786 58% 2120W 17TH STREET INDlAN RIVER BLVD. S.R. A1A 1,860 1,298 16 0 -545 71% 2210E 12TH STREET 82ND AVE. 58THAVE. 870 98 2 0 770 11% . 2210W 12TH STREET 82ND AVE. 5BTHAVE. 870 98 0 0 772 11% 2220E 12TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 190 38 0 632 27% REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT "D" 2220W 12TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 261 29 0 570 34% 2230E 12TH STREET 43ROAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 269 13 0 578 33% 2230W 12TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 390 9 0 461 46% 2240E 12TH STREET 27TH AVE. 20TH AVE. 860 350 11 0 499 42% 2240W 12TH STREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 533 11 0 316 63% 2250E 12TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 459 2 0 399 54% 2250W 12TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 698 8 0 154 82% 2260E 12TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,368 416 0 0 952 30% 2260W 12TH STREET OLD D!XIE HWY U.S.1 1,368 691 10 0 667 51% 2305N OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUN1Y LINE OSLO ROAD 860 356 109 0 395 54% 2305S OLD DIXIE HWY s. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 860 491 20 0 349 59% 2310N OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 860 329 39 0 492 43% 2310S OLD DIXIE HWY OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 860 483 36 341 60% 2315N OLD DIXIE HWY 4TH STREET STHSTREET 810 484 16 0 310 62% 2315S OLD DIXIE HWY 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 810 630 15 0 165 80% 2320N OLD DIXIE HWY 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 810 529 9 0 272 66% 2320S OLD DIXIE HWY 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 810 704 10 0 96 88% 2325N OLD DIXIE HW'f 12TH STREET S. VB CITYL. 810 396 0 0 414 49¾ 2325S OLD DIXIE HWY 12TH STREET S. VB C!TYL. 810 391 0 0 419 48% 2330N OLD DIXIE HWY S. VB CITY L. 16TH STREET 850 396 0 0 454 47% 2330S OLD DIXIE HWY S. VB CITY L. 16TH STREET 850 391 0 0 459 46% 2335N OLD DIXIE HWY 16TH STREET S.R.60 850 284 27 0 539 37% 2335S OLD DIXIE HWY 16TH STREET S.R.60 850 239 14 0 597 30% 2345N OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 860 176 49 0 635 26% 2345S OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 860 181 34 0 645 25% 2350N OLD DIX!E HWY 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 860 136 61 0 663 23% 2350S OLD DIXIE HWY 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 860 114 42 0 704 18¾ 2355N OLD DIXIE HWY 49TH STREET 65TH STREET 860 132 108 0 620 28% 2355S OLD DIXIE HWY 49TH STREET 65TH STREET 860 149 92 0 619 28% 2360N OLD DIXIE HWY 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 860 218 30 0 612 29% 2360S OLD DIXIE HWY 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 860 87 23 0 750 13% 2365N OLD DIXIE HWY 69TH STREET C.R. 510 860 145 17 0 698 19% 23658 OLD DIXIE HWY 69TH STREET C.R. 510 860 129 12 0 719 16% 2410N 27TH AVENUE S. COUNTY UNE OSLO ROAD 1,068 . 519 307 0 242 77% 2410S 27TH AVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,068 800 467 0 -199 119% 2420N 27TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 1,068 548 181 0 339 68% 2420S 27TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 1,068 769 306 2 .. 101% 2430N 27TH AVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 1,020 462 131 0 427 58% 2430S 27TH AVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 1,020 811 228 0 -19 102% 2440N 27THAVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,020 447 94 0 479 53% 2440S 27TH AVENUE BTH STREET 12TH STREET 1,020 793 166 0 61 94% 2450N 27THAVENUE 12TH STREET S. VB CITY L. 1,020 456 81 0 483 53% 2450S 27THAVENUE 12TH STREET S. VBCITYL. 1,020 764 139 0 97 90% 2460N 27THAVENUE S. VB CITY L. 16TH STREET 1,020 456 75 0 489 52% 2460S 27TH AVENUE S. VBCITYL. 16TH STREET 1,020 784 134 0 102 90% 2470N 27THAVENUE 16TH STREET S.R.60 1,020 411 40 0 569 44% 2470S 27THAVENUE _16TH STREET S.R.60 1,020 704 68 0 248 76% 2480N 27THAVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 810 257 18 0 535 34% 2480S 27THAVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 810 439 27 0 344 58% 2510N 27TH AVENUE ATLANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 439 8 0 363 55% REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT "D" 2510S 27THAVENUE ATLANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 756 12 0 42 95% 2530E OSLO ROAD 82NDAVE. 58TH AVE. 870 234 5 0 631 27% 2530W OSLO ROAD 82NDAVE. 5BTHAVE. 870 197 0 0 673 23% 2540E OSLO ROAD 58TH AVE. 43RD AVE. 1,953 583 242 0 1128 42% 2540W OSLO ROAD 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 1,953 469 122 0 1362 30% 2550E OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 1,953 778 217 3 955 51% 2s5ow OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1,953 635 194 0 1124 42% 2560E OSLO ROAD 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 1,953 543 163 6 1241 36% 2560W OSLO ROAD 27TH AVE. 20TH AVE. 1,953 654 135 3 1161 41% 2570E OSLO ROAD 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 595 285 12 1061 46% 2570W OSLO ROAD 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 805 184 11 953 51% 2580E OSLO ROAD OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,953 740 75 4 1134 42% 2580W OSLO ROAD OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,953 585 80 8 1280 34% 2610E 6TH AVENUE 17TH STREET S. VB Cl1Y L. 860 299 0 560 35% 2610N 6TH AVENUE 17TH STREET S. VB CtTYL. 860 368 0 491 43% 2610S 6TH AVENUE 17THSTREET S. VB CITYL. 860 487 0 372 57% 2620N 6TH AVENUE S.,VB CITY L. S.R.60 850 330 2 0 518 39% 2620S 6TH AVENUE S. VB CITYL. S.R.60 850 368 0 481 43% 2710N 10TH AVENUE S.R. so ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 77 23 0 ·710 12% 2710S 10TH AVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 68 23 0 719 11% 2720N 10TH AVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17TH STREET 810 218 24 0 568 30% 2720S 10TH AVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17TH STREET 810 372 23 0 415 49% 2810N 20TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 860 432 121 3 304 65% 281'0S 20TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 880 438 151 5 266 69% 2820N 20TH AVENUE 4THSTREET 8TH STREET 810 364 64 2 380 53% 2820S 20THAVENUE 4THSTREET BTHSTREET 810 625 84 4 97 88% 2830~ 20THAVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 810 362 43 2 403 50% 2830S 20TH AVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 810 624 59 3 124 85% 2840N 20TH AVENUE 12THSTREET S. VB CITYL. 1,710 428 27 0 1255 27% 2840S 20TH AVENUE 12THSTREET S. VB CllYL. 1,710 624 34 3 1D!J-9 39% 2850N 20TH AVENUE S. VB CITYL. 16TH STREET 1,800 428 16 0 1356 25% 2850S 20TH AVENUE S. VBCITYL 16TH STREET 1,800 624 33 3 1140 37% 2860N 20TH AVENUE 16TH STREET S.R.60 1,800 334 23 0 1443 20% 2860S 20TH AVENUE 16TH STREET S.R.60 1,800 425 40 0 1335 26% 2870N 20TH AVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 850 193 23 0 634 25% 2870S 20TH AVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 850 113 58 0 679 20% 2905N 43RDAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 354 204 0 392 59% 2905S 43RD AVENUE S. COUN1Y LINE OSLO ROAD 950 311 319 0 320 66% 2910N 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 1,068 439 366 0 263 75% 2910S 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,068 641 281 0 246 77% 2915N 43RD AVENUE 4TH STREET BTHSTREET 1,020 473 162 0 385 62% 29158 43RD AVENUE 4TH STREET 8THSTREET 1,020 671 237 0 112 89% 2920N 43RD AVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,071 482 157 0 432 60% 2920S 43RD AVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,071 653 219 0 199 81% 2925N 43RD AVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 1,071 502 138 0 431 60% 2926S 43RD AVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 1,071 658 189 0 224 79% 2930N 43RD AVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,796 581 151 0 1064 41% 2930S 43RD AVENUE 16TH STREET S.R.60 1,796 693 196 0 907 49% 2935N 43RDAVENUE S.R.60 26TH STREET 1,796 467 135 0 1194 34% 2935S 43RDAVENUE S.R.60 26TH STREET 1,796 612 130 0 1054 41% 2940N 43RDAVENUE 26TH STREET 41STSTREET 860 423 221 0 216 75% REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACl1Y EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT "D" 2940S 43RD AVENUE 26TH STREET 41ST STREET 860 488 217 o 155 82% 2945N 43RD AVENUE 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 860 332 165 o 363 58% 2945S 43RD AVENUE 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 860 333 118 0 409 52% 2950N 43RD AVENUE 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 860 245 154 0 461 46% 2950S 43RD AVENUE 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 860 180 103 0 577 33% 3005N 58TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 363 95 0 1402 25% 3005S 58TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 411 129 0 1320 29% 3010N 58TH AVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 1,710 657 72 0 981 43% 3010S 58TH AVENUE 4TH STREET 8TH STREET 1,710 712 96 0 902 47% 3015N 58TH AVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,710 815 98 0 797 53% 3015S 58TH AVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 1,710 1,138 116 0 456 73% 3020N 58TH AVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 1,710 944 146 0 620 64% 30208 58TH AVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 1,710 1,046 157 0 507 70% 3025N 58TH AVENUE 16TH STREET S.R. 60 1.710 983 217 o 510 70% 3025S 58TH AVENUE 16TH STREET S.R.60 1,710 1,035 247 0 428 75% 3030N 58TH AVENUE S.R. 60 41ST STREET 1,860 1,137 245 0 478 74% 3030S 58TH AVENUE S.R.60 41STSTREET 1,860 1,109 169 0 582 69% 3035N 58TH AVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH STREET 860 587 203 0 70 92% 3035S 58TH AVENUE 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 860 538 98 0 224 74% 3040N 58TH AVENUE 45TH STREET 49TH STREET 860 496 225 0 139 84% 3040S 58TH AVENUE 45THSTREET 49TH STREET 860 487 115 0 258 70% 3045N 58TH AVENUE 49THSTREET 65TH STREET 860 479 141 0 240 72% 3045S 58TH AVENUE 49TH STREET 65TH STREET 860 402 111 0 347 60% 3050N 58TH AVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 860 432 89 0 339 61% 3050S 58TH AVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 860 356 105 0 399 54% 3055N 58TH AVENUE 69TH STREET C.R. 510 860 367 76 0 417 51% 3055S 58TH AVENUE 69THSTREET C.R.510 860 292 113 0 455 47% 3120N 66TH AVENUE S.R. 60 26TH STREET 860 463 163 0 234 73% 3120S 66TH AVENUE S.R.60 26TH STREET 860 432 130 0 298 65% 3130N 66TH AVENUE 26TH STREET 41STSTREET 860 548 154 0 158 82% 3130S 66TH AVENUE 26TH STREET 41STSTREET 860 398 118 0 344 60% 3140N 66TH AVENUE 41ST STREET 45TH STREET 950 559 68 0 323 66% 3140S 66TH AVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH STREET 950 367 58 0 525 45% 3150N 66TH AVENUE 45TH STREET 65TH STREET 870 537 73 0 260 70% 3150S 66TH AVENUE 45THSTREET 65TH STREET 870 331 58 0 481 45% 3160N 66TH AVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 870 537 41 0 292 66% 3160S 66TH AVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 870 301 40 0 529 39% 3170N 66TH AVENUE 69TH STREET C.R. 510 870 561 56 0 253 71% 3170S 66TH AVENUE 69TH STREET C.R.510 870 314 46 0 510 41% 3310N 82ND AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TH STREET 950 171 5 0 774 19% 3310S 82ND AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 950 166 8 0 776 18% 3320N 82ND AVENUE 4TH STREET 12TH STREET 950 191 14 0 745 22% 3320S 82ND AVENUE 4TH STREET 12TH STREET 950 158 20 0 772 19% 3330N 82ND AVENUE 12TH STREET S.R.60 860 264 64 0 532 38% 3330S 82ND AVENUE 12THSTREET S.R.60 860 220 33 0 607 29% 3340N 82ND AVENUE S.R.60 65TH STREET 410 18 5 0 387 6% 3340S 82ND AVENUE S.R.60 65TH STREET 410 76 8 0 326 20% 3350N 82ND AVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 410 19 0 390 5% 3350S 82ND AVENUE 65TH STREET 69TH STREET 410 23 0 0 387 6% 3360N 98TH AVENUE 8TH STREET 12TH STREET 860 13 0 0 847 2% 3360S 98TH AVENUE 8TH STREET 12THSTREET 860 13 o Q 847 2% 3370N 98TH AVENUE 12TH STREET 16TH STREET 860 72 o 0 788 8% 3370$ 98TH AVENUE 12THSTREET 16TH STREET 860 50 0 0 810 6% 3380N 98TH AVENUE 16TH STREET SR60 860 73. o 0 787 8% 3380S 98TH AVENUE 16THSTREET SR60 860 48 0 0 812 6% 3390N 98TH AVENUE SRS0 26TH STREET 860 24 o 0 836 3% 3390S 98TH AVENUE SRS0 26TH STREET 860 143 o 0 717 17% 3610E 77TH STREET 66THAVE. U.S.1 820 70 11 0 739 10% REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT ''D" 3610W 77TH STREET 66TH AVE. U.S.1 820 174 9 0 637 22% 3710E 69TH STREET 82NDAVE. 66THAVE. 410 17 18 0 375 9% 3710W 69TH STREET 82NDAVE, 66TH AVE. 410 15 18 0 377 8% 3720E 69TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58TH AVE. 870 119 13 0 738 15% 3720W 69TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58TH AVE. 870 55 18 0 797 8% 3730E 69TH STREET 58TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 49 26 0 795 9% 3730W 69TH STREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 59 18 0 793 9% 3740E 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 46 11 0 813 7% 3740W 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 48 13 0 809 7% 3820E 65TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 870 50 20 0 800 8% 3820W 65TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 870 41 4 0 825 5% 3830E 65TH STREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 98 28 0 744 14% 3830W 65TH STREET 58TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 64 21 0 785 10% 3840E 65TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 62 9 0 799 8% 3840W 65TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 72 10 0 788 9% 4220E 49TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 860 28 34 0 798 7% 4220W 49TH STREET 66THAVE. 58TH AVE. 860 31 19 0 810 6% 4230E 49TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 135 28 0 697 19% 4230W 49TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43:RDAVE. 860 200 17 0 643 25% 4240E 49TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 216 113 0 481 41% 4240W 49TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 144 89 0 577 29% 4250E 49TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 221 29 0 560 31% 4250W 49TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 157 20 0 633 22% 4320E 45TH STREET 66TH AVE. SBTHAVE. 860 157 20 0 683 21% 4~20W 45TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 860 136 9 0 715 17% 4330E 45TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860. 176 42 0 642 25% 4330W 45TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 207 41 0 612 29% 4340E 45TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 321 74 0 465 46% 4340W 45TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 432 78 0 350 59% 4350E 45TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDlAN RIVER BLVD. 860 188 74 0 598 30% 4350W 45TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDlAN RIVER BLVD. 860 273 81 0 506 41% 4420E 41ST STREET 66THAVE. 58TH AVE. 870 102 33 0 735 16% 4420W 41STSTREET 66THAVE. 58TH AVE. 870 141 12 0 717 18% 4430E 41STSTREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 181 52 0 627 27%. 4430W 41ST STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 262 68 0 530 38% 4440E 41STSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 205 110 0 545 37% 4440W 41STSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 212 46 0 602 30% 4450E 41ST STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 133 18 0 709 18% 4450W 41ST STREET OLD DIXIE HWY 1NDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 59 17 0 784 9% 4460E 37TH STREET U.S.1 !NDIAN RNER BLVD. 860 448 0 411 52% 4460W 37TH STREET U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 638 20 0 202 77% 4720E 26TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58THAVE. 860 248 130 0 482 44% 4720W 26TH STREET 66TH AVE. 58TH AVE. 860 434 103 0 32' 62% 4730E 26TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 394 41 0 425 51% 4730W 26TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RD AVE. 860 539 56 0 265 69% 4740E 26TH STREET 43ROAVE. AVIATION BLVD. 860 458 30 0 372 57% 4740W 26TH STREET 43RDAVE. AVIATION BLVD. 860 635 34 0 191 78% 4750E 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD. 27TH AVE. 860 137 12 0 711 17% 4750W 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD. 27THAVE. 860 201 18 0 641 25% 4830E 8TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 75 16 0 769 11% REMAINING W/ % of LOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT PROJECT "D" 4830W 8TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 118 10 0 732 15% 4840E 8TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 311 54 0 495 42% 4840W 8TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 380 36 0 444 48% 4850E 8TH STREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 353 14 0 493 43% 4850W 8TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 544 13 0 303 65% 4860E 8TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 331 83 0 396 51% 4860W 8TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 632 25 0 153 81% 4870E 8TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 327 16 0 467 42% 4870W 8TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 551 24 0 235 71% 4880E 8TH STREET U.S.1 !NDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 192 3 0 665 23% 4880W 8TH STREET U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 242 4 0 614 29% 4910E 4TH STREET 82NDAVE, 58TH AVE. 870 75 23 0 772 11% 4910W 4THSTREET 82NDAVE. 58TH AVE. 870 97 7 0 766 12% 4930E 4TH STREET 58TH AVE. 43RDAVE. 860 208 15 0 637 26% 4930W 4TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RD AVE, 860 262 11 0 587 32% 4940E 4TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 7:17 26 0 557 35% 4940W 4TH STREET 43RDAVE. 27TH AVE. 860 341 23 0 . 496 42% 4950E 4TH STREET 27THAVE. 20TH AVE. 860 315 5 0 540 37% 4950W 4THSTREET 27TH AVE. 20TH AVE. 860 472 7 0 381 56% 4960E 4TH STREET 20TH AVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 320 30 0 510 41% 4960W 4THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 479 46 0 335 61% 4970E 4THSTREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.8.1 810 353 6 0 451 44% 4970W 4TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 463 16 0 331 59% 5610E FRED TUERK DR. A1A W. OF COCONUT DR. 860 110 0 0 750 13% 5610W FRED TUERK DR. A1A W. OF COCONUT DR. 860 68 0 0 792 8% 5710E WINTER BEACH RD. A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 61 0 798 7% 5710W WINTER BEACH RD. A1A JUNGLE TRA!L 860 47 0 0 813 5% 5B10E ATLANTIC BLVD. 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 141 5 0 714 17% 5810W ATIANT!C BLVD. 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 257 7 0 596 31% 5820E ATLANTIC BLVD. 20THAVE. U.S.1 860 123 41 0 696 19% 5820W ATLANTIC BLVD. 20THAVE. U.S.1 860 171 104 0 585 32% 5910E AVIATION BLVD. 26TH STREET 27TH AVE. 1,280 497 9 0 774 40% 5910W AVIATION BLVD. 26TH STREET 27THAVE. 1,280 627 27 0 626 51% 6010E ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL PALM Pl. INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 263 9 0 608 31% 6010W ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL PALM PL. INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 130 9 0 741 16% 6110E ROYAL PALM PL. U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 169 19 0 692 21% 6110W ROYAL PALM PL. U.S.1 INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 880 349 19 0 512 42%

H:\47716000\36 units\IGrace Woods MLink Tables 09M19-06.xlsJLink Percent ORDINANCE NO. 2006·'---

AN ORDINANCE OF THE . BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INOIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM ON THE ACCEPTANCE OF APPLICATIONS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE PERMITS AND THE ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE PERMIT APPROVALS FOR "SMAL.L I-OT SINGLE-FAMILY SUBDIVISIONS"; PROVIDING FOR PROHIBITION; PROVIDING . FOR EXCEPTIONS; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SE;VERABILITY; SETTING FORTH EXPIRATION AND EFFECTIVE DATES.

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 1(f), Article Vlll, of the Florida Constitution and Chapter 125, Florida Statutes, Indian River County is authorized and required to protect the public health, safety and welfare and m:;iy exercise any power for governmental purpose except when expressly prohibited by law; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 163.3202, Florida Statutes, Indian River County has enacted land development regulations, consistent with its adopted comprehensive plan,, which protect the quality of life in Indian River County; and

, WHEREAS, the Board e>f County Commissioners has adopted Indian River County Code Section 971.41 (9) "small lot single-family subdivisions" as an administrative permit use allowed in the RS-6, RT-6, RM-6, RM-8, and RM-10 zoning districts with the intent of providing affordable housing to the residents of Indian River County; and

WHEREAS; the County finds that most recent developments utilizing the small lot single-family subdivision are not delivering affordable housing unjts as they are advertising homes for sale in excess of $400,000.00; and

WHEREAS, the Growth Awareness Committee has been working with the community Development Department staff to draft an ordinance that would reserve the use of small lot subdivisions for affordable housing; and

WHEREAS, drafting this ordinance has proven to be challenging and additional time is needed before the amended ordinance is ready to be brought before the· various committees and Board of County CommissionerS; and

WHEREAS, the Board desires to extend the temporary moratorium put in place on October 11, 2005, for an additional six months in order :to. preserve the status quo 1

f;\,\t!omey\Bill\Ordinaneo Ame!l(!ments\Small Lot moratorium\..,..,nded moratorium sman lot SUb$.doo 292 ORDINANCE.NO. 2006-__

. during the drafting process to ensure that the community's affordable- housing problems are addressed through this ordinance rather than exacerbated during the time it takes to formulate any desired modifications to the small lot single-family subdivision ~~~. .

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF · COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INOIAN RlVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that:

SECTION 1. PROHIBITION

Except as otherwise provided herein, no applications for administrative permits for small lot single-family subdivisions shall be accepted, processed, or issued until October 11, 2006.

SECTION 2. EXCEPTIONS ·

The prohibitions set forth in Section 1 hereof shall not apply to:

1. Applications for small lot single-family subdivisions l>y Habitat for Humanity of Indian River County, Inc., a proven deliverer of affordable housing utilizing· the small lot single-family subdivision. .. 2. Any small 10\ single-family subdivision on which a completed preliminary plat application (which includes a traffic study) had been submitted prior to October 11, 2005 and which has subsequently determined to meet all applicable requirements of the land development code.

SECTION 3, CONFLICTS

. The application of any Indian River County ordinance in conflict herewith is hereby suspended during the time period set forth in Section 1 to the extent of such conflict.

SECTION 4. SEVERABILITY.

If any section, sentence, clause, or phrase of this ordinance is held to be invalid or unconstitutional by any court of competent jurisdiction, then said holding shall in no way affect the validity of the remaining portions of this ordin;;ince. ·

SECTION 5. EFFECTIVE DATE

This ordinance shall take effect upon the Chairman declaring the ordinance duly passed,

2 293 ORDINANCE NO. 2006-_

This ordinance was advertised in the Vero Beach Press-Journal on the 15th day of March, 2006, for a public hearing to be held on the 22nd day of March, 2006, and was adverth;ied in the Vero Beach Press-Journal on the 29th day of March, 2006 for a public hearing to be held on the 11th day of April, 2006 at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner ______,, seconded by Commissioner -----~ and adopted by th~ following vote:

Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Commissioner Thomas S. Lowther Commissioner Sandra L. Bowden

The Chairm_an thereupon declared the ordinance duly passed and adopted this 11th day of April, 2006. ·

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSION INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

By:_c--..,,.....,.,------=--,--­ Arthur R. Neuberger, Chairman ATTEST: Jeffrey K. Barton, Clerk

By:---~-~-,---- Deputy Clerk

ACKNOWLEDGMENT by the Department of State of the State of Florida, this __ day of ______., 2006. .

3 294 •,< ORDINANCE 2006- 024

AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONCERNING AMENDMENTS TO LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRs) FOR SMALL LOT SUBDIVISIONS ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS FOR WORKFORCE OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING; PROVIDING FINDINGS; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENTS TO CHAPTER 971, REGULATIONS FOR SPECIFIC LAND USES, BY AMENDING RESIDENTIA+, USES SECTION 971.41(9), BY PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; CODIFICATION; SEVERABILITY; AND EFFECTIVE DATE.

BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS (LDRS) AND TITLE X REGULATIONS BE AMENDED AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION#l:

Amend small lot single-family subdivision (administrative permit) LDR Section 971.41(9), to read as follows:

(9) Small lot single-family subdivisions (administrative permit):

( a) Districts requiring administrative permit approval, (pursuant to the provision of 971.04):

RS-6 RT-6 RM-6 RM-8 RM-10

(b) Criteria for small lot subdivisions:

1. . The small lot subdivision shall be serviced by centralized water and wastewater.

2. The gross density of any small lot subdivision shall not exceed the maximum density allowed within the zoning district in which the subdivision is located.

3. Perimeter lots are those lots which abut or are adjacent to areas not included in the proposed small lot subdivision. Perimeter lots which abut property having a residential or agricultural zoning designation shall:

a. Conform to the standard applicable size and dimension criteria of the respective zoning district in which the project is located; or

b. Comply with the following size and dimension criteria:

Minimum lot width: 50 feet Minimum lot size: 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum yard setbacks: Front: 20 feet

Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 1 Strike tmeugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2006\2006-__ 971.41 (9) small lot.RTF ,. ORDINANCE 2006- 02.4

Side: 7 feet; 5 feet on lots fronting a curve or cul-de-sac circle Rear: Minimum rear yard setbacks shall be provided, based upon lot width, as indicated in the table below: Lot Width (feet) Rear Yard (feet) =>50 &<55 30 =>55 &<60 27 =>60&<65 24 =>65 &<70 22

4. Interior lots (those determined not to be perimeter lots) and those perimeter lots which abut a property having a commercial/industrial land use designation shall comply with the following size and ,dimension criteria:

Minimum lot width: 50 feet . Minimum lot size: 5,000 sq. ft. Minimum yard setbacks: Fro.nt: 20 feet Side: 7 feet; 5 feet on lots fronting a curve or cul-de-sac circle Rear: 15 feet

5. Accessory structures may encroach into required yards as allowed in section 911.15 of the land development regulations.

6. A buffer maiRtenance easement, lcuwmg a mmimum width ef ten (10) feet, shall be previded aleng the perimeter efthe small let su\Jcw;isien between the small let sue cw;isien and all abutting residentially designated prep erties, eJwept where the prepesed small let suecw,isien abuts anether appreved small let suecwrisien er abuts en elder, "graruifathered in" suedivisien where fifty (50) percent er mere ef the lets have been develeped as fifty feet wide single family lets. \¥here reE!ffii'ed, the buffer easement shall ceffi)'lly with the fellewing criteria:

l\... A sill feet epaEtUe buffer iHl.)'lrevement shall be previded within the easement and shall censist ef ene ef the fellev;ing:

Eidsting andler planted vegetatien.

Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 2 Strike threugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2006\2006-___ 971.41(9) small lot.RTF ,, ORDINANCE 2006- ,924

A cernliinatien ef a landscaped berm alid vegetatien.

A wall er epaque fence.

Any ether buffer impreveraera(s) allewed under the previsiens of section 926.08 of the lalid developmera regulations.

In lieu of buffering requirements specified in Chapters 911 and 913, the following buffer requirements shall apply to small lot single-family subdivision projects:

A. Buffers Adjacent to Collector and Arterial Roads. A 25' wide Type "B" buffer with 6' opaque feature shall be provided along all perimeters that are adjacent to collector and arterial roads.

B. Buffers for Other Perimeters. A 10' wide Type "C" buffer with 3' opaque feature shall be provided along all perimeters that are not adjacent to collector and arterial roads.

BC. The buffer improvement(s) shall be located within a buffer easement(s) or tract(s) as designated on the small lot subdivision plat. Said easement(s )or tract(s) shall be _depicted on the final plat and shall be dedicated to the subdivision's property owners' association to ensure maintenance of the buffer improvements. The. buffer easement improvement(s) shall be considered a required subdivision improvement and shall be provided in accordance with the provisions of section 913.08 of the land development regulations.

GD. No structure(s), other than those related to buffering, drainage or utilities, shall be located in the buffer easement.

7. In lieu of the green/recreation space, swale, curbing, and sidewalk requirements of Chapters 911 and 913, the following requirements shall apply:

A. A minimum 7.5% of the total project area shall be provided as green space/recreation space. Said area may consist of preserved wetlands and or native uplands, park space, pools, day-care space, clubhouses, ball-courts, playgrounds, play-field areas, or similar uses approved by the community development director. Said area(s) shall be designed to be conveniently accessible and useable by all project residents.

B. Sidewalks (minimum 4' width) shall be provided along both sides of all streets unless an alternative design is approved by the community development director.

Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 3 &we tlireugh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2006\2006--___ 971.41(9) small lot.RTF ORDINANCE 2006- 024 ,.

C. The Urban Service Area boundary buffer and wall variation requirements of Chapter 913 shall apply to small lot single-family subdivisions.

Minimum building setbacks as specified in 971.41(9)(b)3. and 4. above, shall be depicted as a residential building envelope on the preliminary plat. Language shall be noted on the final plat to the effect that specially-approved setbacks are in effect on the lots.

9. Workforce or Affordable Housing

In exchange for lot size and setback reductions, small lot single-family subdivision projects shall meet the following workforce. or affordable housing criteria:

A. All dwelling unit sales and rent prices shall be restricted for a period of at least 10 years from the date of the unit's first sale (closing).

1. The initial sales price of a small lot subdivision housing unit shall not exceed 3 1/2 X (3.5 times) the Indian River County annual median household income. Over the IO-year restriction period, the sales price may be increased 3 % per year (compounded annually).

2. Where a small lot subdivision housing unit is rented, the monthly rental price shall not exceed the Indian River County maximum rent by unit type for moderate income as published by the Florida Housing Finance Corporation.

B. As an option to and in lieu of criterion "A" above, an applicant may propose an alternative to the resale price and appreciation restriction. Any such alternative must ensure that small lot subdivision housing units remain affordable for at least 10 years. An alternative to the sales price restriction shall be structured as a deed restriction which shall apply to lots created by the small lot subdivision process. The draft. restriction shall be submitted in conjunction with the small lot subdivision preliminary plat application and shall:

• Identify the proposed method of ensuring affordability which may include - Rent/price resale restriction - Buyer income qualification - Shared equity process - Other

Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 4 £take tmougl!: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community oevelopment\Usefs\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2006\2006-___ 971.4 l (9) small lot.RTF J

ORDINANCE 2006- 024

• Identify appeal/variance procedure or a prohibition of appeals/variances • Identify a monitoring program which shall be administered by public agencies or private organizations qualified to provide or assist with workforce or affordable housing.

The alternative shall be considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission and evaluated under the above criteria. The PZC is authorized to approve the alternative and attach conditions to ensure that the above criteria are satisfied.

C. The maximum size of each dwelling unit shall be restricted in perpetuity to 1,500 sq. ft. under air.

D. The restrictions required under items A or B, and C above shall be incorporated into deed restrictions, running in favor of the county and any unit buyer or renter, approved by the County Attorney and filed in the public records by the project applicant. The sales price restriction shall require county consent of the sales price prior to each closing during the 10-year restriction period. Such consent is authorized to be made by the Community Development Director or his designee.

SECTION #2: SEVERABILITY.

If any clause, section or provision of this Ordinance shall be declared by a court of competent jurisdiction ~ be unconstitutional or invalid for any cause or reason, the same shall be eliminated from this Ordinauce and the remaining portion of this Ordinance shall be in full force and effect and be as valid as if such invalid portion thereof had not been incorporated therein.

SECTION #3: REPEAL OF CONFLICTING ORDINANCES. J.b.1; Pf!:>.Y,}.~_2,1;1-s of auy other Indian River County ordinance that are inconsistent or in conflict with ,the provisions-of"tl'iiJi;'Oidittili;i-f~:are repealed to the extent of such inconsistency or conflict. ; ;('1'1jh,T•.)·;.;:'\'L~1;-_,i.,:,,~/: / SECTI-0°N4ti~:'iENCLUSION'1N THE CODE OF LAws AND ORDINANCES. 1 •hn ~u 5.H·: ir.~•.J:;:-nvu-i<, ·:'lh;~ _! j The_ proytsw_n~,.o-~,~t,?~dinimfe shall _become and _be made a p~ of the Code of Laws and ! Ordinauces o:I' In~ian Rivet County, Flonda. The sections of the Ordmance may be renumbered or I r~lettered'to"!i.ccomp1ish· such;'iltld the word "ordinance" may be changed to "section", "article", or i - • l : .,an;rotheriJP.P,[91!,llate-W.QrQ..,,,. 1, , . ' .,,,...,-.:,...... ,""""''",..;, ..., ..4-~,-- .• .,, ..__ .. : SECTION #5: EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinauce shall take effect immediately upon filing with the Department of State.

Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 5 &trike through: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDJNANCE\200612006--___ 971.41(9) small lotRTF ' '. ,. ' . ORDINANCE 2006-----024

Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, on this 22nd day of August , 2006.

This ordinance was advertised in the Press-Journal on the 7th day of A11g11st 2006, for a public hearing to be held on the 7th day of A11g115t , 2006, at which time it was moved for adoption by Commissioner ·Wheel er seconded by Commissioner Davis , and adopted by the following vote:

Chairman Arthur R. Neuberger A e

Vice Chairman Gary C. Wheeler A e

Commissioner Sandra L. Bowden Aye

Commissioner Thomas S. Lowther Aye

Commissioner Wesley S. Davis Aye

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER CO TY

ATTESTBY: ~.._,_"'- Y\6-o--'-v---Q\ -S),C.,, lr

APPROVED AS TO FORM AND. LEGAL SUFFICIENCY

William G. Collins II, County Attorney STATE o, ,~olle'o'u"NTY. INDIAN IIIVIR . THII II TO (j&.RTIFY THAT THIS IS APPROVED AS TO PLANNING MATTERS UI! AND CORRl!CT COl'Y OF ~J= ORIGINAL ON FILE IN THIS o,,ic1 · ~.PFREY. K, IARTON, CLERK ...._.,._ ~ 6=,.-,..,f' ,.e. IV I 9\1.:,t:,k-- . 0-'U I

•

Bold Underline: Additions to Ordinance 6 Stmre tmm,igh: Deleted Text from Existing Ordinance F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\ORDINANCE\2006\2006-___ 971.41 (9) small lot.RTF

t

' ' ' ,I I I ' \L \~--~!i ' ' .--./ ._ ____ ----=-==-=---==------1-~----tiv ' =~= --=~ ~l-H~ - - ~~~---- ~--

i\ T ENGINEERING, INC -~ GRACE WOODS I Y CONSULTING ENGINEERING GA /{3728. SUBDIVJSlON PRELIMINARY PLAT MBMOIA BOWLES VILLAMIZAR & ASSOCIATES - ,NDW

ATTACHMENT 3 ' ENGINEERING. INC. GRACE WOODS i\ / j y CQN5ULTING ENGINEERING CA #3728 AERIAL MB SUBDIVISION MOIA BOWLES VILL'I.MIZAR & ASSOCIATES .--~-- l=S "'-~;,,)n""'" O,,TE ,-- ,,·c,•e·"c"'""'·. ,oe,mscao,s"'-'""" PH. "=-"" "'-"'"'"''""' "°"'-" ATTACHMENT 4

P:\05\05-865\05-865_P-_PLAT VOID.dwg, J2/19/2006-2:58:07 PM, RlCOHAficio 2035 PCL 6,

m cj ../~i ' ; ~; z~ ___ ~ I~~ ' ' ' ' .I'\--,,' ' ', ' ' '' '' '' N '' /)' ' ' i'

' ~ ' cj ' f":' ! 11~,a '.i. u,.~ m : • ..

,;~ :i,~d 'i; •s"B"d A/IVdrl{X) 5,.,~V.1 1/3,\lii II~ a,-rr-ao 11a1p;,; J i.Ovtll. '

;Om l,.AN~~~APING_AND sµsoJVl~"l_ON TREE PRES. PLAN MOIA BOWLES VILLAMIZAR & ASSOCIATES AJa =,-1rnER00"""-«•1 ..,,.._. ,. - 40' •IITTACHMENT 5

CONSENT AGENDA PRELIMINARY PLAT (QUASI-JUDICIAL)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

DEPARTMENT HEAD CONCURRENCE:

Robert M. Keating, AICP; evelopment Director M THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP; Planning Director . c:: FROM: Brian FreemJ?, AICP; Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: January 4, 2007

SUBJECT: Dr_ Garrick Kantzler's Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for an Affidavit of Exemption Project to be known as Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2 [SD-06-06-19 / 96010022-53319]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2007.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS

Carter Associates, Inc., on behalf ofDr. Garrick Kantzler, is requesting preliminary plat approval for an affidavit of exemption project to be known as Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2. Although many affidavits of exemption create lots by deed and are approved at the staff level, the county's subdivision ordinance provides applicants the option of platting an entire affidavit of exemption project, rather than merely platting the project's private road right-of-way and later creating lots by deed. In this case, the proposed plat would create private road rights-of-way and lots, just like a conventional subdivision. Unlike a conventional subdivision, however, Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2 is an affidavit of exemption project and is exempt from certain required improvements such as paved access and paved streets.

The site is located on the west side of84th Avenue, north of 66th Street. The subject site is zoned A­ l, Agricultural (up to I unit/5 acres), and has an AG-I, Agricultural (up to 1 unit/5 acres), land use designation.

Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2 Affidavit of Exemption Plat Data: • Project Area: 27.3 acres • Number of Lots: 5 lots

F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\AOE\Two BridgeSlpzc staff report.rtf I • Density: A-1: 0.20 units/acre Proposed: 0.18 units/acre • Minimum Lot Size: Required: 200,000 sq. ft. Proposed: 216,961 sq. ft. • Minimum Lot Width: Required: 150 feet Proposed: 276 feet

ANALYSIS

1. Access and Traffic Circulation: Access to Phase 2 will be provided from 82nd Avenue via two existing stabilized (unpaved) roadways ( 66th Street and 84th Avenue). Because neither 66th Street nor 84th Avenue conforms to the county's standard for stabilized roadways, the applicant is required to improve both roadways to the county's standard for stabilized roadways. The proposed project street (68th Street) will be a stabilized road privately maintained by and dedicated to a property owners association. No connections to adjacent properties are required because those properties currently have access to existing public roads. The project's proposed access, traffic circulation plan, and roadway design have been approved by the County's Traffic Engineering Division.

Because the project will generate less than 100 daily trips, no traffic study was required or submitted. Therefore, no traffic study information is attached.

2. Stormwater Management: The preliminary plat proposes streetside swales and individual ponds on each lot to manage runoff generated from the project. The use of streetside swales is allowed for affidavit of exemption projects. Public Works has approved the preliminary drainage design. The final design will be approved by Public Works via the land development permit review process.

3. Environmental and Host Plant Issues: The entire site is a former citrus grove, and there are no jurisdictional wetlands or native upland communities on site. Therefore, no special uplands or wetlands requirements apply. Because this is an affidavit of exemption project and is located adjacent to active groves, it is subject to the Caribbean Fruit Fly host plant prohibition of Future Land Use Element Policy 6.5. Therefore, fruit fly host plants (Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Rose Apple and Surinam Cherry) must be prohibited on the subject site, and a deed restriction prohibiting the occurrence of such host plants on site must be filed in the public records prior to or with the final plat.

4. Buffering: Buffering requirements do not apply to affidavit ofexemption projects. Because this site is located outside the Urban Service Area and because the project is an affidavit of exemption, no agricultural buffer requirement applies. The project location, lot layout, and lot sizes should result in residences significantly separated from surrounding active groves.

5. 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

F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian F\AOE\Two Bridgd1pzc staff report.rtf 2 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.

6. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning: North: Agricultural/ A-1 East: Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 1 / A-1 South: Agricultural/ A-1 West: Agricultural/ A-1

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant preliminary plat approval for the Two Bridges Equestrian Phase 2 affidavit of exemption project with the following conditions:

1. Prior to issuance of a land development permit, the applicant shall obtain county approval of plans to improve 66th Street and 84th Avenue to the county standard for stabilized roadways.

2. Prior to or with the final plat, a deed restriction, which prohibits the occurrence of Caribbean Fruit Fly host plants (Cattley Guava, Common Guava, Loquat, Rose Apple, and Surinam Cherry) on the subject property, shall be filed in the public records.

3. Prior to issuance of a certificate of completion, the applicant shall improve 66th Street and 84th Avenue to the county standard for stabilized roadways.

Attachments: 1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Preliminary Plat/ Aerial

F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\Brian f\AOE\Two BridgeSlpzc staffreport.rtf 3 PRELIMINARY PLAT APPLICATION FORM (PLTP)

PROJECT NAME (PRJNT): Two Brid es E uestrian AOE COMPUTER ASSIGNED PROJECT#: ,)_ - 53 ASSIGNED FILE#: PLTP -

CORRESPONDING PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME AND IRC ASSIGNED FILE NUMBER: AOE Application No. 96010022 5 D - 0 (,, - 0 (c, - ( 9 OWNER: (PRJNT) AGENT: (PRJNT) Dr. Garrick Kantzler NAME NAME 805 37th Place ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 ( 772} 562-2330 ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL Dr. Kantzler CONTACT PERSON CONTACT-----, PERSON - _:C:::::=~::::-,..~\...~¼--~====:::::::: SIGNATURE OF OWNER OR AGENT ------PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRJNT) PROJECT SURVEYOR: (PRINT) Carter Associates Inc. Carter Associates Inc. NAME NAME 1708 21st Street 1708 21" Street ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach FL Vero Beach FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 ( 772} 562-4191 32960 ( 772} 562-4191 ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE ( 772} 526-7180 [email protected] ( 772} 526-7180 [email protected] FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL George Simons, P .E. Frank Cuccurese PSM CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

SITE TAX ID#'S: 32-38-l l-00000-1000-00003.7 • • PROJECT USE: 5 lot residential Affidavit of Exemption w/ platted lots and road • IS ALL OR A PORTION OF PROJECT IN "ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE" AREA AS ADDRESSED IN THE PROJECT PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE? YES___ NO_~X__ • ZONING: A-1 CLUP:~A~G~-~1 ______• TOTAL (GROSS ACREAGE OF PARCEL:_~2=7~.3~------• AREA OF DEVELOPMENT (NET) ACREAGE: __~27~.3~------• TOTAL NUMBER OF LOTS: 5 DENSITY (UNITS PER ACRE):~0=.1=8___ _

**PLEASE FILL-OUT REVERSE SIDE APPLICATION SUBMISSION CHECKLIST**

N:\GAS\P\05-90 Two Bridges AOE\Applications\lRC-PRELIMINARY PLAT(PLTP).doc 1 ti ... •"' "'• h .. ' "' :l 5 il" JI! .; ~ -'

Ill~~ !!l"' .. ~~ W'o tw-;r~ 'I"" c "{!,<,

<>» ... 10 :;ni,:, s.r£t.'1?

'I"" I ' C ili'l~ II I ,,., 11, 11,. I I ~· Ir 1---;:;;-f ~rI -, '"lill! ~ I§,,, .. "¼l s-~

....~

I : I B~ ll I I I W r-;[' cc • I ! (I) t ~ ------_____ L_ ------_I_ ------t--_::> j 1/) I I i•, I s ,~ I a 1 ,, I 3 ~ ~" U h ~ ~i ~ a u -J

,, L ~~ nj:; I L _____ j ~ ~I~ I : I L ___ _

L ;!Iii ilsg:liii i ~------!iii ___ _J '·°"·'""""

------I'll ilj ,, I~ ~ t~ ,, loi ;~,·• I I a ..,~ I I i~~if,1 I !i~~I I 1-- i------>, I

1.00~MW

1-,

WL s

GRAPHIC SCALE ·~· i ,,,.,.,oorc(c,,-,,;r]

€1""'., C7 ~1::--, TE1.:(l7,il)-1g1 FAX:(772)64;l·7180 CAft1'RASSOW.1'S,l"C. UI. ,os OVERALL SKETCH WITH AERIAL , , ,_,, I I Jt "~ll_")_,.,-,,,, ~· ......

CONSENT AGENDA 3t (QUASI-JUDICIAL)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA.

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Robert M. eating, AICP Community Development Dir ctor

THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director

FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP ·-1\,J M Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: January 5, 2007

SUBJECT: Indian River Country Club's Request for Modification of an Approval Condition for the Water Oaks Village Development at the Indian River Club [99110164-38192/PD-04-03-05]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2007.

BACKGROUND AND CONDITIONS:

Water Oaks Village is a 32-unit townhome development within the Indian River Club and is located at the southeast corner of 23n1 Street SW and 6th Avenue SW. It is one of three Indian River Club "neighborhoods" located on the south side of 23'a Street SW (Highlands Drive). All 3 neighborhoods are served by a single entrance off 23nt Street SW.

At its regular meeting of February 12, 2004, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved the Water Oaks Village section of the Indian River Club development with conditions, including a condition that, prior to the issuance of a certificate ofcompletion for Water Oaks Village, a left turn lane shall be constructed on 23nt Street SW at the project's shared entrance on 23n1 Street SW (see attachment# 3). The applicant is now requesting that the tum lane condition be modified by tying completion of the turn lane to a specific number ofunits within the 3 neighborhoods rather than the certificate of completion for Water Oaks Village.

ANALYSIS:

The proposed turn lane on 23'a Street SW serves Water Oaks Village (32 units), The Oak Hammock (45 single­ family lots), and Pine Valley (I 8 single-family Jots). The turn lane condition was tied to the Water Oaks Village section because, in combination with The Oak Hammock and Pine Valley, it tripped the turn lane requirement and at the time was proposed to be the last phase to be constructed south of 23'a Street SW.

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2007\Modify Water Oaks staff report.rtf 1 The engineer for Water Oaks Village has now designed the tum lane for the shared entrance. The currently proposed design would require raising a long section of 23'a Street SW in order to direct stormwater runoff to existing inlets on 23'a Street SW. Those inlets outfall directly into the Indian River Farms canal system without treatment. This proposed tum lane design negatively impacts existing landscaping along 23rd Street SW. The applicant desires a modification to the tum lane condition that allows his engineer time to fully redesign and obtain permits for the tum lane. The applicant desires a revised design that routes the stormwater from 23,.a Street SW into the Indian River Club's stormwater system for treatment, which allows the tum lane to be built atthe existing elevation and reduces impacts on landscape adjacent to 23'a Street SW. Such a the revised tum lane design will provide stormwater treatment for 23'a Street SW, where none was previously provided, preserve landscaping along 23'a Street SW, and will be cheaper to construct. Staff generally favors such a redesign.

The applicant is requesting that the tum lane condition be tied to an overall number of units within Water Oaks Village, The Oak Hammock, and Pine Valley that share the 23'a Street SW entrance. To date, only 34 out of a total of 95 units have been constructed in all 3 neighborhoods due to slower market conditions than originally anticipated. The Water Oaks Village section was originally planned to be the last phase completed. Due to phasing changes, the Pine Valley section, however, will be the last phase completed. The applicantis proposing to tie the tum lane condition to the 65 th certificate of occupancy (C.O.) within all 3 neighborhoods combined, allowing for CO's for 16 multi-family and 48 single family units, prior to completion of the tum lane. The traffic analysis supports construction of a left tum after 64 units are occupied.

Based on the traffic analysis approved for the Water Oaks Village project, a left tum lane is not required before 65 units are occupied south of 23'a Street SW. Therefore, planning and traffic engineering staff support the request to modify the condition, requiring completion of the tum lane prior to issuance of the 65 th certificate of occupancy within all 3 neighborhoods combined.

RECOMMENDATION:

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

I. Prior to the issuance ofthe 65th Certificate of Occupancy (16 multi-family and 48 single family units) for the three neighborhoods south of23'a Street SW (The Oak Hammock, Pine Valley, and Water Oaks Village), a left tum lane shall be constructed on 23'a Street SW at the project entrance.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Request Letter 2. Location Map 3. 2004 Staff Report 4. Traffic Information

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2007\M:odify Water Oaks staff report.rtf 2 DEC, ·.i:.

December 19, 2006

Stan Boling, A.I.CP. Planning Director Indian River County 1840 26'" Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960

Re: Indian River Club

Dear Stan:

The purpose of this letter is to request a modification to the Preliminary Plat and Land Development Permit (LDP) for the Water Oak phase of Indian River Club. The approval conditions for the Preliminary Plat and LDP stipulated that a west-bound left hand turn lane from Highlands Drive to the Club entrance be constructed prior to the first Certificate of Occupancy for Water Oak. We are asking that the turn lane

requirement be modified to state that the turn lane must be constructed befo're the 31 si additional certificate of occupancy is granted to the three phases of Indian River Club that 1he turn lane will serve (Oak Hammock, Water Oak and Pine Valley) south of Highlands Drive in addition to the 34 homes completed or now under consu:uction..

There are two reasons behind this request. First, circunistances have changed and there are not as many homes cqmpleted to date as originally contemplated. When the LDP for Water Oak was issued it was assumed that Water Oak would be the last phase south of Highlands Drive completed and that most of the other lots would have been occupied, necessitating the turn lane tO accommodate the anticipated traffic. To date, there are 45 finished lots in that section and only 34 homes complete or under c~nstruct:ion. The last phase of 18 lots (reduced form 24) will not come on line for at least anothe1' year. In the meantime, Water Oak is nearing completion of the first 16 homes. By deferring the turn lane until an additional 30 homes are built south of Highlands Drive - from the current 34 - the turn lane will s1ill be completed in time to provide the req\)tred traffic enhancement for the number of homes occupied.

The second reason for the request is to aUow time to revise the plans for the turn lane to reduce the impact on the surrounding area and to provide better treatment and attenuation of the storm water runoff. The original plans called for lifting the entll'.e section of Highlands Drive between Sunrise and 6th Ave1;1ue. That would direct the storm. runoff to the existing inlets at each intersection. The modified plan will riot. impact as much of the road, or adjacent landscape. That plan will divert runoff into the existing storm water retention ponds on Club property and therefore provide for enhanced treatment and retention capacity.

I ask that this request to modify the turn lane condition be preser;.ted to the Planning & Zoning Commission for the.it: concunence. Thank you in advance for your assistance in scheduling that review.

.. ~~\~~~ General Partner

800 Carolina Circle SW Vem Bcndl, Plorida 32962 ATTACHMENT 11, Telephone 772-770-0757 www.indianrivcr(.?luJ,.com • ----- J- RS-6

,:r,_;,

S-6 RS-6

bi ----- \I>- TRJ6 ~ ·'> (:(,(;~~·) I .,,)~)n M ,. (i"•;,:;,.);:_1,1,,..:.: 1 ,. 11 U(:t:c):;l ,_ "' • ' ,, I ,-.;)(;(: " ' " RS-6 .. " ~;-,.,: !l 1~•,('.- i.'lliil 1111' • • • • • 11 · 1 I I ' " );t:

(:-;>;;,;:,c, ,. ,, ,, ,. li ,. .:.b'.'.!2ji,:. r "' "' - • ' • • • • ., • ,, .. -~ 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: February 4, 2004

SUBJECT: Indian River Country Club, Ltd.'s Request for Preliminary Planned Development (PD) Plan Approval for a 32 Unit Multi-Family Development to be known as Water Oak Village

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of February 12, 2004.

DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:

Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc. has submitted an application for preliminary PD (planned development) plan approval on behalf of Indian River Country Club Ltd. to construct four 8 unit, two-story, multi-family buildings (32 units total) and a recreation facility. The subject property is located in the Indian River Club development at the southeast comer of 23rd Street SW and 6th Avenue SW. In the past, the subject property was platted as parcel #7 within the Indian River Club, and is now proposed to be replatted to establish tracts for residential buildings, roadways and common areas.

ANALYSIS:

1. Size of Development Area: 268,879 sq. ft. or 6.17 acres

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

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

F: \Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&z\2004\Indian River Country Club Ltd. 020404.rtf 4. Building Area: Proposed: 49,152 sq. ft.

5. Impervious Area: Proposed: 122,791 sq. ft.

6. Density: Proposed: 5.19 units/acre (within the area of development) Overall Indian River Club: 1.22 units/acre (355 units)

7. Open Space: Required: 40% Proposed: 54.33% (within the area of development)

8. Traffic Circulation: The site will be accessed from 23rd Street SW via an existing driveway which is presently stubbed-out to the parcel. To provide access to the four buildings proposed on the east side of the internal road and the recreation facility proposed on the west side of the internal road, the internal roadway will be extended to the south. The buildings will have individual parking lots as well as garages within the buildings. This internal circulation plan has been approved by Traffic Engineering. Traffic Engineering also approved the traffic impact analysis for the entire Indian River Club project. That analysis determined that a left tum lane is required on 23rd Street S.W. at the project entrance.

9. Off-Street Parking: Required: 64 spaces Provided: 79 spaces

Note: Each building contains 12 garage spaces. Additional spaces are provided in separate parking areas for each building and for the recreation area.

10. Stormwater Management: A preliminary drainage plan proposing connection of the site's stormwater conveyance system to Indian River Club's master drainage system has been reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department. Prior to site plan release, the applicant will need to obtain a Type "B'' stormwater permit for the project.

11. Landscape Plan: The applicant has submitted a landscape plan which meets the criteria of Chapter 926.

12. Utilities: The project will be served by county water and sewer. These utility provisions have been reviewed and approved by the Environmental Health Department and the Department of Utility Services.

13. Recreation: The applicant will be providing two tennis courts, a pool, and a clubhouse for this area. The overall Indian River Club exceeds the recreation area required under the county's PD regulations.

14. Environmental Issues: All environmental issues were addressed with the overall Indian River Club conceptual plan.

F:\Comrnunity Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2004\Indian River Country Club Ud. 020404.rtf 15. Dedication and Improvements: None are required, and none are proposed.

16. Preliminary Plat: The preliminary plat will establish four tracts within the development. These include tracts for the residential buildings, the recreational site, the landscape tracts and the roadway tract. All of these tracts will be dedicated to the Indian River Club Property Owners Association.

17. Surrounding Land Uses and Zoning:

North: 23 rd Street SW, Indian River Club Golf Course/ RS-6 South: Indian River Club Golf Maintenance Building/ RM-6 East: Golf Course / RM-6 West: 6th Avenue SW, Vero Highlands Recreation/ RS-6

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission · grant preliminary PD plan/plat approval with the condition:

1. That prior to the issuance of a certificate of completion a left turn shall be constructed on 23rd Street at the project's entrance.

ATTACHMENTS:

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

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\2004\Indian River Country Club Ltd. 020404.rtf Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.

INDIAN RIVER CLUB - EXECUTIVE TRAFFIC IMPACT SUMMARY Ganuary 2007) • SutteB-11111 120119111 P>ce 1. Location: South of Highland Drive Vero Beach, Florida 32960 2. Size:

Non- Vested Total Intensity Vested Units Units Single-Famih 63 34 29 Multi-Famih 32 32 0 TOTAL 95 66 29

3. Trip Generation: a) TOTAL SITE Net New Daily Trip Volume = 924 vehicular trips Net New A.M. Peak-Hour Volume = 75 vehicular trips Net New P.M. Peak-Hour Volume =95 vehicular trips

b) VESTED UNITS Net New Daily Trip Volume= 591 vehicular trips Net New A.M. Peak-Hour Volume = 45 vehicular trips NetNewP.M. Peak-Hour Volume= 60vehiculartri.ps

c) NON-VESTED UNITS Net New Daily Trip Volume = 333 vehicular trips Net New A.M. Peak;-Hour Volume = 30 vehicular trips Net New P.M. Peak-Hour Volume = 35 vehicular trips

4. A.tea ofinfluence Boundaries: • North- 17"' Street • South - South County Line • East - Indian River Boulevard • West-27"' Avenue

5. Significant Roads: • Indian River Boulevard - 4th Street to 17th Street • US 1 - South County Line to 17"' Street • Old Dixie Highway- Oslo Road to 4"' Street • 27"' Avenue- South County Line to 4th Street

• TEL TT2 562 79B1 FAX TT2 784 9368 111""7 •H Kimley-Hom lll!iii...l •LJ and Associates, Inc.

6. Significant Intersections: • none

7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A

8. Internal Capture: none

9. Pass-by Capture: none

10. A.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): Single-Family Detached Housing 25% in/75% out Residential Condominium/Townhouse 17% in/83% out

11. P.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): Single-Family Detached Housing 63% in/37% out Residential Condominium/Townhouse 67% in/33% out

12. Traffic Count Factors Applied: none

13. Off-Site Improvements: • Applicant will be required to construct a westbound left turn on Highland Drive when 32 multi-family and 40 single-family residential units have been constructed. Therefore, threshold level of not requiring a turn lane is 32 multi-family and 39 single-family residential units. · • Applicant will be required to enter into a Proportionate Fair Share Agreement to mitigation for capacity deficiencies on roadway link 2420S. (27"' Avenue between Oslo Road to 4"' Street) • Applicant will be required to enter into a Developers Agreement to mitigation for capacity deficiencies on roadway link 241 OS. (27"' Avenue between S. County Line and Oslo Road) or petition the county to add this link to the 5 year Capital Improvements Plan to make it eligible for a Proportionate Fair Share agreement.

14. Roadway Capacities (IRC Link Sheets): See Appendix B

15. Assume roadway and / or intersection improvements: • US 1 Capacity Improvements - 6 lane widening; 4" Street to Oslo Road 111""'7-n Klmley-Horn ...i-LJ and Associates, Inc. 16. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: September 2006

· b) Traffic counts: • None c) Study approval: ...... tj ')-/ VJ U1

G:\47002007\LEFT TURN LANE ASSES~MENT\lndian River Club -Traffic Impact Executive Summary.doc APPENDIX

A TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT

B PROJECT LINK ASSIGNMENT

ATTACHMENT 4 4 A TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION & ASSIGNMENT I i!= Cl'. I 0z • l I. I - I I • ! ! --+- S.R. 60 _ 1 __ >=I <2.7%) .I (3.o%> i{' w .I \ ~ o ., • ~I ~I l"' ... ~ ~t I e- - -1-- -1------1- - .!ZT.!.L Jr_. - --\- ---i{' ttr,,..o-- ~ I I ~ I \ ~~:: .N - 0 ~~· - - N z I I ± I \ (3.~) -- - •- -1- _ -1- _ _ 12TH ST. 2 2 ~ 3 j.. "\~ •· .,,, ol ~ :c :cl (2.1X) -,;. .;.,.. - .,~- ~ U ~ "":«>an!::' t- '!:.Ol(II - .. ~ '- ~ -:!ia-1Z ...... , ,- 01 - 0 • ~ e. N N _!3, ~ ' ' - -,---t - - - - - +-- - - '- a:.· E ..., f- ..,oo \,s. "' ¥' l I - 6 SITE v~CI"':,;> <6~t;> I ,,;:-;:6"6 -t--';i;60t----;- NON-IMPACTED ROADWAY UNK IGHLAND DR IMPACTED ROADWAY LINK (00.0%) % OF' EXTERNAL PM PEAK HOUR TRIPS IN THE PEAK DIRECTION ( INBOUND) ' K.., = 10.1,t l\,w =- 6-4% IH/ 36% OUT 'I PM PEAK HOUR DIRECTIONAL PROJECT TRAFFiC . - I VOLUMES ON IMPACTED ROADWAY LINKS

'IGURE 5 TIPTONlffll ASSOclATES • I INCY\Ri:>nc:t.a.T£n tlr\ ATTACHMENT '+i&\t TABLE I INDIAN RIVER CLUB TRIP GENERATION LmdUse Intensity Daily AMPeakHour PM Peak Hour Trins Total In Out Total In Out Pmposed Site Traffic- Single-Family Detached Housing 63 units 680 54 14 40 71 45 26 Residential Condominimn/Iownhonse 32 units 244 21 4 17 24 16 8 924 75 18 57 95 61 34

'

NET NEW SITE TIUFFIC VOLUMES 924 75 18 57 95 61 34

Notes: Trip generation was calculated using the followfug data from/TE. Trip GeneraJ.ion, Seventh Editum:

Daily Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing [ITE210] - Ln(I)- 0.92 Lo(X)+2.71 Residential Condominiumffownhouse [ITE230] - Ln{'I) = 0.8S * Ln(X) + 2.SS AM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing [ITE210j - T=0.70(.X)+ 9.43 (25% in, 75% out) Residential Condominium/Townhouse [ITE230] - Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 0.26 (17% in,. 83% out) PM Peak Hour Ttaffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing [ITE210] - Ln(l) =0.90 Ln(X)+ 0.53-(63% in, 37% out) Residential Condominium/fownhouse [ITE230] - Ln(l)=0.82 Ln(X)+ 0.32 (67% in, 33% out)

g:\4700Z(}(Y)\Jeft 111nr lnne ~rntlum riwr club - trip gen.xfs)trip_gen 1/412007 lJ:05 TABLE} INDIAN RIVER CLUB TRIP GENERATION Land Use Intensity Dail1 AMPeakHour PMPeakHour ...... Total In Out Total In Oat n:iu:e Traffic Single-Family Detached!Iousing 2'} uoits 333 30 8 22 3S 22 11 Residential Condominium/fownbouse 0 tm.its 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 333 30 8 22 35 Z2 l3

NET NEW SITE TRAFFIC VOLUMES 333 30 8 22 35 22 13

Notes: Trip generation was cakulated us.ing the following data. from ITE Trip Gene.ratitmp Sf!.W1Jh Editit:m:

Daily Traffic Generation Single.-Family Detached Housing [ITE210] = Ln(I') ,,; 0.92 Ln(X) + 2.71 Residential Condominiumffownhouse [ITE230] = Ln(I) = 0.85 * Ln{X) + 2.SS

AM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing [ITE2!0] = T=0.70(X)+9.43 (25%in; 75%out) Residential Condomininm/Townhouse [ITE230] = Ln(T) = 0.80 Ln(X) + 0.26 (17% in, 83% out)

PM Peak Hour Traffic Generation Single-Family Detached Housing [ITE210] - Ln(I)= 0.90 Ln(X)+ 0.53 (63o/. in, 3-7% out} Residential Condominium/I'ownhouse [ITE230] = Ln('I)=0.82 Ln(X)+0.32 (67% in, 33%out)

g:1470010071/efi turn larteasressmenJ\[tntiia,, river dub- trip go,..xls}lnp_ge,, 1l41200T 13:06 B PROJECT LINK ASSIGNMENT INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compil;itiorl 01/04l2006 (Tables published 12118/2006)

REMAINING %ofLOS LINK ONSTREeT FROM STREET TOSlREET CAPACITY EXIST. VES1E() PROJECT Wf PROJECT "D"

1010N" S.R.A1A S. COUNTY LINE S.VBCJTYL 950 325 30 0 ... 10108 S.R.A1A S. COUNTY LINE $.VBCnYL 950 396 16 0 538 ""43% 1020N S.R.A1A S.VBCITYL. 17THSTREET 930 830 19 0 81 10208 s.R.A1A S. VB.CITYL. 17THSTREET 930 900 7 0 23 "" 1030N S.RA1A 17THSTREET S.R.60 860 604 55 0 201 77% 10308 S.R.A1A 1TTHSTREET S.R. 60 860 635 5 0 220 -74% S.R.A1A N. VRCITV ,.,, 1040N S.R.&J l. 860 636 5 0 .. 10408 S.RA1A S.R60 N.VBCITYL ... 910 6 0 ... 107" 1050N S.R.A1A N. VBCITYL FRED TUERK RD-. ... .,. • 0 22 97% 1050S S.R.A1A N.VBCllYL. FRED TUERK RD. ... 910 0 -51 1116% 1060N S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WINTER BEACH RD 860 580 0 279 ,.,,88% 10605 S.R.A1A FRED TUERK RD. OLD WINTER BEACH RD 860 .... 0 0 392 1070N S,R.A1A OLD WINTER BEACH RD N.IRSL ... 534 5 0 321 63% 10705 S.R.A1A OLDWJNTER BEACH RD N.IRSL ... 472 6 0 38> 56% 1060N S.R.A1A N. IRSLN. C.R,510 860 534 53 0 273 88% 1060S S.R.A1A N, IRSLN. C.R.510 860 472 38 0 350 1090N S.R.A1A C.R.510 N. COUNTY LINE 838 354 46 0 598 '"' 1090S S.R.A1A C.R. 510 N.COUNTYUNE 998 513 .. 0 391 •1% 1110N INDIAN RIVER BLVO. 4TI-1$r,@US1 12THSTREET 1,060 740 8 2 111& -40% 11108 INDIAN FWER BLVD. 4TitST.@: US1 12THSTREET 1,860 1,366 33 3 458 75% 1120N INDWlRNER BLVD. 121HSTREET S. VBClTYL 1,860 999 0 0 ..1 54% 1120S INDIAN RNER BLVD. 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 1,860 1,425 0 3 432 n% 1130N INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S.VBCITYL. 17THSTREET 1.860 999 10 0 851 54% 1130S INDIANRIVERBLW. S.VB.ClTYL 17THSTREET 1,000 1,425 0 0 435 77% 11401< lNDlAN RNER BLVD. 171H STREET 21STSTREET 1,000 1,024 3 0 833 1140S INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 17TH STREET 21STSTREET 1,860 1,395 0 0 465 ""75% 1150N INDIAN MIER BLVO. 21ST STREET S.R.60 1,860 1,420 16 0 ... 77% 115'.lS INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 21ST STREET S.R.60 1,860 1,661 0 0 109 1160~ INDJANRIVERBLVD. S.RSO- W.VBCITVL 1,860 1,049 2 0 ... 57% 1160S lNDlAN RIVER BLVD. SR SO- W. VBCITYL. 1,860 1,120 0 740 - 0 1170N INDIANRIVERBLVD. W. VBCITYL. US1 @53RDST. 1,860 688 81 0 1191 ,.,.'°" 1170S INDIANRNERBLVD. W.VBCITYL. US 1 @ 53RD ST. 1,860 632 .. 0 944 49% 1210N 1-95 N.COUNTYLINE C.R.512 2,740 1.604 10 0 122& ..,. 1210$ .... N, oour-nv LINE C.R.512 2,740 1,609 15 0 1216 .. ,. 1220N •95 C.R.512 S.R.60 2,740 1,510 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% 12303 ... S.R. 60 OSLO ROAD 2,890 1,712 31 0 1147 .. ,. 1240N .... OSLO ROAD S.COUNlYLINE 2.890 1,716 35 0 1139 1240S 1-95 OSLOROAO S. COUN1Y LINE 2,&90 1,707 24 0 1159 '"'60% 1305N U.S.1 S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,860 1,197 66 7 590 88% 1305S U.S.1 S. COUNlYUNE OSLO ROAD 1,860 1,590 54 4 212 88% 1310N U.S.1 OSLO ROAD 41H ST. @IR BLVD. 2,790 1,412 37 4 1337 52% 1310S U.S.1 OSLOROAO 4TH ST,@ JR BLVD. 2.790 1,749 60 7 974 65% 1315"' U.S.1 4TH ST.@IRBLVD. SlHSTREET 1,860 1,195 1 • 856 65% 1315S U.S.1 4iHST.@IRBLVO. 81HSTREET 1,860 1,4&1 19 3 354 81% 1320N U.S.1 81HSTREEr 12THSTREET 1,860 t.289 19 2 550 70% 132DS U.S.1 81llSIREEr 12THSTREET 1.860 1,472 38 3 347 St% 1325N U.S.1 1211-ISTREET S. VB CITY L. 1,710 1,:221 ,. 0 463 7<% 132SS U.S.1 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 1,710 1,301 50 3 356 79% INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compilation 0110412ooa (Tables published 1211112006)

REMAINING %ofLOS LINK ONSTREEf FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJl:CT WI PROJECT "D" 1330N U.S.1 S. VBCITY L. 17THSTREET 1,710 1,120 S5 0 .,. ..,. 13308 U.S.1 S. VBCrTYL 17THSTREET 1,710 1,329 51 3 327 81% 1335N U.S.1 tTTHSlREET S.R.60 1,510 1,175 57 0 278 82% 13355 U.S.1 17THSTREET $.R.60 1,510 1,207 74 Q 220 BS% 1340N U.S.1 S.R.60 ROYAL PALM Pl 1,510 901 85 0 524 ,.,, 1340S U.S.1 S.R..60 ROYAL PALM Pl 1,510 1,124 161 0 265 66% 1345N U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL AltANTIC BLVD. 1,710 1,064 106 0 518 70% 13455 u.s.1 ROYAL PALM PL ATlANTIC BLVD. 1,710 010 158 0 582 66% 1350N U.S.1 ATLANTIC BLVD. N.VBCITYL 2,010 1,506 135 0 367 62% 13508 U.S.1 ATLANTIC BLVD. N.VBCllYL 2,010 1,612 180 Q 218 .... 1355N U.S.1 N. VBCITYL. OLD DIXIE HWY 2,010 1.634 106 0 210 ..... 13558 U.5.1 N. VBCITYL OLD DIXIE HWY 2,010 1,296 177 0 535 73% 1350N U.S.1 OLODIXlEHWY 41STSTREET 2,010 1,712 169 0 120 .... 1380S U.S.1 OLDDIXJEHWY 41STSTREET 2,010 1,07S 127 Q ... 60% 1355N U.S.1 41STSTREET 45THSTRE£T 2010 1,451 127 0 432 79% 1365$ U.S.1 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 2,010 1,021 125 0 684 57" 1370N U.S.1 45m STREET 49Tli STREET 2,010 1,425 127 0 456 77% 1370S U.S.1 45TI-ISTREET 49lli STREET 2.010 930 128 0 952 53% 1375N U.S.1 49THSJRl=ET 65THSTREET 2,010 1.726 204 0 78 ..,. 1375S U.S.1 49THSTREET 65THSJ'REET 2,010 1,087 178 0 745 63% 1380N U.S.t 65THSTREET 69'Tli'STREEr 2,32 1,711 173 0 13808 U.S,1 65lli STREET 6911-t ·STREET 1,860 1,070 163 0 ""'627 66%"" 1385N U.S.1 69THSIREEI" OLD DIXIE HWY ,_2-32 1,675 165 0 392 82% Q .,,. 1'855 U.S.1 69TH SIREEI" OLD DIXIE HWY 1,034 137 ... 1390N U.S.1 OLO DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN OR. 2,210 1,411 154 0 845 71% 1390$ U.S.1 OlD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN OR. 1,860 915 133 0 812 .. ,. 1395N U.S.1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R.512 1,860 1,300 63 0 477 74% 13958 U.S.1 SCHUMANN DR. C.R.512 1,860 973 100 0 787 1400N U.S.1 C.R.512 N.SEB.CllYL 1,710 1,272 60 0 370 78% 14008 U.S.1 C.R.512 N. SEB. CITY L 1,710 1,171 ,. 0 ... -73% 1405N U.S.1 N. SEB. CITY L ROSa.ANORD. 1,860 1,318 42 0 500 73% 14058 u.s., N. SEB. CITY l. ROSEIJ\ND RO. 1,860 1,323 .. 0 479 74% 1410N U.S.1 ROSEL.ANO RD. N. COUNTY LINE 1,860 1,158 8 0 ... 63% 1410S U.S.1 ROSEL.ANO RO. N. COUNTY LINE 1.860 985 33 0 882 54% 1510N SCHUMANN DR. C.R.510@66'THAVE. S. SEB. CITY L 860 705 10 0 145 03% 1510S SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 510@66Tli AVE. S.SEB.CfIYL 860 337 15 0 506 41% 1520N SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB. CITY L U.S.1 060 118 7 0 735 15% 15205 SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB. CITY L U.S.1 600 66 12 0 782 1610E ROSELAND RD. S.R. 512 H.SEB. CITY L 680 325 14 0 521 3..,."" 1610W ROSELANORD, S.R512 N. SEB. CITY l. 335 16 0 ... 1620£ ROSELAND RD. N-.SEB.CfTYL. U.S.t ""660 301 18 0 541 '"'37% 1620W ROSELAND RD. N.SEB.CITYL U.S.1 660 3TT 6 0 477 .. ,. 1710E C.R. 512 S.R.60 ,... 660 386 86 0 386 .. ,. 1710W C.R. 512 S,R. 60 M15 880 704 14 Q 142 1720E C.R. 512 1-95 C.R.510 1,080 855 243 0 ... "'" 1720W C.R. 512 1-95 C.R. 510 1,080 623 31) 0 1007 "" 1730E C.R.512 C.R.510 W. SEB. crrv L 1,080 730 41 0 1089 ""41% 1730W C.R 512 C.R. 510 W. SEB. CITY L. 1,080 716 45 0 ,... 41% 1740E C.R. 512 W.SEB.CITYL ROSElANDRD. 1,860 852 •• 0 866 53% 1740W C.R 512 W. SEB. CITY L ROSELAND RD. 1,660 732 '4 0 1084 42% INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compilation 011G4l2006 {Tables. published 1211812006}

REMAINING %ofLOS LINK ON STREET FROMSlREEf TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT -o· 1750E C.R.512 ROSELAND RD. U-.S.1 1,860 611 25 0 1224 .... 1750W C.R. 512 ROSElAND RD. U.S.1 1,860 700 24 0 1136 ""' 1810E C.R. 510 C.R. 512 66THAVE. 1,860 538 463 0 .... 1810W C.R.510 C.R.512 66THAVE. 1,860 77& 104 0 ..."' 47% 1820E C.R.510 66THAVE. 5"'HAVE. 1,860 512 114 0 1234 34% 1B20W C.R. 510 156THAVE. 58THAVE. 1,860 718 116 0 1026 45% 1830E C.R. 51CI 58THAVE, U.S.1 1,860 544 134 0 1182 1830W C.R. 510 58THAVE. U.S.1 1,860 774 122 0 ... 48% 1840E C.R. 510 U.S.1 S.R.A1A 1,900 571 101 0 1138 -.... tS40W C.R.510 U.S.1 S.R.A1A 1,900 1.021 210 0 ... ..,. 1905E S,R. 80 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 15% 1907E S.R.60 C.R.512 100THAVE. 1,810 258 1 0 1551 14% 1907W S.R.60 C.R.512 100THAVE. 1,810 257 3 0 1550 14% 1910E S.R. 60 100THAVE. 1-95 1,860 325 140 0 1395 25% 1910W S.R.60 100THA\/E. 1-SS 1,860 286 213 0 1361 27" 1915E S.R. 60 >95 82NDAVE. 1,860 1,391 287 0 182 90% 191SW S.R.60 1-95 82NDAVE. 2.000 1,593 263 0 144 93% 1920E S.R.60 82NOAVE. 66THAVE. 2.120 1,550 465 0 105 .... 1920W S.R.60 82NDAVE. 66.THAVE. 2.120 1,865 359 0 404 105% 1925E S.R. 60 66THAVE. S&THAVE. 2,790 1,641 335 0 814 71% 1925W S.R. 60 66THAVE. SSTHAVE. 2.790 1,a52 385 0 75' 73% 1930E S.R. 60 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 2,790 1,399 280 0 1111 GO% 1930W S.R.60 SBTHAVE. 43RDAVE. 2,7SO 1,497 385 0 908 .,,. 1935E S.R.60 43ROAVE. mHAVE. 2,790 1,315 240 0 1226 56% 1935W S.R.60- 43RDA\IE. 27THAVE. U90 f,544 352 0 ...... 1940E S.R. 60 2TIHAVE 20THAVE. 2,790 1,158 188 0 1444 48% 1940W S.R60 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 2,790 1,371 263 0 1136 1945E S.R60 ·20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1,135 132 0 1985 "" 1945W S.R.60 20THAVE. OlD DIXIE HWY 3,252 1.2611 1aa 0 1798 45% 1950E S.R.60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10THAVE. 0 1911 -41% 3,252 1.258 83 1950W S.R. 60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10THAVE. 3,252 1,051 116 0 2085 '6% 1955E S.R.60 10THAVE. U.S.1 3,252 1.100 70 0 2074 .. ,. 1955W S.R.eo 10THAVE. U.S.1 3252 757 98 0 2397 26% 1960E S.R.60 U.S.1 1NDIAN RIVER BLVO-. 3252 789 17 0 2446 25% 1900W S.R. 60 u.s.t .,,,,.,INDIANRIVERBlVD. 3,252 513 15 0 2724 16% 196SE S.R.60 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 1,860 908 7 0 ... 1965W S.R.60 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. ,c;,w 1.860 1.263 3 0 554 .... 1970E S.R.60 ICWW S.R.A1A 1,860 920 5 0 935 - 1970W S.R.60 IONW $.R.A1A 1,850 991 5 0 ... .. ,. 2020E- 16TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 550 180 .. 0 652 -24" 2020W 16TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 240 38 0 582 32% 2030E 1SlH STREET 43RDAVE. 27Tii AVE. 860 348 0 465 .... 2030W 16TH STREET 43ROAVE. 27THAVE. 860 ,,,, "38 0 315 83% 2040E 161H STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 390 32 0 438 411% 2040W 16TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 950 579 53 0 228 2050E 16TH STREET 2CJTHAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 597 31 0 182 ""'77% 2050W 16THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 775 45 0 40 101% 2060E 16JHl17TH STREET OLD DIXtE HWY U.S.1 1,710 802 52 0 1056 38% 2050W 161Hl17TH STREET mnatxlEHWV US1 1,710 53> 50 0 11,a 2110E 1-TTH-STREET U.S.1 INDIAN RIVER BLVO. 1,710 560 29 0 1121 ..'"'.. 2110W 171l! STREET U.S.1 INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 1.710 754 23 0 ... 45% 2120E 17THSTREET INDIAN RIVER BLVD. S.RA1A 1,860 1,049 26 0 785 58% 2120W 17THSTREET INOIAN RJVERBLVD. S.R.A1A 1.860 1,29e 16 0 546 71% .2210E 121H STREET 82NOAVE. 58THAVE. 870 15 3 0 1152 2210W 12TH STREET 82NOAVE. 58THAVE.. 870 17 0 0 853 "'2% =oE 12THSTREEr 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 100 38 0 642 25% 2220W 12TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 890 254 29 0 571 33% INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compilation 01J0412006 {Table$ published 1211Bl2G06)

REMAINING %ofLOS LINK ON STREET FROMSTREl=T TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WIPROJECT "!l" 2230E 12TH STREET 43RDAVE. 21THAVE. 313 13 0 534 .. ,. 2230W 12THSTREET 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860'" 471 0 380 ..,. 2240E 12TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 402 11' 0 4'7 ..,. 2240W 12TH S1REET 27THAVE. 2DTHAVE. 860 562 11 Q m 67% 2250E 12TH 5l'REET 20l1-IAVE. OLD DIXIE HWV 0 .,,. ... 5 366 2250W 12TH SlREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860"' 711 10 0 139 .... 2260E 12TH SfREET OLODOOEHWY U.S.1 1,368 416 0 0 952 30% 2260W 1ZJH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1,'68 691 10 0 51% 2305N OLD DIXIE t-lWY S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 860 366 113 Q 391"" 55% 23055 OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNTY LINE OSWROAD 860 491 21 0 348 60% 2310N OLODOOEHWY OSLO ROAD 4THSTRE'ET 860 329 43 0 ... 43% 2310S OLD DIXIE HWY OSLOROAO 4THSTREET 860 483 41 2 334 61% 2315N OLD DIXIE HWY 4THSTREET STHSTREET 810 484 39 0 287 65% 2315S OLD DIXIE HINY 4THSTREET 8THS1REET 810 39 Q 141 83% 2320N OLD DIXIE HWY STHSTREET 12THSJREET ""' 810 529 21 0 260 .. ,. 23205 OLD DIXIE HWY ITTHSTREET 12THSTREET 610 704 24 0 8Z 90% 232SN OLD DIXIE HWY 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 610 396 7 0 407 50% 23255 OLD DIXIE HWY 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 610 391 8 0 411 48" 2330N OLD DIXIE HWY S. VBCITYL 16THSTREET 650 3'6 6 0 ... 48" 2330S OLD DIXIE HWY S.VB-CITYl. 16THSTREET 650 391 6 0 453 47" 233SN OLD DIXIE HWY 16THS1REET S.R.60 650 284 33 0 $33 37% 23358 OLD DlXIE HWY 16THSl'REET S.R. 60 650 239 22 0 589 2345N OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 4STHSTREET 660 176 49 0 635 26%"" 23455 OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 4STHS1REET 860 1st 34 0 64S 2S% 2350N OI.DDOOEHWY 45THS1REET 49THSlREET 860 ,,. 61 0 663 23% 2350S Ol.DOOOEHWY 45THS1REET 49THSTREET 860 114 42 0 704 18% 2355N OLD DIXIE HWY 4!ITTl STREET 65THS1REET 860 132 106 0 ... 28% 23SSS OLD DIXIE HWY 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 660 149 92 0 619 28% 2360N OLD DIXIE HWY 65THSTREET 69THSTREET ... 21• 30 Q &12 29% 23605 OLOOIXJE HWY 6SlHSTREET 69THS1REET ... ff1 23 0 750 13% 2365N OLD DIXIE HWY 69THSTREET C.R.510 860 145 17 0 ... 2365S OLD DIXIE HWY 6!ITTl STREET C.R.510 660 129 12 0 719 '"' 2410N 27THAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,068 519 307 2 240 '"" 24108 27TH AVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 1,668 600 467 3 -202 119%"" 2420N 21THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,666 548 184 3SS ..,. 24205 27THAVENUE OSLOROAO 4THSTREET 1.068 769 306 2 •11 101% 2TTHAVENUE 2430N 4-nlSIBEET "'" S1REET 1,020 462 131 0 427 .. ,. 2430S 27THAVENUE 4-nlSIBEET 6THS1REET 1.020 811 226 0 •19 102% 2440N 27TH A\IBIIUE 6-nlSTREET 12.THSTREET 1,020 447 94 0 479 24405 27THAVENUE IITTI STREET 12THS-TREET 1,020 793 166 0 ., .."",. 24500 27m AVENUE 12THSJREEr S.VBCfTYL. 0 ,.,, 1,020 456 81 ... 2450$ 27THAVENUE 12THSTREET S.VBCITVL 1,020 784 139 0 97 .. ,. 2460N 27THAVENUE S.VBCITVL. 16THSTREET 1,020 456 75 0 ... 52% 24605 27THAVENUE S.VBCfTYL, 16THSIBEET 1,020 784 134 0 102 2470N 27THAVENUE 16THS1REET S.R.60 1,020 411 40 0 ...... 2470S 27THAVENUE 1SJl-l STREET S.R60 1,020 704 70 0 246 -7&% 2460N 27THAVENUE S.R. 60 ATIANTICBLVD. 610 257 19 0 534 34% 24605 2ITHAVENUE 5.R. 60 All.ANTIC BLVD. 810 439 28 0 343 .. ,. 2510N 27THAVENUE AllANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 810 439 8 0 363 2510S 27™ AVENUE AnANTIC BLVD. AVIATION BLVD. 0 ..,. 810 756 14 .. "" INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Data of compilation 0.1/04/2008 (Tables published 1211812008)

REMAINING %ofLOS LINK ONSTREIIT FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WI PROJECT -o· 2530E OSLO ROAD- 82ND-AVE. SfmlAVE. 870 245 5 0 ... 29% 2530W OSLOROAD 82NDAVE. 58THAVE. 870 197 0 672 23% 2540E OSLO ROAD 58ll-lAVE. 43ROAVE. 1,953 561 243 0 1149 41% 2540W OSLO ROAD 5STHAVE. 43RDAVE. 1,~ 4,a 122 0 1348 31% 2550E OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1,953 741 217 0 ... 2550W OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1,953 703 194 0 1056 .... 2560E OSLO ROAD 27THAVE. 20THAVE.. 1,953 564 0 -37% 163 2560W OSLO ROAD 27THAVE. 20ll-lAVE. 1,953 ... ,,. 0 1122"''" 43% 2570E OSLO ROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 595 266 0 1070 .... 'ZIJTOW OSLO ROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 1,953 805 184 0 ... 51% 2580E OSLO ROAD OlDDIXIEHWY U.S.1 1,953 519 75 0 1359 30% 2580W OSLO ROAD OlDDOOEHWY U.S.1 1.953 631 81 0 1241 36% 2610E 6THAVENUE 17THS1REE7 S. VBCJTYL 860 299 0 560 35% 2610N 6T"HAVENUE 17THSTREET S. \IBCITYL. 990 450 0 403 52% 2610$ STHAVENUE 17THSTREET S.VBCITYL 990 732 0 127 85% 2620N 611-IAVENUE S. VBCITYL. S.R.60 470 2 0 378 56% 2620S 6THAVENUE S. VBCITYL S.R.60 ""'850 567 0 282 67% 2710N 10THAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 76 23 0 711 12" 2710$ 10THAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 73 23 0 714 12% 2720N 10THAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17THSTREET 810 216 24 0 $70 30% 27205 10THAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD-. 17THSTREET 810 236 23 0 ... 32% 2810N 20TH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSlREEr 890 402 123 0 335 61% 2810S 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4TI-ISTREET 860 563 151 0 146 2820N 201HAVENUE 4THSTREET STHSTREET 810 360 85 0 385 52% 2820S 20THAVENUE 4THSTREET 8THSTREET 810 85 0 32 -99% 693 28301>1 20THAVENUE lffilSTREET 12THSTREET 810 435 48 0 332 59% 2830S 201H AVENUE 8THSTREE7 t2THSTREET 810 689 59 0 62 92% 2840N .20THAVENUE 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL. 1,710 442 27 0 1241 27% 2840S 20THAVENUE 121HSTREET S.VBCffYL 1-,710 596 34 • 1 ... 37% 2850N 20THAVENUE S.VBCITYL t6THSTREET 1,800 442 16 0 1342 25% 2850$ 20Tit AVENUE 5. VBcrrYL 161HSTREET 1,900 596 33 0 1171 S5% 2650N 201HAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,800 332 23 0 1445 20% 2860$ 2QlHAVENUE 16THSTREEf 5.R.60 1.800 430 42 0 1328 26% 2870N 20THAVENUE SR60 Alt.ANTIC BLVD. 850 166 24 0 660 22% 2670S 20THAVENUE S.R.60 ATI.ANTICBLVO. 850 130 5a 0 662 22% 2605N 43ROAVENUE S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 354 205 0 391 59% 29055 43RDAVENUE 5. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 950 311 320 0 319 66% 2510N 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4ntSTREET 1,066 439 372 0 257 76% 29108 43RDAVENUE OSLO ROAD ,m-lSTREET 1,()68 541 ,., 0 245 77,. 29151>1 43ROAVENUE 4THSTREET BTHSTREET 1,020 473 162 0 385 29155 "'3ROAVENUE 41HSTREET 8THSffiEEl' 1,020 671 237 0 112 2920N 43RDAVENUE 8THSTREET 127HSTREET 1,071 482 157 0 432 -60% 2920$ 43RDAVENUE STHSTREET 12lll STREET 1,071 658 219 0 199 -81% 2925N 43RDAVENUE 12™51REE7 16THSTREET 1,071 502 136 0 431 60% 29255 43ROAVENUE 12THSTREET 167HSTREET 1,071 658 169 0 224 79% 2930N 43RDAVENUE 16llt S1REE7 SR90 1,796 581 151 0 .... 41% 2930S 43RDAVENUE 16TH5TREET S.R. 60 1,796 693 197 0 ... 50% 2935N 43RDAVENUE S.R.60 26THSTREET 1,796 467 91 0 m• 31% 29355 43ROAVENUE S.R.60 26THS1REEI' 1,796 612 1oa 0 1076. 40% 2940N 43ROAVENUE 26TH srnEET' 41STSTREET 0 .,. 060 423 159 ..,. 29405 43RDAVENUE 26THSTREET 41STSTREET 650 466 185 0 187 78% INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compilation 01104/200S. {Tables publlshed 1211812008}

REMAINING %cfl0S LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TOSlREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT W/PROJECT ·o· 2945N 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 4STHSTREET BSO 332 105 0 423 51% 2945S 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 45TH STREET 850 333 86 0 441 49% 2S50N 43ROAVENUE 45THSTREET 4!rnl S1REET 850 245 72 0 ... 37% 2950S 43ROAVENUE 45THS"TREET 4911-1 STREET 850 180 58 0 622 28% 3005N 58IHAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 383 95 0 1402 25% 3095$ 58lHAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1,860 411 129 0 1320 29% 3010N 58Tii AVENUE 41HSTREET 8THSTREET 1,710 657 72 0 981 43% 3010S 58lHAVENUE 4THSTREET 8ll-l STREET 1,710 712 .. 0 ••• 47% 3015N 58THAVENUE 8THSTREET 12TH$TREET 1,710 815 99 0 ,.. ..,. '3015S 58THAVEf\lUE BTHSTREET 12THSTREET 1,710 1,138 116 0 ... 73% 3020N 5STHAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSlREET 1,710 944 147 0 ... 64% 3020S sent AVENUE 12THSTREET 16IHSTREET 1,710 1,040 158 0 500 70% 3025N 5BTHAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1,710 983 217 0 ... 70% 302SS SBTHAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R60 1.710 1,035 246 0 429 3030N 5STHAVENUE S.R-60 41STSTREET 1.660 1,137 104 0 619 '""67% 3030S 58THAVENUE S.R,60- 41$TSTREET 1,660 1,109 92 0 659 65% 3035N 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 850 567 84 0 189 78% 3035$ SS11-!AVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET ... 538 35 0 287 67% 3040N 58THAVENUE 451ll STREET 49THSTREEr 860 496 .. 0 298 65% 3040$ 5STHAVENUE 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 860 487 31 0 342 60% 3045N SSTHAVENUE 49THSTREET 65lHSlREET 860 479 25 0 ... 59% 304SS 58THAVENUE 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 860 402 50 0 408 53% 3050N 58THAVENUE 65THSTREET 59THSTREEf 860 432 89 0 ,,. 61% 3050$ 58THAVENUE 65lH STREET 6!ITTl STREET 860 356 108 0 54% 3055N 58THAVENUE 691ll STREET C.R.510 860 3f5l 76 0 415 52% 3055$ 58nfAVENUE 69THSTREET C.R.510 860 292 118 0 -450 46" 3120N 66THAVENUE SR.60 26THSTREET 860 483 163 0 234 73% 3120S 66THAVENUE SR.60 261ll STREET 860 432 12$ 0 299 ..,. 3130N 66THAVENUE 26THSTREET 41STS1REET 860 548 155 0 151 31'"8 6tiTH AVENUE 26THSTREET 41STSTREET 860 398 118 0 344 """ 3140N 66THAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THSTREET 950 556 .. 0 322 ...."" 31405 66THAVENUE -41STSTREET 4STHSTREET 950 367 58 0 525 45% 3150N 66THAVENUE 45THSTREET 65THSTREET 870 73 0 280 70% 3150$ 66THAVENUE ""' 45THSTREET 65THSTREET 870 331 59 0 ... 45% 3160N 66THAVENUE 65THSTREET 59THSTREET 670 537 42 0 291 .,,. 3160$ 66THAVENUE 65THSJREET 69THSfREET 870 301 40 0 529 39% 3170N 661HAVENUE 69Thl STREET C.R.510 870 561 56 0 253 31705 66THAVENUE 68THSTREET C.R.510 870 314 48 0 510 ""41% 3310N 82NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 950 1B0 • 0 765 19% 3310$ 82NDAVENUE OstOROAO 4TH-STREET 950 166 8 0 776 18% 3320N 82NDAVENUE 4THSTREET 121lf STREET 950 196 14 0 740 22% 3320$ 82NDAVENUE 4TIISTREET 12THSTREET 950 164 20 0 748 21% 3330N 82NDAVENUE 1211-l STREET SR.60 850 2311 64 0 m 35% 3330$ 82NDAVENUE 1ZTI-I STREET S.R60 650 144 33 0 683 21% 3340N 82NDAVENUE S.R- 80 65THSfREET 410 18 5 0 387 ... 3340$ 82NDA\IENUE S.R.60- 65IHSTREET 410 76 8 0 326 3350N 82NDA\IENUE 68TH S7REET 691HSTREET 410 19 1 0 390 3350S 82NDAVENUE 65THSTREET 59THSTREET 410 23 0 0 387 -.,."' 3360N 98THAVENUE 81llSTREET 12lHSTREET 860 13 43 0 804 3360$ 98'IHAVBIUE 12lll STREET 81HSTREET 860 13 7S 0 ,.. 11%'" 3370N S8JHAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 860 72 108 0 680 21% 3370$ 98THAVENUE 12THSTREET 16TII STREET 860 50 197 0 ... 29% 3380N $THAVENUE 16THSTREET SRGO 850 73 108 0 679 21% 3380$ SBTHAVENUE 16THSTREET SRSO 860 48 197 0 615 28% 3390N 9BlHAVENUE SR60 26TH STREEr 860 24 0 0 836 3390$ 981HAVENUE SRGO 251ll STREET 8SO 143 0 0 717 ;7%'" 3610E 771ll STREET 661llAVE. U.S.1 820 70 11 0 739 10% 3610W 77TH STREEr 66THAVE. U.5.1 920 174 9 a 637 22% INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compQation- 01/04/21106 (fables published-12118/2008}

REMAINING % ofLOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST, VESTED PROJECT WfPROJECT "D" 3710E 69THS1REET 82NDAVE. 66THAVE, 410 16 16 0 376 371M 69TH STREET 82.NDA\/a 66THAVE. 410 46 16 0 3'-4 ,.,,"" 3720E 69TH STREET 66THAVE. 581HAVE. 870 39 13 0 618 6% 3720W 69TH STREET SSTHAVE. 58THAVE. 870 ,. 0 784 10% 3730E 69TH STREET 587HAVE_ OlD DIXIE HWV 870 "'53 ,. 0 701 373fNI 69TH STREET 587HAVE. OlD DIXIE HW'f 670 70 16 0 782 "" 3740E 69TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 47 11 0 612 "''7% 374rtN 69TH STREET. OlD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 .. 13 0 7'8 '"' 3B20E 65TH STREET 66THAVE 581HAVE. 870 44 21 0 805 7% 382fNl 65lli STREET SSTHAVE. sm-HAVE. 870 32 • 0 834 4% 3630E 65TH STREET 58THAVE.. OLD DIXIE HW'f 870 86 30 0 754 f3% 3630W 65TH SJREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 870 90 22 O· 758 13% 3840E 65TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.5.1 870 51 9 0 810 7% 3640W 65TH SIREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 66 10 0 794 ... 4220E 49Tl1 STREET 61m!AVE. 561ltA""- 660 28 35 0 m 7% 4220W 49TH STREET 66TttAVE. 58'fHAVE. 860 31 19 0 810 6% 4230E 49TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE, 860 135 28 0 697 1"' 4230W 49TH STREET 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 860 ,00 19 0 641 25% 4240E 491H STREET 43RDAVE. OLO DIXIE 1-11/M 810 216 113 0 461 41% 4240W 49TH SiREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 144 90 0 576 29% 42SOE 49TH STREET OLDDlXIE HWV U.S.1 810 221 30 0 559 31% 4250W 49TK STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 157 21 0 632 22% 4320E 45TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 157 21 0 682 21% 4320W 45TH SlREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 660 135 10 0 714 17% 4330E 45TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 660 176 43 0 .., 25% 4330W 45TH STREET 58TI-IAVE. 43ROAVE. 660 207 42 0 611 29% 4340E 45TH STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 321 75 0 464 46% 4340W 451H STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DJXJE HVo/Y 860 432 79 0 349 58% 4350E 45TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN. RIVER BLVQ_ 860 188 74 0 558 4350W 45JH SlREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 273 81 0 ... "" 4420E 41ST STREET 66THAVE. 58TKAVE.. 870 102 33 0 735 "" 4420W 41ST STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 870 141 15 0 714 "" 4430E 41STSTREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 181 53 0 626 27%'"" 4430W 41ST STREEf 5BTHAVE. 43RDAVE._ 860 262 73 0 525 3!l'4 4440E 41STSTREET 43ROAVE. DLD DIXIE HWY 860 205 111 0 ... 37% 4440W 41ST STREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 212 48 0 600 30% 4450E 41ST STREET OLOOJXIEHWY lNDIAN RIVER BL VD. 860 133 18 0 709 18" 4450W 41ST STREET OLD DIXIE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 860 59 18 0 783 4460E 37Tii STREET U.S.1 IN•IAN RIVER BLVD. 860 0 411 52%"" -1460W 37TH STREET U.S.1 INIMN RIVER BLVD. ... ""638 21 0 201 77% 4720E 26TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THA\IIC 860 352 91 0 41T 52% 4720W 26TH STREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 860 500 80 0 ... 67% 4730E 26TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 405 41 0 414 52% 4730W 28TH STREET SErJHAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 607 56 0 197 77% 4740E 26lH STREET 43ROAVE. AVIATION BLVD. ... 508 30 0 322 63% 4740W 26TH STREET 43RDAVE. AVIATION BLVD. 860 668 S4 0 ,.. 81" 4750E 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD. 271HAVE. 860 197 12 0 .., 24% 4750W 26TH STREET AVIATION BLVD. 27THAVE. 860 180 18 0 662 23% 4830E 8TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 75 16 0 769 11% 4830W en! STREET 58THAVE. 43ROAV6. 860 118 10 0 7S2 15% INDIAN RIVER CLUB: 29 Non-vested Single Family Untis Date of compilation 01M412006-(Tables- publlsbed 1211812006)

~NJNG %ofLOS LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT WI PROJECT ,,. 4840E !!TH STREET 43ROAVE. 2nHAVE. 860 311 55 0 494 43% 4840W BTiiSTREEr 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 860 380 36 0 444 48% 4850E 8TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. ,.. 353 14 0 .., 43% 4850W 8TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 544 13 0 65% 4860E 8TH STREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 0 ""393 810 331 ...... 4860W 8THSJREET 20THAVE. OlD DIXIE HWY 810 632 27 0 fS1 81% 4870E 8TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 m 20 0 463 43% 4870W 8TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 551 29 0 230 72" 4880E 8TH S1REET U.S,1 INDIAN RNER Bl.VO. 880 192 3 0 ... 23% 4880W antSTREET U.S.1 INOIAN RlVER BLVD. 860 242 4 0 ••• 4910E 4Tlt STREET 82NDAVE.. 58THAVE. 870" 80 24 0 766 4910W 4Tff STREET" 82NDAVE. 58THAVE. 870 121 7 0 742 -'"'15% 4930E 4TH STREET 58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 228 15 0 617 28% 4930W 4THS1REET 58THAVE. 4SROAVE. 860 288 11 0 561 .35% 4940E 411-1 STREET 43RDAVE.. 27THAVE. 860 293 28 0 541 37% 4940W 4THSTREET 43RD-AVE. 27THAVE. 860 365 23 0 472 .... 4950E 4TH STREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 339 9 0 512 40% 4950W 4TH STREET 271HAVE. 2011-IAVE. 860 505 11 0 344 60% 49606 4TH STREET 2D1HAVE. OLODIXIEHWY 860 383 37 0 440 .... 4960W 4lH S1REET 20lHAVE. OI..DDOOEHWY 860 575 53 0 232 73% 49706 4THSTREET OlDOOOEHWY U.S.t 810 569 17 0 224 72% 4970W 4TH STREET OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 810 532 28 0 250 5610E FRED TUERK DR. A1A W. OF COCONUT DR. 860 110 0 0 750 '"',.,. 5610W FREDTUERKDR. A1A W, OF COCONUT OR. 860 .. 0 0 792 ... 5710E WIITTERBEACHRO. A1A JUNGLE TRAIL 860 61 1 0 798 7% S11f'JN WINTERBEACHRD. A1A JUNGl.ETRAlt. 860 47 0 0 813 5" 5810E AnANTIC BLVD. 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 141 6 0 713 5810W ATlANTIC BLVO. 27THAVE. 20iHAVE. 860 257 7 0 596 31%"" 5820E ATLANTIC BLVD. 25fHAVE. U.S.t 860 123 41 0 ... 1... 5820W ATLANTIC-BLVD. 20IBAVE. U.S.1 860 171 104 0 585 32% 5910E AVIATIONBLVD. 25fHSTREET 27THAVE, 1,280 547 10 0 723 ..., 5910W AVIATION BLVD. · 26TH STREET 27THAVE. 1,280 732 43 0 ... 61% 6010E ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL PALM PL, INOlAN RIVER BLVD. 880 394 9 0 477 .. ,. 6010W ROYAL PALM BLVD. ROYAL.PALM PL INDIAN R1VER BLVD. 880 197 9 0 674 23% 6110!: ROYALPALMPL U.$.1 INOlAN RIVER BLVD. 880 223 19 0 638 28% 6110W ROYAL PALM PL U.S.t l'NDIANRIVERBLVD. 880 444 19 0 417 53%

G:\47002007\LEFflURN LANE ASSESSMENTI(lndian River Oub - link Tables 12-18-06.xls]Unk Pen:ent: 31) CONSENT AGENDA (QUASI-JUDICIAL) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

Robert M. Keating, Commnnity Development Dir ct

THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director

FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP ---(~ \\,\ Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: January 5, 2007

SUBJECT: Bill Boydston's Request for Preliminary Plat Approval for a Subdivision to be Known as Protransmaster II [2001060194-55821/PD-06-11-10]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2007.

BACKGROUND: The Protransmaster plat is a proposed subdivision of a 1. 78-acre commercial parcel located on the east side of US Highway 1, just south of Rock City Nursery. The plat will overlay the two commercial buildings that comprise the Protransmaster PD, which was approved by the Board of County Commissioners at its regular meeting ofAugust 23, 2005. The site is currently being developed via the . project's approved plan with an office building and transmission shop. As proposed, the subject preliminary plat proposes two lots, a stormwater tract, and access easements that correspond to the approved plan. The subject site is zoned PD, which allows the proposed commercial uses. The parcel is being subdivided so that the two buildings can be sold fee simple. The applicant, Bill Boydston, through its agent, W. F. McCain & Associates, Inc., is now requesting preliminary plat approval.

ANALYSIS: Plan approval was previously granted for development ofthe transmission shop and office building, and that approved plan will control development of the entire site. As approved, the plan provides for the necessary infrastructure for the proposed subdivision. The proposed subdivision will "plat over" the approved plan, as allowed in the subdivision ordinance.

F:\Community Development\U sers\CurDev\P &Z\2007\protransmaster staff report.rtf 1 1. Protransmaster II: Area: 1.78 acres Number of Lots: 2

2. Utilities: In accordance with the LDR requirements of the county, the project will be served by county water and wastewater. Connection to public water and sewer is proposed, and has been approved by both the Department of Utility Services and Environmental Health Department.

3. . Traffic Circulation: Traffic circulation will be controlled by the approved plan. The plat will not affect project traffic. The internal circulation plan provides for vehicular connections to adjacent properties at two separate locations. The preliminary plat proposes easements to facilitate these connections to adjacent properties; those easements need to be shown on the final plat.

4. Stormwater Management: The stormwater management system serving the overall parcel has already been approved by the public works department through approval of the plan. The plat will establish a stormwater management tract that corresponds to the approved system.

5. Environmental Issues: All environmental issues were addressed with the plan.

6. Required Improvements: All required improvements were addressed through the plan review and approval process. These improvements include site lighting, utilities, stormwater management, and access improvements.

7. Concurrency: The applicant has paid impact fees, obtained an initial final concurrency certificate, and vested concurrency for development ofthe entire site. This satisfies concurrency requirements for preliminary plat approval.

RECOMMENDATION:

Based on the analysis performed, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission grant preliminary plat approval for Protransmaster II with the condition that access easements be established prior to or via the final plat to facilitate vehicular access to adjacent parcels.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Preliminary Plat

F :\Community Development\U sers\CurDev\P &Z\2007\protransmaster staff report.rtf 2 ~DIAN RNER COUNTY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION

Please indicate the type of application being submitted: Plan Number: PD-

Conceptual PD Special Exception: D Concurrent Special Exception & Preliminary PD: w Preliminary Planned Development: mo~ 8 Final Planned Development: D

Note: For a PD rezoning please use the appropriate rezoning form. PROJECT NAME: Protransmasters II Planned Development Preliminary Plat odification APPLICANT: W. F. McCain & Associates, Inc. fb-OCo- l \-IQ ADDRESS: 117119th St. Vero Beach FL 32960 PHONE 772-770-1093 OWNER: Boll Boydston ADDRESS: 1465 Clearmont St, Palm Bay, FL 32960 PHONE--'-'-:...::..._-'---'--'--'------321-403-1416 TAX PARCEL NUMBER (S) OF SUBJECT PROPERTY: ______31-39-28-00002-0000-00004.0

PROPERTY CLASSIFICA TION(S):

Land Use Designation Zoning District Acreage C/1 CL (proposed PD) 1.78

TOTAL PROJECT ACREAGE: _1_.7_8 ______

EXISTING SITE USE(S): under construction nd PROPOSED SITE USE(S) AND INTENSITY (eg # ofunits, square feet by use): As approved u er IRC PD-04-08-15 2001060194, a proposed planned development consisting of a single phase transmission repair shop and general commercial building. The PD consists of 2 lots and a separate stormwater management tract. l/')¼r--- Signature of Applicant

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) W E, McCain & Associates, Inc Same as Engineer NAME NAME 1171 19th Street ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL CITY STATE CITY STATE 32960 <.__lzg-770-t~09~3~----- ____(__) ___ ------ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE 772-770-1508 FAX NUMBER FAX NUMBER [email protected] EMAIL EMAIL l:\Office Documents MASTERS\Permitting Applications\INDIAN RIVER CO\Planned Devlopemnt App. FORM! .doc Revised 2006 Page I of3 "" 1111'

GOV..... LOT 2 -·

, . ,.'' ,,,.,,.·,,,,, ' ' -..,, ~y ~ _, •., ,i n ,.' ,. ~ .. , . . 4 .:i1ov~" ., :;,, ..~" ·::·iot' ' ~,. Gt,: fi~ !1' '• ..,.;. 1t ,t ., ..,/ -" ,, ~., y

ATTACHMENT 2 'I i ' I' s t Q I ;; ' ~ h~ / • !" 1l ! ' / 'I I ,/ / ' / i; / l ! / / 'I / I• / ' / I / ,/ I ' I' l / ! i • !' i I I I / i I ! i I § ' I' I I I !

i• ! 'I I I

•i

;i.". Jid 1ml I' I !o,• l~i I , ! _; NII0'35'2TVl(S) =-• N 02'00'00' V(D) .I s' !I : I '' I 03ll'l'ld !ON "/,<> lVld Slfl.L j() l

111110ll!SlRElIT VeRO aeACI!, FL.ORICA"'""" INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PHONS(772JmJ.10«l FA>

MAJOR SITE PLAN [QUASI-JUDICIAL]

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

THROUGH: Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director

FROM: John W. McCoy, AICP .{~Tu\ Senior Planner, Current Development

DATE: January 5, 2007 .

SUBJECT: Century Realty Funds Panther IX, LLC' s Request for Major Site Plan Approval for a Shopping Center to be Known as Century Town Center [SP-MA-06-07-31/2004060358- 53892]

It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regularly scheduled meeting of January 11, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: Kimley-Hom & Associates, Inc. has submitted a major site plan application on behalf Century Realty Funds Panther IX, LLC to construct a 99,819 square foot shopping center and out parcel development on the south side of SR60 just west ofHome Depot. Two separate out-parcels are proposed. The subject property is zoned CG, a zoning district which aliows the proposed shopping center use. The out parcels will be site planned separately at a later date.

ANALYSIS

1. Size of Development: 19.48 acres

2. Zoning Classification: CG: General Commercial

3. Land Use Designation: C/1: Commercial/1ndustrial

4. Building Area: Building A: 65,363 square feet BuildingB: 34,456 square feet Total: 99,819 square feet

:F/Community Development/Users/CurDev/P&Z12007 /Century Town Center.rtf 1 Note: The out parcels will be site planned separately at a later date. The existing residence on site will be removed.

5. Impervious Area: 418,217 square feet

6. Open Space: Required: 4.87 acres or 25.0% Proposed: 5.79 acres or 32.5%

Note: Open space figures include 4.33 acres of green open space and 1.46 acres of water, for a total of 5. 79 acres. The maximum water body credit allowed by the LDR' s is 30% of the required open space. In this case, the 30% maximum credit is 1.46 acres.

7. Traffic Circulation: The applicant is proposing two driveways to access the site, with one on SR60 and the other on College Lane. The SR60 driveway will be located near the site's west property line and be limited to right in, right out and left in movements. A westbound left tum lane will be constructed on SR60 to facilitate the left tum into the site. The College Lane drivewaywill be a full movement driveway and will also be located along the site's west property line. Internally, the site will have a driveway inter-connection to the Home Depot site, so that traffic can go between the two centers without having to access SR60 or College Lane. In addition, a driveway will be stubbed-out to the west property to facilitate a vehicular or pedestrian connection, if desired by the owner of residential property to the west, when that property develops. Traffic engineering has reviewed and approved the internal circulation plan.

8. Traffic Impact Analysis: A traffic impact analysis has been reviewed and approved by traffic engineering. Based on that analysis, the following improvements are required:

• A westbound left tum lane on SR60 at the project entrance. The left tum lane design must be approved by Traffic Engineering staff prior to site plan release and must be constructed prior to .issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy (CO).

• A right tum lane on SR60 at the project entrance. The right tum lane design must be approved by Traffic Engineering staffprior to site plan release, and the tum lane must be constructed prior to issuance of a CO.

• A westbound right tum lane on College Lane at the project entrance. The right tum lane design must be approved by Traffic Engineering staff prior to site plan release, and it must be constructed prior to issuance of a CO.

• An additional eastbound left tum lane on College Lane at 58th Avenue. The tum lane design must be approved by traffic engineering prior to site release, and it must be constructed prior to issuance of a CO.

• Contribution of fairshare funds as determined by Public Works for the programmed intersection improvements at 58th Avenue and SR60. The funds must be paid to the county prior to site plan release.

:F/Community Development/Users/CurDev/P&Z/2007 /Century Towp Center.rtf 2 • Contribution of fairshare funds as determined by Public Works for the progranuned improvements at the intersection of 43rd Avenue and SR60. The funds must be paid to the county prior to site plan release.

9. Off-Street Parking: Required Provided Shopping Center 500 spaces 545spaces

Note: The site also provides 18 bicycle parking spaces.

10. Stormwater Management: A preliminary stormwater management plan has been approved by Public Works, and the applicant will be required to obtain a Type "B" stormwater management permit. The proposed stormwater management system consists of a treatment pond that outfalls to the Main Relief Canal. The pond will be located in the southern portion ofthe site adjacent to College Lane. In addition to the on-site stormwater pond, the applicant will also construct an off-site pond within the same flood plain basin to meet the compensatory cut and fill balance requirements in the Stormwater Management criteria. The off-site pond is located nearby along the Main Relief Canal. Fill generated from the off-site pond will exceed 5,000 cubic yards and will be used at the shopping center site. An incidental mining permit, which can be issued by staff, will be required f~r export of fill from the off-site pond.

11. Environmental Issnes: Because the existing site has been used as a citrus grove, there are no environmental issues within the area of development that trigger special requirements.

12. Landscape and Buffering Plan: The landscape plan is in conformance with Chapter 926 landscape and buffer requirements, including perimeter buffering and foundation plantings meeting the SR60 Corridor criteria. Adjacent to the west property line is a vacant residential parcel, which is zoned RM-6. Consequently, a 20' Type "B" buffer with a 6' opaque feature is required between the shopping center improvements and the residential parcel to the west. The buffering wiHinclude a 6' hedge to satisfy the 6' opaque feature with additional landscaping immediately west of the 6' hedge. The shopping center buildings are set back approximately 85' from the west property line, while the closest commercial driveway areas are set back approximately 24' from the west property line.

13. Utilities: The project will be serviced by county water and sewer. The Department ofUtility Services and the Environmental Health Department have approved these utility provisions.

14. Dedications and Improvements:

Traffic Improvements: As referenced in the traffic section of this report, the left and right turn lanes at the driveway on SR60, the right turn lane at the College Lane driveway and an east bound left turn lane on College Lane at 58thAvenue are required improvements. These improvements must be completed prior to issuance of a CO.

- Driveway Inter-connection: As referenced in the traffic section, the applicant will stub-out a driveway inter-connection to the Home Depot site to the east and a driveway stub-out to the vacant residential parcel to be west. These inter-connections will need to be constructed prior to the issuance of a co.

:F/Community Development/Users/CurDev/P&Z/2007/Century Town Center.rtf 3 - Sidewalks: Based on the County's Sidewalk and Bikewayplan, a 5' wide public sidewalk is requrred along the site's College Lane and SR60 frontages. These sidewalks are depicted on the site plan and must be constructed prior to issuance of a certificate of occupancy. The applicant has provided an internal pedestrian system that will provide connections from the building to SR60 and College Lane, so that pedestrians can access the pedestrian improvements located on the other side of each respective road. Thus, there will be an internal pedestrian sidewalk that connects College Lane to SR60 through the site. The College Lane sidewalk will be located outside ofthe right-of-way, within a pedestrian easement over the southernmost portion ofthe site. This easement must be established prior to site plan release.

15. Signs: No signs are being approved with this site plan application. All signage will requrre a separate permit, and will be subject to the SR60 Corridor criteria.

16 Concurrency: Prior to enactment of the pending ordinance, the project developer paid all impact fees, obtained an initial concurrency certificate, and received vesting for concurrency. This satisfies the requirements for site plan approval.

17. SR60 Corridor: The site is within the SR60 Corridor plan area: The SR60 Corridor Plan regulates the aesthetic qualities of buildings and sites through design criteria and articulation of facades, use of materials, colors, lighting, screening of visually offensive elements, sign criteria and landscape criteria. All ofthese elements have been reviewed, and the site plan and associated building plans were found to be consistent with the SR60 corridor criteria.

18. Surrounding Land Use and Zoning:

North: SR60, Shopping Center/CG South: College Lane, Retention Area/CG East: Home Depot/CG West: Vacant Residential/RM-6

RECOMMENDATION:

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

1. That prior to site plan release, the applicant shall:

a. Obtain approval from traffic engineering for all off-site improvements, and

b. Grant a pedestrian easement adjacent to College Lane for the required sidewalk, and

c. Pay his fairshare of the cost, as determined by Public Works, for the 58th Avenue/SR60 and the 43rd Avenue/SR60 improvements.

2. That prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant shall:

a. Provide a driveway stub out to the east and west property lines as depicted on the approved plan, and

:F/Community Development/Users/CurDev/P&Z12007 /Century Town Center.rtf 4 b. Complete all required buffers as depicted on the approved plan, and

c. Construct all required sidewalks, and

d. Complete all off-site traffic improvements as specified in section 8 of this report.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Application 2. Location Map 3. Site Plan 4. Landscape Plan 5. Aerial 6. Traffic Summary 7. Concurrency Certificate

:F/Community Development/Users/CurDev/P&ZJ2007/Century Town Center.rtf 5 ____ J /

MAJOR SITE PLAN APPLICATION FORM (SPMJ)

PROJECT NAME (PRINT):------Century Town Center PROPOSED PROJECT USE:------~~~------~~ Commercial S P-m A- o (tJ-O f)- 31 PRE-APPLICATION CONFERENCE PROJECT NAME:_Century Town Center _____

OWNER: (PRINT) AGENT: (PRINT) Century Realty Funds, Panther IX, LLC Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. NAME NAME 500 South Florida Avenue, Suite 700 601 21st Street, Suite 300 ADDRESS ADDRESS Lakeland, FL Vero Beach, FL CITY CITY STATh: 32966 ( 863) 647 _----- 1581 32960 ( 772 ) 562 -_7_9_81___ _ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

(863-647-3994) [email protected]. (772-562-9689) [email protected] FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL Will Re nolds / Centu Jared Hockenberry, P.E. CONTACT PERSON CONTACT PERSON

PROJECT ENGINEER: (PRINT) PROJECT ARCWTECT:(PRINT) Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. To be determined NAME NAME 601 21st Street, Suite 300 ADDRESS ADDRESS Vero Beach, FL CITY STArn CITY STArn 32960 ( 772 ) 562 -_7_98_1______L.__J __ - _____ ZIP PHONE ZIP PHONE

(172-562-9689) [email protected] FAX E-MAIL FAX E-MAIL Jared Hockenberry, I".!=. C:\Documents and Settings\webmaster.AD:MIN\Desktop\MAJOR.APP.PACKET.doc Revised 2004 11 ofl4

ATTACHMENT l • • <: CG

' RM•6

Af \~) 1:i;'~n;:-£:

CG'1

• i 10 i l CG f• I• • ,1• 'i • Olm! •I• •1 ' 1 I I I• i •

ATTACHMENT 2 .. Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc.

• &i!!!03 10521 s.w. \lllagecnro,., Port St. tu

Note: Century Town Center was previously approved and vested for a total square footage of l 02,900 square feet of commercial Tiu: applicant has decided to reduce the total square footage to 99,819 square feet of commercial. The impacts to the roadway and intersections in the area have been reduced and are listed in the Traffic Summary below:

1. Location: South side of SR 60, just west of 58th Avenue

2. Size: 99,819 square feet of commercial

3. Trip Generation: 99,819sq. ft. x 0.0333daily trips = 3324 trips/day 99,819sq. ft. x .003065 P.M. peak hour trips= 306 P.M. peak hour trips

4. Area of Influence Boundaries: CR 510 (north), Oslo Road (south), US Highway I (east), I-95. (west) ·

5. Significant Roads: SR60 ( I-95 ....US l),US 1 ( Oslo Rd ....S. County Line), CR 510 ( CR 512 .... US 1), 16th St. (581h Ave ...Old Dixie Hwy.), 121h St ( 5glh 1 Ave .•• Old Dixie Hwy), Old Dixie Hwl° ( Oslo Rd.... S. VB City L.), 27 h Ave (S. County Line ..... 16th St),Oslo Rd. (581 Ave ...OldDixie Hwy},20th Ave (Oslo Rd .. 121h St), 43'd Ave ( S. Couni Line •.. A51h St.), 5glh Ave (Oslo Rd .•. CR 510), 66th Ave. (CR 5IO ....•SR 60),491 Ave (43rd St.. ...OldDixie Hwy.)

6. Significant Intersections: • 66th Ave./ SR 60 • 58th Ave./ 16th St 1 th th th • 66 h Ave. / 26 St. • 58 Ave. / 12 St. th rd th • 58 Ave. / 41 st St. • 43 Ave. / 16 St. • 58th Ave. / SR60 • 43rd Ave./ 12t11 St. • 5gth Ave. / College Lane

7. Trip Distribution: See Appendix A

-• - APPROVED-BY_ TEl 712345:Ja:Jll INDIAN RIVER COUNTY FA.~ 712 2SS Olllil T~NGINE RING

DAT ATTACHMENT 6,.. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

8. Internal Capture: none

9. Pass-by Capture: 51 % (new trips= 49%)

10. P.M. Peak Hour Directional% (ingress/egress): 48% entering/ 52% exiting.

11. Traffic Count Factors Applied: 4.14% annual growth to build-out 2007

12. Off-Site Improvements: • SR 60 / Western Project Access - Eastbound right-tum lane (Full Share) • College Lane/ Project Access - Westbound right-tum lane (Full Share)

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

14. Assume roadway and/ or intersection improvements:

• sslh Ave I College lane-Additional eastbound left tum lane (Full Share)

• 581h Ave/ SR60 - Programmed improvements & optimize timing (Proportionate Share) 7.4% • 16th St/ 58th Ave - Programmed improvements (Proportionate Share) 3.8%

15. Significant Dates a) Pre-study conference: Feb. 2005 b) Traffic counts: 66th Ave/ SR 60 6/28/05 58th Ave/4181 St. 12/20/05 581h Ave / 16th St. 6/8/05

Remaining count data and all signal timing sheets provided by Indian River County. Link sheets based upon year 2004 seasonally-adjusted traffic counts also provided by Indian River County. c) Study approval: On April 27th 2006 5 year initial Certificate of Concurrency was issued on the l02, 900 sq. ft. Commercial Study TABLE! CENTURY TOWN CENTER TRIP GENERATION Lund Use intensity Daily Pi\'I Peak Hour Triris Total In Ont Proposed Site Traffic Shopping Center 99,819 s.f. 6,783 625 300 325 Subtotal 6,183 625 300 325

Pass-By Traffic Shopping Center 51% 3,459 319 153 166 Subtotal_ 3,459 319 153 166

TOTAL DRIVEWAY TRA1'"FIC VOLOlVIIcS 6.783 625 300 325

NET NEW Sll'E TRAFFIC VOLUMES 3,324 306 147 159

Notes: Trip·,gencration was ·calculated using:the following data from !TE Trip Generation_,- Seveil'th Edition:

Daily Traffic-Geilera:tion Shopping Center [TI'E 820] = Ln(T)=0.65Ln(X) + 5.83

]?M ·Peak.Hour Traffic Generation Shopping Center [ITE820] ~ Ln{T)=0.66 * Ln(X) + 3.40 (48% in, 52% out)

.$:1047\047608001 c,.mtury rown ce111er\J0-06 99,999 sq.fl. lraffic study\[99,999. ce111ury town cenJer trip genl0-06 ..xls]trip_gen

ATTACHMENT 6 • . ' .

r,. ...

i •

[' '

. ' V • • • ~--I ... ._ ~ ...... --- .f --...... V • ------~--- ,~ ---1-..--- • • • .. • ~-- • - • ~ • • • J • .;t, ,r•-··--·-- " • ft • • • • , • -::r I' : .. • , _,. , . , • •' • "• • • • • : ~ • l' • ...... ; •- • ..,,• .,...... 1 _/' ------• '~.. - .~ ,. • .,,,; .., . • ------• - ,. •• , .1,t °I.,,, '11:l . • ~ • . • -.-.---r:: •• • • • •• t· _...... -.;-- " . •• • ' ...... t ...... •• ,l• ··~:1 --.....>-,:. .. * .,, ...... • t """"~------•--...... ' • , /~'T( J'(' _• ...- .,._ l ,-l.. • -~ .. , G-to'..:...... ,• ,. J .. \. ·¥ / l~ •• .,/l n .. i . ,. • , t"' __ ...... :_ I ...... -- ,.. \ ---·· '"""'1.•--- ,, /1-1"sT •• I ,. ~, • . . ',a -- • , / • ' -- l ,' 1-...... _' ~ I• • J" • ,' :1 .. ~...... • .,.,.. ...~ t"" ...... ! ' . •. ;, / •' • .• ,• e-r1,sr • t • • / • " l • •' • • • •\ .. 0 • • •I r •· • • I "I i r I •

•

.,. • ) '),~I

ATTACHMENT 6 • ...

! •

' .,,' . • . '~ ... __ .,._ '\" . ·\:" ' ' ' ' ., 1 ' • • • ' a • " • .... '' • • ·171'-. •. • • ,ir-• .. ' 1 a • •• 4,n~•'--~•-• •=---'--_,,.\ ~t •_;~.~· • •L ~·. ~ ~ ,.. ·#"" 1 -4-q " .... 1 ~ ....t .. "" <> • 4r"tff•1::--'---li~'""''i:"~;,.~J:r-..., :' • ....' ,4 .. • • • • • • tf 1• ~ ...... ·•· .~ 1<( fc:i .. t·., • !. .. ·, • •

• ' ' ,- .. r.

r· 'I • ! , I l •

u • > --·0 I~ • 0 () • () . . -..: 0 • .. • o __ .. 1.. .. --- • • • " • ., • 3 _..; ...'!._ • .. , . « " .. • • ....• .... 2_, 0 • " "

I ' ~ "I 01 0 -0 .;,.,'4 ,s:, .. i(,·" IJ " . .. .. '"I~ H < 0 ' fl " " --- " " . • J...... -----,0 .. ' ·o 10' .~ • • ' 1 1 1 .... \ \·o. " Jo~ n r ' • I lll ~--' • • ' ' ', • 1 ;, I Plot: Sele-c:t Zone LoQd -- Perect:nt cf Pt-o:f•e.ct .cen~ury T~wn Ccri~cr • MDOl.FZEO I:RC 2-0b • 10~E80S 16:09:3~

' Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIX A

Traffic Distribution and Assignment

ATTACHMENT 6~ Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc.

APPENDIXB

Prnject Link Assignment CENTURY TOWN CENTER 99,819 Sq. Ft. Date of co111pi!ation 11116/2006 {l!sed tables dated 12/19/2005)

LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT AVAIL.

1-010N S.R.A1A S. COUNlY LINE S. VBCITYL 9SO 318 25 0 ,07 1010S ·s.RA1A S. COUNTY 1.!NE S.VBClTYL. ... 441 10 0 49& <>_o_.., • .,, 1020N S. \!BCIITL 1TTH STRf.E'r a&i 6SU i7 • ·147 10205 S,R.A1A S:VBCITYL 17THSTREET 860 990 6 0 -136 10:lOt-2 S.R.A1A 1ITHSTREET S.R. 60 860 723 11 0 1030S S.R.A1A 1TIHSTREET S.R.60 ... 790 0 "'57 1-040N S.R.A1A S.R.50 ~- VBCllYL ... 999 22 0 -161 1040S S.R.A1A $.A. SD ft VBCITYL. 860 13 0 _,, 10SON S.R,A1A N. VBCITYL. FRED TUERK RD. 860 ''"999 22 0 -161 10508 S.R.AlA N. VBGITYL. _., FREOTUERJ

ATTACHMENT 6..,. LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT AVAIL 1330N U.S.1 s. vacrrYL. 171'J.lSTREIIT 1710 1580 29 0 101 1~0$ U.S.1 S. VOCITYL 17THSTREl;T 1710 1170 0 1-335N U.S.1 17TH STREET S.F!.. tiO 1510 1136 "47 0 327'" 1335S U,S.1 1TTH STREET S.R. 50 1510 1310 72 0 128 1~401'4 U.S.1 S.R.60 ROYAi.PALM f->L 1510 1361 57 0 1:31105 U.S.1 S.R,60 ROYAL PALM Pl 1510 850 127 0 " 1345N U.S.1 ROYAL PALM Pl. ATIJINTIC BLVD. 1710 1337 91 0 ,.,'" 13455 U.S.1 ROYAL PALM PL A"rLA.NTIC BL\/0. 1710 1366 1S1 0 203 1350N U.S.1 ATl.ANTlCBLVD, N. VB CITY L. 2040 1633 138 0 269 1:350$ U.S.1 ATLANTIC Bl.VO. N. VBCITYL. 1910 11196 '76 0 238 t355N U.S.1 N. VBCITYL. OLD D1:Xle: HWY 1'60 1634 217 0 9 1355S U.S.1 N.VBCITYL, OLD DIXIE HWY 1660 1298 213 0 349 1360N U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTReer 1800 1483 2'8 0 139 1-3605 U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY 41STSTREET 1860 1066 187 0 607 13fi5N IJ,$.1 41STSTREET 45THS1RSE;T 1'60 1486 160 • 1'4 131;15$ U.S.1 41ST$TREET 45THSTREET 1860 ... 1"3 0 1370N U.S.1 45THSTREET 49THSWEET 1860 14'6 176 0 '"218 1370S U.S.1 4Sl'HSTREE.T 49THSTREET 1660 882 133 0 845 1375N U.S.T llSTH STREET 6STHSTREET 2010 1615 235 0 16U 13755 U.S.1 _,.-t9THSTREET 65THSTREET 2010 1175 168 0 667 , 1380N U.S,1 65THSTREl;T 69THSTREET 2232 1537 179 0 516 13805 U,5.1 65TH.STREET 69THSTREET 1860 1174 156 0 '311 13B5N U.$.1 69THSTnEET OLD OJXIC I IWY 2232 1095 186 • 351 13858 U.S.t 69TH SiFlEEi 01.D DIXIE HWV 1860 1063 151 0 ... 139DN U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR. 2210 1672. 176 0 362 1391)$ U.S.1 OLD DIXIE HWY SCHUMANN DR 1860 1171 170 0 519 1395N U.S,1 SCHUMANN DR. c.R. 512 1860 1433 0 340 1395S U,S.1 SCHOMANN DR. C.R.512 1660 1118 113" 0 629 1400N U.S.1 C.R.512 N. SEB. CITY L. 1710 121i1 67 0 382 14005 U.S.1 C,R. 512 N. SES. CITY L. 1710 1196 93 • 421 1405/>J U.S.1 N. see.. cmrL. ROSE.LAND RO. 1860 1214 52 0 ... 1405S V.S.1 N. SEB. CITY L. ROSE LANO RD. 1860 1072 72 0 710 1410N U.S.1 ROSELAND RD. N. COUNTY LINE 1860 1262 14 0 584 14105 U.S.1 ROSELAND RD. N. COUNTY LINE 1860 1035 39 0 786 1510N SCHUMANN OR, C.F!. '510 @66TH AVE. S. SES. CITY L 860 m 0 135 1510S SCHUMANN DR. C.R. 510 @ 66TH AVE. S, SEB..C!TYL 0 441 1520N SCHUMANN DR. S. SES. CTTV l. U.S.1 '" "' 860 116 0 • ?44 15205 SCHUMANN DR. S. SEB. CITY l. U.S.1 860 186 0 • 674 16101: ROSELAND RO. S.R. &12 N. sea. CITY L. 860 "2 0 .., 1610W ROSELAND RO. S.R.512 N. SE6. CITY L '1 0 493 1620E ROSELAND RO. ·N.SEB.CITYL U.S;1 aoo'" '"328 7 0 525 1620W ROSEL.AND RD. N.SE:B.0TV1.. U.S.1 860 0 0 4n 1710E C.R. 512 S.R.6• 1-95 '60 379"' 50 0 431 1710W C.R.512 $.rl.60 J.95 OIJO 092 G 0 1720E C.R. 512 ,.. , C.R.510 1860 660 0 1031'" 17'2.-0W C.R.512 ,~-ss C.R:.510 1660 895 "'16 0 1730E C.R. 612 C.R. 510 W. SEB. CITY l. 1-860 702 10 114ll""' 17"W C.R. 512 C.R510 W. SEB. CJTYL HIGO 72' 8 • 1127 174()E C.R. 512 W.SE6.CJTYi.. ROSELAND RD. 1860 952 10 • 898 11,iow C.R. 512 W.SEB. CITYL RDSEl..AND RD. 1860 732 7 0 1121 1'T50E C.R..5l2 ROSELAND RD. u.s., 01, 12 "'" 0 1173 1750W C.R.512 ROSELAND RD. U.S.1 1660 854 7 0 898 1810E C.R.510 C.R.-512 66Tll AVE. 1860 '90 0 1014 1810W C.R.510 C.R.51:2 &ITHAVE. 1860 638 '"19 5 1198 1820E C.R. 510 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 185D 496 lOO 0 1264 1820W C.ft 510 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 1860 736 78 0 1046 1&301:. C,R,510 5&THAVE. U.S.1 1860 552 182 5 1121 1830W C.R. 510 68lHAVE. U~CJ.1 1860 753 0 ... 1840c C.R. 510 U.S,1 S.R.A1A 1900 668 263"' 0 869

ATTACHMENT 6-4 LINK ON STREET fROMSTREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT AVAIL. 1B40W C.R.510 U.S.1 S.R. A1A 1900 1020 247 D 633 11'0SE S.R,IJ~ W. COUNTY LINE C.R.S1.2 1810 222 11 0 1577 1805W S.R,60 W. COUNTY LINE C.R. 512 1810 208 11 0 1591 U07E S.R.0O C.R 512 100THAVE. 1810 241 D 0 1569 1S07W S.R,6O C.R. 512 100THAVE. 1810 232 0 0 1578 1l310E S.R,60 1DOTHAVE. 1-95 18'60 452 140 0 1288 1910W S.R.60 100THAVE, 1-95 1860 461 217 0 1182 1915E S.R. 60 1-95 62NOAVE. ~360 1181 263 21 395 1815W 5.R.6O ,.,. 82NDAVE. 2000 1391 275 22 312 1'20e S.R.60 82NDAV!:. 66THAVE. 27Sll 1413 380 24 973 1920W S,R.£0 82NDAVE. 86THAVE. 2790 1696 22 668 1925F. S.R.6O 6ofHAVE. 58THAYe. 2790 2126 '°"278 43 3'3 1925W S.R. 60 66THA.VE, 58THAVE. 2790 2138 <102 40 1930E S.R.60 58THAVE. 4"3RDAVE. 2790 1736- 253 ,. "'768 1930W S.R.60 SBTHAVE, 43RDAVE. 27GD 1186 416 31 ... 1-S35E S.R.60 43FmAVE. 27THAVF_ 2790 1604 251 22 1013 19'5W S.R.60 43RDAV~. Z7IHAVE. 2790 1ae1 >TS 21 '23 1'40E S.R,60 .27THAVF.. 20TI-IAVE. 2790 1"72 174 16 1228 1940W S.ft flO Zm-iAVE, WTHAVE. 2700 1615 280 15 aao 19451: S.R. 60 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 3252 1059 .. 16 2079 1945W S.R. 60 20THAVE. OLD .OIXIE HWY 3252 .,, 149 15 2172 1950E S.R.60 OLD DJXII; HWY 10THAVE. 3252' 1034 54 8 2156 1060W S.R.60 OLD DIXIE HWY 10TIIAVC. :l2S2 071 '7 ,,., 19S5E S.Ft.60 fOTHAVE U.S.1 3252 1032 ... 5 2170 1955W S.R60 10THAVE. U.S.1 3252 867 50 0 2327 1960E S.R. 6Q U.S.1 IND!AN RIVER BLVD. '252 .., 12 0 2760 1960W S.R.60 U.S,1 JNO!AN RIVER BLVD. 3252 509 9 0 2734 1965E S.R.-60 INDIAN RlVERSLVO. ICWW 1860 1269 0 ... 1965W S.R.-60 INDIAN RIVER BLVD. ICWW 1860 15'18 "7 0 305 1970E S.R. 60 ICWW S,R.A1A 1860 873 13 0 .,. 1970W $.R.i50 JCWW ·s..R.A1A 1860 938 8 0 914 20WE 16THSTREET S8THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 355 18 19 468 2021lW HITHSTRE:ET 56THAVI:. 43RDAVE. 860 279 15 1B 548 2030E 16THSTREET 43RD.AVE. 27TJ-IAVE. 860 387 26 13 454 2030W 1GTHSTREET 4JRDAVE. 2TTHAVE. 860 551 ,0 12 Z17 2040E 16TH ST-REE:f 2m-lAVE. 20THAVE. 860 355 • .,. 2040W 16THSTREET 27TI-IAVE.. 201"HAVE. 860 543 "39 7 271 2050E 16THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 810 569 24 5 212 2050W 181HSTREl::.T 20THAVE. DLD DIXIE HWY 810 730 29 0 51 2060E 16TH/.17TH STREET OLD DJX!E HWY U.S.1 U10 685 35 0 2oaow 16TH/17TH STREE"f OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 1710 763 so 0 '" 211DE 17THSTREET U.S.1 !NOIAN RIVER BLVD. 1710 557 21 0 1132'" 2110W 17THSTREET U.S.1 INOIAN RIVER BLVD. 1710 113 23 0 914 2120E 17THSTl1EET !NDIAN RIVl:R: OLVO. S.R.A1A 1auo 1807 21 0 m 2120W 17THSTRE.ET INOIAN-RNER BLVD. S.R.A1A 18611 1311 17 0 532 2210E 12THSTRE;:ET S2NDA\/E. 58THAVE. 870 ., 2 0 770 2210W 12THSTREET -82NDAVE. 5tITHAVE. '70 .. 0 769 2220E 12THSTREl::T -58THAVE. 43RDAVE. 860 . 190 '4 21 645 2220W 12TH STREF.T 58THAVE. 43RDAVE.. 660 261 19 580 2230E 12THSTREET 43:RDA'VE. znHAVE. 660 269 '0 10 .. , :mow 1.:i!lHSTREET 43ROAVE, 27THAVE. 860 390 9 2240E 1ZfHSTREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 800 350 0 11 499"' 2240W 12THSTREET 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 860 533 0 ,. 317 225DE 12THSTREET 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 459 1 6 394 2250W 121"HSTREET 20THA~ OLD DIXIE HWY 860 698 12 6 144 2260E 12THSTREET OLD DlXIE HWY U.5.1 13£8 415 • 0 944 2260W 12THSTREET OLDOIXlfHWY U.S.1 ,.,, 090 18 0 ... 2305N OLD DIXIE HWY S, COUNTY LINE OSLOROAO 860 372 142 0 346 2305S OLD DIXIE HWY S. COUNTY LINE OSLO ROAD 860 430 44 0 38G

ATTACHMENT 6ii1 l!NK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PRO,IECT AVAIL 2310N OLO DIXIE HWY OSLO ROAD 4.THSTRE;l;T 286 0 530 2a1os OLD Dl>C!E HWY OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET ''° 439 41" 5 ~15N OLD OIXIE HwY 4THSTREET BTHSTREET ''°810 4Tt 14 0 "',,. 23155 OLD OIXIE HWY 4THSTRE;ET BTHSTRl;El 810 615 12 • 17a 2~0N O!.D OIX!E HWY 8THSTREET 12TM STREET 810 522 3 0 ,as 23205 OLD 00(1~ HWY BTHSTREET 12TH STRE-ET 810 704 5 5 2:J.25N OLD DIXIE HWY 12THSTREET S. VBCITYL 810 560 3 0 " 23258 OLD iJIX!E HWY 12TH STP.!=ET e_110r,rv1. 810 "' G34 • i.73 2330N OLO DIXIE HWY S, VBCrrYL 16THSTREET 850 '82 '3 0 465 2330S Ol:DDOOE;HWY S. VBCITYL. 16THSTREET 850 3 0 460 2~5N OLOOlXIEHWY 16'THSTREET $.R. 50 650 "''331 29 0 490 23355 OLD DIXU: HWY 16THSTREET S.R. 60 650 244 18 0 588 2345N OLD OlXIE HWY 41STST.REl:T 45THSTREET 660 231 38 0 591 2-3455 OLD DIXIE HWY 41ST STREET -15THSTREET 860 19' 24 0 64' ~.J!\ON OIJJ O!XIE f'IWV 45THSTRCET Jlgy}-1 ST~E.ET 860 106 so 0 704 2'00$ OLDOtxlEHWY 45THSTREEr 491l-l STREET 860 157 34 0 669 '..355N OLODD.431)S 'ZTTHAVENUE 4THSTREET 8THSTREET 1020 367 ,,, 0 430 2440N 2TTHAVENUC ant STREET 12THSTREET 1020 465 87 0 446 244-0S 2TrHAVENUE BTHSTREET 12THSTREeT 1020 750 162 0 10, -N 27TMAVENUE 12THSTREET S. VSCITYL. 1020 759 0 183 2450S 27THA\JENUE 12n(STR-EET S. VBC!TYL 1020 340 139" 5 2460N 2YrHAVENUE S. V8CITYL. 16TH STF!f:ET 1020 456 73 0 491"'' 2460S 7.TTHAVENUE S, VB~ITYL. 1-6THSTREET 1020 797 133 5 85 2470N 2TrHAVENUE 18Tii STREET S.-R. 60 1020 451 41 0 526 2470$ 2HHAVENIJE 16THSlREE.T S.R. 60 1020 735 71 0 214 2480N 27THAVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. '10 455 19 0 335 24aos 2TTHAVENUE S.R. 60 ATLANTIC BLVD. 810 237 27 0 546 2510N zrTHAVENlJE ATLANTIC BLVD. AVlA1'10N BLVD. 810 252 12 0 ,.. 2510$ 2TrHAVENUE ATlANT!C-SLVD. AVIATION BlVD. 810 504 13 0 293 2530E OSLO-ROAO 22NDAVE. !33THAVE. 670 234 . 1 0 mow OSLOROAO 82NDAVE. 58THAVE. 670 197 -11 0 '" 2540E OSLO ROAD 58THAVE. 43RDAVE, Ul53 583 215 • 1147'" 2.540W OSLO ROAD fiBTHAVE. 43:R.OAVE. 1953 469 115 1362 2550i;. OSLO ROAD 43RDAVE. 27THAVE. 1953 77S 214 2550W OSLO ROAD 43R0AVE. 27THAVF... 1553 ' '" "" 7 1124 25&0E OSLO ROAD '27TH AVE. 20THAVE. 1953 537 "'176 0 1240 2560W OSlOROAD 27THAVE. 20THAVE. 1'953 647 151 0 1105 2570E OSlOROAD 20THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 195::l 265 6 109' 2570W OSLO ROAD ::l0THAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 19MI 709"' 178 6 970 2580E OSLOROAO OLD OlXtE HWY U.5.1 1953 735 97 5 1116 2SOOW OSLO RO.AD OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 195'3 580 0 2610N 6THAVEt-lUE 17TMSTREET $, V8 CITYL. 860 299 "0 0 ""'501 2610$ 6THAVENUE 17THSTREE1' S. VB CITVL. 660 360 0 491 2620N !ITH AVENUE S. VBCITYL S.R.60 850 330 0 S19 26205 BTHAVENUE S. VBCITYL S.R..60 850 368 0 0 432 2110N 1DTHAVEN1JE S.R. 6D ROYAL PALM BLVO. am 77 0 0 733 27105 10THAVENUE S.R.60 ROYAL PALM BLVD. 810 0 741 2120N 10THAVENUE. ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17THSTREET 810 21B" 0 0 .. ,

ATTACHMENT 6 • LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT AVAIL. 2720S 1DTHAVENUE ROYAL PALM BLVD. 17THSTREET 810 372 0 437 2810N 20Tl-iAVENUE OSLOROAO 4THSTA.f-LTT 860 401 11' 6 30, 28105 20THAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 860 437 128 6 289 2820N 20TflAVENUE 4TH STREET 8THSTREET 810 364 50 7 389 2-!!205 20THAVENUE 41HSIREET 8THSTREEf 810 625 63 114 2.830N 20THAV£NUE aTHSTREET 12iJ.ISTREET 810 3'2 7' 411 2830S 20THA\/ENUE RTHSTREET 12THSTREET 010 624 "44 a 134 2840N 20TH AVENUE 12THSTREIT S, \laCl1Yl. mo 42-8 • 1:2!>? 28405 20rHAVE.NUE 12lHSTREET S. 'VBCITYL 1710 624 32" 0 1054 2600N 2DTHAVENUF. S, VB CITYL. 16THSTREE;T 1800 428 15 0 1357 20THAVENUE S.VBCITYL i6THSTREET 1800 624 30 0 1146- """'2660N 20THAVENUE 1sTH sm,eer S.R,60 1800 334 32 6 1434 2860S 20THAVENUE 16iH STREET S.R60 1aco 425 54 0 1321 2B7DN 20THAVENUE S.R.60 ATl.ANTICSLVO. '50 193 0 .,. :i870S 20THAVENUE S.R.60 ATLANTIC BLVD. " 650 113 0 .., 2905N 43-ROAVl;NUf; $, COUNTY LINE OSLOROAO 950 366 1'6" 0 388 2905$ 43-ROAVENUE S. COUNTYUNE OSLO ROAD 950 378 314 253 2910N 43ROAVENUE OSLOROAO 4THSTREET 1068 514 305 '0 249 2910S 43ROAVENUE OSLOROAO 4THSTREl;T 1068 ... 272. 0 332 29t5N 43ROAVENUE 4THSTREET 8TI-ISTREET 1020 .., 151 1 180 29159 43RDAVENU!: 4THSTREET 8THSTRE!:T 1020 524 :128 • 260 2920N 43RDAVENUE 8THSTNeET 12THSTREET 1071 534 137 10 390 29208 43RDAYeNUf 6THSTRf.E"r l2THSTREE"r 1071 715 201 11 144 ?..825111 4'3R.OAVENUE 12THSTREET 1!iTHSTREET 1071 581 130 0 380 292ss 43ROAVENUE 12THSTREET 16THSTREET 1071 756 187 • 2930N -43-ROAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1796 699 .. , 0 ...'" 29305 43RDAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.60 1796 772 0 825 2935N 43RDA.\/ENUE S.R.60 26n-lSTREET 1796 491 "'116 0 1189 29356 4SROAVENUE S.R.60 :Z6TH S1.REET 1796 ;l53 100 0 11'3 2940N 43ROAVENU:E 26THSTREET 41STSTREET aso · 421 150 0 283 2940S 43RDAVENI..Ji; 26THSTnEET ?1STSTREEi 880 404 137 5 234 2945N 43RDAVENUE 41STSTREET 45THS7REET '60 341 98 0 421 2945S 43ROAVENUE 41STSTREf:T 45THSTREET 8'0 351 86 5 418 2"950N 43RDAVENUE 45THSTRE!;T 49THSTREET 860 14' 91 0 02' 2950S 43RDAVENUE 4STHS'rREET 49TH;STREET 860 202 73 0 ... 3005N -SaTH AVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THST:REET 11360 499 64 10 12'7 3005S 58'fHAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREET 1860 '49 127 ,, 1173 3010N 58THAVENL1E 4THSTft.EET 8THSTREH 1710 8'9 .., 12 965 3010S 58THAVENUE -4THSTREET STHSTREe-!" 1710 733 95 13 ... 3015N -58THAVENUE 8Ttts·rREET 12T-HSTREET 1710 862 105 15 728 3015$ 58THAVE-NUE &TH STREET 12THSTRE!;T 1710 ... 112 16 6'4 ~D20N 58THAV£NUE 12TH$TREer 16TH STREET 1710 $40 m 32 606 3020S &:!TH AVENUE 12TI-ISTREET fGTHSTREET 17~0 1028- 123 as .,. 58THA.VCNUE l6THSTRE:ET S.R.60 1710 1308 173 .,. ""'"3'l2SS 5STHAVENUE 16THSTREET S.R.-60 1710 133/l 180 "60 132 3030N 58THAVENU~ S.R.60 41ST STREET 1860 112-6 205 27 502 3030S 58THAVENUE S.R.00 41STSTREl:T 1860 096 125 25 m 3035N 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET ,isTH STREET 860 566 101 .. 177 3035S 58THAVENUE 41STSTREET 4!iTHSTRFFT 860 520 15 ... 3040N 58rtiAV£MUE 45TliSTREET 49TH S'fREET 800 536 128"' 11 185 3(>105 5STHAVENU!; 45THSTREET 49THSTREET 860 472 52 10 326 3045N 5aTHAVENUE 49TH STREET 65THSTR:EET 860 656 41 10 147 3045S 58THAVf;NUE 49THSTREET 65THSTREET 860 562 43 g 24& 3050N 58THAVENUE 65TH.STREET 69THSTREET 860 461 £6 6 3050S 58THAVENUE 65TH STREET 6!ITH STREET 860 394 64 6 "'37< 3055N :58THAVENUE 69TH STREET C.R..510 860 461 BB • 323 3-055$ 58THAVENUE 591H STREET C.R510 660 396 94 7 363 3120N 66THAVENUE S.R. 60 2STtl STREET 860 467 177 14 202 3"120S 66THAVENUE S.R. 60 26TH STRl!ET 860 556 128 13 163

ATTACHMENT 6.,. LINK ON STREET FROM STREET TO STREET CAPACITY EXIST. VESTED PROJECT AVAIL 3130N 116'fH AVENUE 26THSTREET 41S'i'STREET 8SO 566 134 16 144 3130S 66THAVENUE 26THSTREET 415TSTREET aoo 624 120 15 201 3140N 66TH.AVl:NUE 41STSTRF.ET 45THSTREET 950 665 55 13 317 3140S 66TMAVENUE 41$T5TREET 45THSTR!:eT 461 52 12 425 3150N 6GTHAVENUE 45TI-J STREET 65THSTREET ''°870 553 53 13 251 3150S 65THAVENUE -45THSTREET 65THSTREel" 870 430 49 12 31tiON 66THAVENUE 65iH.SiREET 69THSTREET 870 542 18 "'291 31605 11an1 AvENu~ 6STf-lSTREEr llQT},I s-rpci:=-r- 870 411 "12 421 317DN 66THAVENUE ll~THSTREET C.R. 510 870 578 "11 10 271 -3170S '66Tl1AVENUE 69THSTREET C.R. 610 870 408 12 9 -W1 3310N 32NDAVE:NUE OSLO ROAD 4TM STREET 950 171 4 0 776 33105 ti2NDAVENUE OSLO ROAD 4THSTREl:T .. , 166 5 0 n, 3320N 82NDAVENUE 4'rH STREET 12TH STREET 950 191 10 0 749 $~OS 821\1D AVENUE 4THSTREET 12THSTREET 950 158 8 0 ,., S~ON 82NDAVl:NU!. 12THSTRE.ET S.R,60 860 2 .. "' 0 33;!0$ 82NDAVENUE 12TH STREET S,R, 60 660 220 26 0 '"614 '3340N 82NDAVENUE S.R. llO 65THSTREET 410 12 4 0 3340$ 82NDAVENlJF. .S,lt60 65THSTREET 410 21 7 0 382'" 3'50N 82NDAVENUE 65THST-REET 09THSTREET 410 17 0 393 3350S 82NDAVENUE 65THSffiEET 651THSTREET 410 15 0 0 SS.'i, 3610E 7-TTH-:STREET fl6THAVE. U.S.1 820 124 6 0 '90 "610W nTHSTREET 66THAVE. U.S.1 12' • '90 ~710E 6STJ I SiRCGT 132NOAVE. fl6TH.AVE. '"410 17 1• 0 375 3710W 6STH STflEET A:?t-.lO'JWe. 66THAVf;. 410 15 16 0 377 3720€ 69THSTREET 66TMAVE. 5BTHAVE. 870 119 • 0 745 ,now 69THSTRE!:T 66THAVE. 56'fHAVE. 870 55 7 0 ,.. 373bE -69THSTREET !,iaTHAVE, OLD DIXIE HWY 870 .. 25 0 796 3730W 69THSTREET SBTHAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 670 59 12 7"' 3'f40E 0011-ISTREET OLO DIXlf: HWY U.S.1 670 46 11 0 813 3740W · 69TH STREET OLD DIXiE HWY U,S.1 670 .8 11 0 811 3820E l;iSlHSTREET 66THAVE. 5!ITHAVE. '81(1 50 21 0 7ll9 3820W 65THSTREET 66THAVE. ,56THAVE. 870 41 4 0 825 38lOE 65TH STREET 58THAVE. OLD DIXlE HWY . 870 98 2' 748 3830W -65THSTRE!ET 58THAve. OLD DlXiE HWY 870 64 18 '0 788 3840E 65THSTREET OLO DIXIE HWY U.S.1 670 62 4 0 804 3840\1\1 SSTHSTREGT OLD DIXIE HWY U.S.1 870 72 6 0 ,., 4220E 49THSTREET 66THAVE. SSTHAVE. 860 31 31 0 790 4220W 49THSTREET 66THAVE. 5STHAVE. 860 19 716 42301:; 4-sTH STR!:ET 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 860 "'23. 34 0 003 423\1W 49'ft1 STREET 58THAVE:. 43RDAVE. 860 173 22 0 665 4240E 49TH STREF.T 43RDAVE. OLD OIXIE. HWY 810 187 105 513 4240W 49THSTREET 43RDAVE, OLD 01)(!£:. HWY 010 213 82 0 515 425DE 49THSTRE8" OLD DIXtE HWY U.S.1 610 146 0 635 4250W 4STl I GTRCCT OLD DIXIE HWY U,$,1 810 ., ",. 0 m 43WE 45THSTREET 66THAVE. &THAVE. 860 62 19 0 759 4320W 45TH $-rREET 66THAVE. 58THAVE. 600 127 12 0 721 4330E 45THSTR:EET 58THAVE. 43ROAVE. 860 213 31 0 610 4330W 45THSTREET 58THAVE. 43RC' .AVE.. 660 255 42 0 563 4340E 451HSTREET 43ROAVF.. nJ. 0- 01XIE HWY 860 352 49 0 4340W 45THSTREET 43RDAVE. OLD DIXIE HWY 860 75 "' '22 • 303 4350E 45THSTREET OLD OJXIE If.MY !NDIAN ruveR BlVD. 860 230 84 0 546 4350W 45THSTRE-ET OLD DIXlE HWY INDIAN RIVER BLVD. 800 267 85 0 508 4420E 41STSTREET 661HAVE. 58THAVE. 870 109 28 0 733 4420W 41STSTREET 66TH AVE. 5STHAve. 870 120 10 0 74

S:\047\047608001 Century Town Centet\10-06 99,819 Sq. rt. Traffic Study"\[Unk Tabfes 12~19-05.xls]link Percent

ATTACHMENT 64 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS / 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960-3365

Telephone: (772) 567-8000

April / 27 / 2006

CRF/ CRF PANTHER IX LLC 500 SOUTH FLORIDA AVE #700 LAKELAND, FL 33801

RE: 5 YEAR INITIAL CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION FOR PRE-APP/CCl5/SPMJ ··...:::- PROJECT NUMBER: 2004060358

Dear CRF/ CRF PANTHER IX LLC: •

Please find enclosed a five year Initial Certificate of Concurrency Determination valid for up to five years from the date of certificate issuance. Within this period you may obtain your building permit.

Sincerely, 5~~;~ //~ Sasan Rohani, AICP Chief, Long Range Planning

cc: File Dave Cox

Enclosure: Certificate,,·• .,

certcci5.letter

ATTACHMENT 7 1 · CERTIFICATE OF CONCURRENCY DETERMINATION - INITIAL- 5

PROJECT NUMBER: 2004060358

EXPIRATION DATE: 4/27/2011

ISSUED TO:

CRF/ CRF PANTHER IX LLC 500 SOUTH FLORIDA A VE #700 LAKELAND, FL 33801-

APPLICANT:

i CRF/ CRF PANTHER IX LLC -~ -· ,/!"_,. 500 SOUTH FLORIDA A VE #700 LAKELAND, FL 33801

FOLIO NUMBER: 33-39-05-00001-0090-00003,0

SUBJECT PROPERTY ADDRESS: 5945 20TH

This is to certify that adequate Transportation, Solid Waste, Drainage, Parks, Water and Sewer facilities have been determined to be available pursuant to the Indian River County Concurrency Management System and capacities are hereby allocated for the following use(s).

USE DESCRIPTION UNITS QUANTITY

840 COMM 100,001-200,000 GSF GSF 102900

This certificate of adequate facilities "runs with the land" as described herein. This certificate is therefore transferable with the property, but may not be tra ed to any other property,

cert,ccdi5

ATTACHMENT 7 J 'L .Ll'l-1.••••v•--•

'

----~:,-;

~--_JI.

0 0 N

z :c~ 0 "' ~ w " ~ cl "'

0

...... ,, ... J.8 ltVO Vat!ID1:l ·1s 4lDZ 91'69 <131N30 NMOl A

'J lN31'1HOVJ..LV

II !! II

! ' i'i I I ~;' 0

\:

!!; ' ':l .,, I Iu z ~ 5 f i'i ~ i ! ~ ~ i 0 0 0

ATTACHMENT · 6

Sh Public Hearing (Quasi-Judicial) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

evelopment Director

THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long R. nge Planning c;'Y(_.,

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

DATE: December 20,.2006

RE: Chesnut and Smith's Request to Rezone ±3.35 acres from CL to CG (REZON 2006110122-56987)

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

Thi~ is a request by the owners of two adjacent parcels to rezone ±3.35 acres from CL, Limited Commercial District, to CG, General Commercial District. Depicted in the figure below, the subtct property is located east of US Highway 1 and approximately I 000 feet south of 77 Street. The owner of one property is Kenneth Chesnut, while the adjoining property owners are Victor and Kathy Smith:

The subject property includes Mr. Chesnut' s parcel, which is the northern ± .54 acre portion of the area to be rezoned to CG, and the 2.81 acres that are immediately to the south and owned by the Smiths. The Smiths' entire property consists of 4.84 acres and is in two zoning districts, CL and RS-3, Single Family Residential (up to 3 units/acre). Only the western 2.81 acre CL zoned portion of the Smith property is to be rezoned to CG. The purpose of this request is to secure the necessary zoning to develop the subject property with uses permitted in the CG zoning district.

Existing Land Use Pattern

This area of the County is a mixture of commercial and residential zoning districts. Zoned CL, the subject property contains structures used for residential and commercial uses. The property to the north of the subject property is zoned CL, Limited Commercial,

I and is a vacant, wooded area. The property that is to the east of the northern ½ acre of the subject property is zoned CL and is also a vacant, wooded site. To the east of the 2.81 acre portion of the subject property, is the remainder of the Smith's property, which is zoned RS-3 and contains an accessory structure and a pond. The property to the south of the subject property is zoned CL and contains the Polish-American Social Club of Vero Beach. To the west and across U.S. Highway 1, land is zoned CL and contains a lawn and garden center and a vacant, wooded parcel.

Location and Zoning of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

RM-6

RM-6

IG>

A-1

Future Land Use Pattern

The subject property and properties to the north, northeast, south, and west are designated C/I, Commercial/Industrial, on the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. The C/I designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. The land that is east of the southern 2.81 acre portion of the subject property is designated L-1, Low Density Residential-I, on the Comprehensive Plan's Future Land Use Map. The L-1 designation allows residential densities up to 3 units/acre.

Environment

Both parcels of the subject site contain structures; therefore, the property is an altered site. The Comprehensive Plan does not designate the subject property as environmentally

2 important or environmentally sensitive. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is not within a flood hazard area.

Utilities and Services

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

Transportation System

The property's west boundary abuts U.S. Highway 1, which is classified as a Principal Arterial on the Future Roadway Thoroughfare Plan Map. This segment of U.S. Highway 1 is a 4-lane paved road with approximately 120 feet of existing public road right-of-way. According to the County's Comprehensive Plan, an additional 40 feet of right-of way is the needed for improvements to this segment of U.S. Highway 1.

Land Use Designation of Subject Property and Surrounding Properties

Zoning District Differences

In terms of permitted uses, there are both similarities and differences between the existing CL district and the proposed CG district. The differences between the zoning districts are

3 best illustrated by their respective purpose statements. · These purpose statements, found in the County's Land Development Regulations (LDRs), are as follows:

CG: General Commercial District: The CG, General Commercial, district is intended to provide areas for the development of general retail sales and selected service activities. The CG district is not intended to provide for heavy commercial activities such as commercial service uses, heavy repair services, nor industrial uses.

CL: Limited Commercial District: The CL, Limited Commercial, district is intended to provide areas for the development of restricted commercial activities. The CL district is intended to accommodate the convenience retail and service needs of area residents, while minimizing the impact of such activities on any nearby residential areas.

ANALYSIS

In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the rezonmg 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's 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 also require the review of new development to ensure the maintenance of the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities.

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 require that concurrency reviews be based upon the most intense use of the subject property allowed by the requested zoning. For the requested CG zoning, the most intense use (according to the County's LDRs) is retail commercial with 10,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre. The site information used for the concurrency analysis is as follows:

4 1. Size of Area to be Rezoned: ±3.35 acres

2. Existing Zoning District: CL, Limited Commercial

3. Most Intense Use Under . Existing Zoning District: 33,500 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial

4. Proposed Zoning District: CG, General Industrial·

5. Most Intense Use Under Proposed Zoning District: 33,500 sq. ft. of Retail Commercial

As per section 910.07(2)(1) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's Land Development Regulations, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This rezoning request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested zoning would not increase the use intensity of the site.

When new development is proposed for the subject property, a more detailed concurrency analysis will be conducted during the development approval process.

Consistency with Comprehensive Plan

Rezoning requests are reviewed for consistency with all applicable policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Rezoning requests must also show consistency with the overall designation of land uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, commercial, and industrial land uses and their densities.

The goais, objectives, and policies are the most important parts of the Comprehensive Plan. Policies are statements in the Comprehensive Plan that identify actions that the County will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the County, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing rezoning requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies:

Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16

Future Land Use Element Policy 1. 15 states that all commercial/industrial uses must be located within the county's urban service area. Future Land Use Element Policy 1.16 states that the commercial/industrial land use designation shall permit uses that include retail, office, and service commercial development.

Since the subject property is located within the County's urban service area, and the requested CG district is intended for uses permitted within the commercial/industrial land

5 use designation, the request is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.15 and 1.16.

Summary of Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan

While the referenced policies are particularly applicable to this request, other Comprehensive Plan policies and objectives also have relevance. For that reason, staff evaluated the subject request for consistency with all applicable plan policies and objectives. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the request is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan.

Compatibility with the Surrounding Area

Located along U.S. Highway I, the subject property abuts commercial/industrial designated land to the north, northeast, west and south. Generally, sites such as the subject property that front on major roads may be appropriate for any one of several different commercial zoning districts, including CL, CG and CH.

Like the subject property, land to the north, south, and west is zoned CL, Limited Commercial. The requested CG zoning will not be incompatible with those CL zoned properties. Although the CL and CG districts allow some of the same uses, the CG district is generally more oriented towards general retail and highway commercial uses than the CL district. Because general retail and highway commercial uses need frontage on or near major roads, lots with frontage on U.S. Highway 1 are particularly appropriate for CG zoning.

Since the property that is east of the .54 acre portion of the subject property is zoned CL, that property will serve as a transition between the requested CG zoning and the RS-3 zoning that is farther to the east. Although the 2.81 acre portion of this rezoning request is on property with both a CL and a RS-3 zoning district, the entire property is under the same owner; therefore, the owner can provide the appropriate buffering and separation from other RS-3 zoned properties to the east.

For those reasons, staff feels the subject property, under the proposed zoning district, will be compatible with surrounding areas.

Potential Impact on Environmental Quality

The environmental impacts are the same for the CG and CL zoning districts. Since there are no wetlands or environmentally sensitive features on this site, 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 the surrounding area, consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies

6 of the Comprehensive Plan, and meets all applicable concurrency criteria. 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 CL to CG.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Summary Page 2. Rezoning Application

F:\Community Development\Users\LONG RANGE\Rzon\Chesnut-Smith\PZC item - C&S.doc

7 SUMMARY PAGE GENERAL Applicant: Kenneth Chesnut Nictor and Kathy Smith Location: 7540 U.S, Highway 1 Acreage: ±3.35 Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial Existing Zoning: CL, Limited Commercial District Requested Zoning: CG, General Commercial District Existing Land Use: Residential and commercial structures

ADJACENT LAND North: Vacant, wooded land; zoned CL, Limited Commercial East: Vacant, wooded land; zoned CL, Limited Commercial and RS-3, Single Family Residential District (up to 3 units/acre) South: Polish American Social Club; zoned CL, Limited Commercial West: Land and garden center and vacant land; zoned CL, Limited Commercial

INFRASTRUCTURE Wastewater service is available from North County Regional Wastewater Treatment Facility, and potable water service is available from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant; access from U.S. Highway I.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None I Flood Zone X

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION Staff Contact: Gale Carmoney Date Advertised: Dec. 27, 2006 # of Surrounding Property Owners Notified: 6 Date Notification Mailed: Dec. 27, 2006 Date Sign Posted: Dec. 28, 2006

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the request

Attachment 1

8 t_..,...

APPLICATION FORM REZONING REQUEST (RZON) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

Assigned Project Number: RZON -

Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Purchaser) Name: V,de,, L So.:¥.- (T~ 5 Ko.'ri- A 5,.;-,'I. i -& Complete Mailing ':,1.0 C,o.cniv~I Te.n<1u Address: ~\,,.,Ii;._-.. l'L ",?.'\':\S · Phone #: (including area code) Fax#: (including area code) E-Mail: Contact Person:

Property Information

Site Address: 'l S"l.\O U::,'l

Site Tax Parcel LD. #s: ~?_-,.,~~, 0~ • OO'C>DO - ':!,COO - 0 Q()<:> ~ .6

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) Sec:. pho be k;g:i I

Existing Zoning District: __C.,_-""'L"------Existing Land Use Designation: -~~----C /;r.

Requested Zoning District: _ __,C=G'----~ c.i,...,t .,...< :,.,,u."'-R -~'1 !2 !2.5 Total (gross) Acreage of Parcel: 3.3S ;;i..~/ t Acreage (net) to be Amended: __;=:,---'.~='----

Existing Use on Site: __,_N;:..;u_.t.....,""-'+------­

Proposed Use on Site: -'-'N'-'u...,r...... :s ...e ...l'"-')'1------

1

AffACHM!NT 26' \

APPLICATION FORM REZONING REQUEST (RZON) INDIAN RIVER COUNTY

Each application must be complete when snbmitted and must include all required attachments. Au incomplete application will not be processed and will be retnrnedt-::o~-- applicant. . '',\'•,_Y•j 1617 1/J {O;,, Assigned Project Number: RZON - 2 ()0 6/!D !Z L-- - ~h q81 ~"',,) <~ ,f,- ;~{:.~. ~ \•;,"- { ,, Q/ ·-i:'

Complete Mailing 1660 LAS \/· Address: ~lvo °teiJC.h FL.~21'! (Q 1 Phone #: (including area code 172.-5w3-()Q04 172- ':::,tgC\-00~5 Fax#: (including area code E-Mail: Contact Person:

Property Information

Site Address: __1_!_5=5~D~_:U,<_S...,__.:ck\-uvv,,_'/:,i..,....• ...1l--1-j __,Yi""c:"c:,.',0~1::e,::'.!da!.,M..c.bL.4,...1F--'-L""--"3~'zc;:J~(osl./_J7c.______

Site Tax Parcel I.D. #s: -;>2.-~C) -0$ - C(XX)O- 3COO - OCOOE-,. \

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) . see p la,n ·£n-- le<3al

Existing Zoning District: _ __;C=-L=-----­ Existing Land Use Designation: __...,C,../,_,_I ___

Requested Zoning District: __C_(S~---..-.-,1-. t :;l,'6(.. 1 . , ' :r ~,.._d'l", 5 Total (gross) Acreage of Parcel: ..3. ~5 ct-;.Jw.: Acreage (net) to be Amended: ---"3"-'-'.~==----

Existing Use on Site:· _ _,,Dce:t,__tj,_·Lc,C:e...=------Proposed Use on Site: ___7\cn=.ll'__,_t\.,,__.______Public Hearing 513 (Legislative)

INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission

e elopment Director

THROUGH: Sasan Rohani, AICP; Chief, Long-Rang Planning g;. .J/

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

DATE: January 2, 2007

RE: United Indian River Packers LLC.'s Request for Approval of a Small Scale Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Map Amendment to Redesignate 8.36 Acres From L-2 to C/I and to rezone those 8.36 acres From RM-6 to IL; and Highpointe LLC.'s Request to Redesignate 8.36 Acres From C/I to L-1

PLAN AMENDMENT NUMBER: LUDA 2006070097-57058 and LUDA 98100081-57057; REZONE NUMBER: REZON 2006070097-57058

It is requested that the following information be given formal consideration by the Planning and Zoning Commission at its regular meeting of January 11, 2007.

DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS

This is a request for a small scale land use designation amendment involving a land use swap on 2 separate parcels and a rezoning on only one of these properties. Individually, the properties are approximately 8.36 acres in size and are located along or in close proximity to a 2 mile segment of US Highway 1 and the Old Dixie Highway corridor. The first site, depicted in Figure I, is subject property 1, a 8.36 acre parcel located west of Old Dixie Hwy and north of77th Street. This 8.36 acre site is a portion of a larger parcel which contains the citrus packinghouse for United Indian River Packers. The request is to change the land use designation for this property from L-2, Low-Density Residential-2 (up to 6 units/acre), to C/I, Commercial Industrial, and to rezone those 8.36 acres from RM-6, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), to IL, Limited Industrial District. Currently, the RM-6 zoned property cannot support those uses found on the remainder of the parcel that contains the packinghouse. By changing the land use designation and zoning on subject property 1, the entire site can be developed and used for citrus packinghouse activities.

1 The second site is subject property 2, which is located approximately 1,700 feet south of 65th Street and 800 feet west of Old Dixie Hwy. Depicted in Figure 2, subject property 2 is a 8.36 acre parcel that is currently designated C/I, Commercial Industrial, is zoned PD, Planned Development, and is a portion of the undeveloped High Point Planned Development. The request is to change the land use designation on this 8.36 acre parcel from C/I to L-1, Low Density Residential-I (up to 3 units/acre). No zoning change is requested for subject property 2.

The purpose ofthese requests is to secure the land use designation and zoning necessary to allow the swap of the L-2 land use designation on subject property 1 for an equivalent amountofC/I land use designation on subject property 2. This land use designation swap will permit the owners of subject property 1 to expand operations of the existing citrus packinghouse or develop the site with uses associated with the packinghouse as needed. The change in land use designation on subject property 2 will not affect the use of this property, as the overall development plan is controlled by the approved PD site plan which does not require a commercial land use designation.

Comprehensive Plan Amendment Review Procedures

Although the number of standard plan amendments that a local government may consider is not limited, the frequency with which local governments can amend their comprehensive plans is regulated by state law. According to Florida Statutes, standard plan amendments are limited to twice per calendar year.

For that reason, the county accepts standard plan amendment applications only during the two window months of January and July. All requests submitted during each window month are processed simultaneously. That method ensures that standard plan amendments will be adopted no more than twice per calendar year.

State law, however, provides several exceptions to the twice per calendar year limitation. One of those exceptions is for small-scale plan amendments. Consequ(:ntly, a local government may adopt small-scale amendments, such as the subject plan amendment, without regard for the twice per calendar year limitation. For that reason, the proposed amendment is exempt from the twice per calendar year adoption limit.

Because small scale plan amendments are deemed to have · fewer impacts than typical plan amendments, small scale amendments are eligible for a streamlined adoption process. In contrast to typical plan amendments which require review and approval by the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA), local governments may adopt small scale plan amendments without review or approval by DCA.

Section I 63 .3187(1 )(c) of the Florida Statutes sets the following criteria for small scale amendments:

I. The proposed amendment involves 10 or fewer acres;

2. The cumulative effect of the acreage for all small scale amendments in the jurisdiction does not exceed 80 acres in a calendar year;

2 3. The proposed amendment does not involve the same property granted a land use designation change within the prior 12 months;

4. The proposed amendment does not involve the same owner's property within 200 feet of property granted a land use designation change within the prior 12 months;

5. The proposed amendment does not involve a change to the comprehensive plan's text;

6. The subject property is not within an area of critical state concern; and

7. The proposed amendment does not involve increasing residential density above IO units/acre.

In this case, the procedures for reviewing the subject comprehensive plan amendment will be as follows. First, the Planning and Zoning Commission conducts a public hearing to review the request. The Commission has the option to recommend approval or denial of the comprehensive plan amendment and rezoning request to the Board of County Commissioners. Foilowing Planning and Zoning Commission action, the Board takes final action to approve or deny the land use amendment and rezoning request.

Location and Zoning of Snbject Property 1 and Surrounding Properties

RM-8 Figure 1-Map Not To Scale

3 Existing Land Use Pattern

Subject Property 1 Subject property 1 is zoned RM-6, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre), and is the western half of a larger parent parcel that contains a citrus packinghouse on the eastern portion. The packinghouse site is zoned IL, Light industrial. Properties that abut 77th Street to the south ofthe parent parcel and subject property 1 are zoned A-1, Agricultural-1 (1 unit/5 acres), and IL, Light Industrial, and contain two single family homes. To the north and west of subject property 1, land is zoned PD, Planned Development, and contains the Red Stick Golf Club. East ofthe subject property and across Old Dixie Hwy, land is zoned CL, and is undeveloped.

Subject Property 2 Subject Property 2 is located within the southern portion of the approved Highpoint project and is zoned PD, Planned Development. All ofthe property to the north, east and west of subject property 2 is also zoned PD. South of subject property 2, land is zoned RM-4 and is the site of the Hawk's Nest Golf Club

Location and Zoning of Subject Property 2 and Surrounding Properties

Future Land Use Pattern

Subject Property 1 Subject property 1, depicted in figure 3, and the properties to the north and west of subject property 1 are designated L-2 on the county's future land use map. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre. Properties to the south and to the east of subject property 1 are

4 designated C/1 on the county's future land use map. The C/1 designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts.

Subject Property 2 As shown in figure 4, subject property 2 and the land to the north and east are designated as C/1 on the county's future land use map. The C/1 designation permits various commercial and industrial zoning districts. Land to the west of subject property 2 is designatedL-1, while the land to the south is designated L-2 on the county's future land use map. The L-1 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 3 units/acre. The L-2 designation permits residential uses with densities up to 6 units/acre.

Location and Land Use Designation of Subject Property 1 and Surrounding Properties

Environment

Subject Property 1 Subject property 1 is a cleared site and is not designated as environmentally sensitive or important in the county's comprehensive plan. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is not within a flood hazard area.

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

Subject Property 2 Subject property 2 consists of scrubby upland habitat and some wetlands. The property has the potential to be scrub jay habitat. According to Flood Insurance Rating Maps, the subject property is not within a flood hazard area.

Utilities and Services

Subject Properties 1-2 Both of the sites are within the Urban Service Area ofthe county. Wastewater service is available to the sites from the North Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, while potable water service is available from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant.

Transportation System

Subject Property 1 Subject Property 1 is accessed from 77th Street, a two lane paved road with approximately 80 feet of public right-of -way. This roadway is classified as a local road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. There are currently no planned road improvements for this section of 77th Street listed within the County's Comprehensive Plan through the year 2025.

6 Subject Property 2 Subject property 2 is part of a larger property, the High Point PD, which has frontage on 65th Street. This roadway is classified as an urban collector road on the future roadway thoroughfare plan map. Located within an approximate 80 foot existing public road and canal right-of-way, this segment of 65th Street is a two lane paved road. There are currently no planned road improvements for this section of 65th Street listed within the County's Comprehensive Plan through the year 2025.

ANALYSIS

In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the land use amendment request will be presented. Specifically, this analysis will address:

• 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

Both sites are located within the county Urban Service Area, an area deemed suited for urban scale development. The Comprehensive Plan establishes minimum development standards for: Transportation, Potable Water, Wastewater, Solid Waste, Stormwater Management and Recreation (Future Land Use Policy 3 .1 ). The adequate provision of these services is necessary to ensure the continued quality of life enjoyed by the community. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations (LDRs) require that new development be reviewed to ensure that the minimum acceptable standards for these services and facilities are maintained.

Policy 3 .2 of the Future Land Use Element states that no development shall be approved unless it is consistent with the concurrency management system component of the Capital Improvements Element. For Comprehensive Plan amendment requests, conditional concurrency review is required.

Conditional concurrency review examines the available capacity of each facility with respect to a proposed project. Since land use amendment requests are not projects, county regulations call for the concurrency review to be based upon the most intense use of the subject property based upon the requested land use designation. This request is to swap the land use designation on two separate properties, each ofwhich is 8 .36 acres in size. Although 8 .36 acres of C/I designated land on subject property2 is being swapped for 8.36 acres ofL-2 designated land on subject property 1, the land use designation on subject property 2 will be changed to L-1 so that the land use will be consistent with the L-1 designated land to the west of subject property 2. The concurrency analysis for both sites will be based on the intensity allowed by the proposed land use designation for each property.

Subject Properties 1 The request is to change the land use designation on 8.36 acres of subject property 1 from L-2 to C/I. For commercial/industrial land use amendment requests, the most intense use ( according to County LDRs) is general industrial with 20,000 square feet of gross floor area per acre ofland proposed for

7 redesignation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of subject property 1, the commercial/industrial portion of the proposed amendment, is as follows:

I. Size of Area Property I: 8.36 acres

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

3. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Existing Land Use Designation: 50 Multiple-Family Units

4. Proposed Land Use Designation: C/1, Commercial Industrial

5. Most Intense Use of Subject Property under Proposed Land Use Designation: 167,200 sq. ft. of General Industrial

Subject Property 2 The request is to change the land use designation on 8.36 acres of subject property 2 from C/I to L-1. For residential land use amendment requests, the most intense use (according to County LDRs) is the maximum number of units that could be built on the site, given the size of the property and the maximum density under the proposed land use designation. The site information used for the concurrency analysis of subject properties 2, the portion of the proposed amendment to be residentially designated, is as follows:

I. Size of Area properties I: 8.36 acres

2. Existing Land Use Designation: C/1, Commercial Industrial

3. Most Intense Use with Existing Land Use Designation: 167,200 sq. ft. of General Industrial

4. Proposed Land Use Designation: L-1, Low Density Residential-1 (up to 3 units/acre)

5. Most Intense Use with Proposed Land Use Designation: 25 Single Family Units

As per section 910.07(2) of the Concurrency Management Chapter of the County's LDRs, projects which do not increase density or intensity of use are exempt from concurrency requirements. This land use amendment request is exempt from concurrency review because the requested land use designation changes would not increase the square footage of general industrial use or the total number of potential units that the sites could accommodate. In fact, the total number of residential units allowed with this amendment request will lower the total number of residential units currently allowed under the existing land use designation.

It is important to note that there will be no effect on service levels for any public facility as a result of this land use designation amendment.

8 As with all projects, a detailed concurrency analysis will be done in conjunction with site development. That concurrency analysis will address facility service levels and demand.

Consistency with Comprehensive Plan

Land use amendment requests are reviewed for consistency with all policies of the comprehensive plan. As per section 800.07(1) of the county code, the comprehensive plan may only be amended in such a way as to preserve the internal consistency of the plan pursuant to Section 163.3177(2), FS. Amendments must also show consistency with the overall designation ofland uses as depicted on the Future Land Use Map, which includes agricultural, residential, recreational, conservation, and commercial and industrial land uses and their densities.

The goals, objectives and policies are the most important parts of the comprehensive plan. Policies are statements in the plan which identify actions which the county will take in order to direct the community's development. As courses of action committed to by the county, policies provide the basis for all county land development related decisions including plan amendment decisions. While all comprehensive plan objectives and policies are important, some have more applicability than others in reviewing plan amendment requests. Of particular applicability for this request are the following policies.

Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3

In evaluating a land use amendment request, the most important consideration is Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3. This policy requires that one of four criteria be met in order to approve a land use amendment request. These criteria are:

• The proposed amendment will correct a mistake in the approved plan;

• The proposed amendment will correct an oversight in the approved plan;

• The proposed amendment is warranted based on a substantial change in circumstances affecting the subject property; or

• The proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration of land use designations at separate sites and, that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map.

In this case, the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criterion. As specifically cited in the policy, the proposed amendment involves a swap or reconfiguration ofland use designations at two separate sites, and that swap or reconfiguration will not increase the overall land use density or intensity depicted on the Future Land Use Map. For those reasons, the proposed amendment meets the fourth criterion of Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.

9 Because the proposed amendment meets the policy's fourth criteria, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 14.3.

Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12

Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12 state that the L-1, Low-Density Residential-I, land use designation should be within the urban service area and is intended for urban and suburban scale residential development with densities up to 3 units/acre.

Located within the urban service area and near existing low density residential development, subject property 2 is appropriate for residential development with a density of up to 3 units/acre. The proposed amendment would allow low density residential development on subject property 2. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policies 1.11 and 1.12.

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15 states that the Commercial/Industrial land use designation should be within the urban service area in areas that are suitable for urban scale development and intensities.

Because subject property I is located adjacent to Old Dixie Hwy and is within the urban service area, the property is appropriate for commercial uses. The proposed amendment would allow commercial development on this property. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.15.

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20 states that nodes shall have a designated size based on the intended use, service area population, existing land use pattern and other demand characteristics.

The amount of C/1 designated land is based on service area population, the existing land use pattern, and other demand characteristics. The proposed amendment will not. alter the amount of C/I designated land. Therefore, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.20.

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22

Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22 states that 70% of the land area of a node should be developed with non-residential and non-agricultural uses before that node is considered for expansion "unless other wise warranted". The intent of this policy is to regulate increases in the amount of C!I designated land. Since the proposed amendment involves a land use designation swap that does not increase the density or intensity as depicted on the future land use map, the proposed amendment is consistent with Future Land Use Element Policy 1.22.

10 As part of the staff analysis, all relevant policies in the comprehensive plan were considered. Based upon that analysis, staff determined that the proposed land use designation amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plaµ.

Compatibility with the Surrounding Area

s·ubject Property 1 Subject Property 1 is the western half of a larger parcel that contains a citrus packinghouse on the eastern portion. The site containing the packinghouse is currently designated C/I and is zoned IL, Light Industrial. Properties to the south of subject property 1 are designated C/I and zoned A-1 and IL. Changing the land use designation on subject property 1 from L-2 to C/I and rezoning from RM-6 to IL will create an extension of an existing land use designation and zoning district that will produce a more compatible and consistent pattern and allow the entire site to be used for those activities associated with the packinghouse. Land to the north and west of subject property 1 contains the Red Stick Golf Club and is zoned PD, Planned Development. Any future development on the subject property will be required to install a six foot opaque Type "A" landscape feature along the perimeter to buffer the golf course from uses on the subject property.

Subject Property 2 Subject property 2 is part of a larger tract ofland that is designated C/I, Commercial Industrial, and is wooded and undeveloped. This entire large tract was approved as the Highpoint Planned Development, a new residential project. This new PD project will include the subject property. The proposed L-1 designation will not affect that proposed PD plan, and the PD plan, itself, will ensure compatibility.

Property to the west of the subject property is designated L-1, Low-Density Residential-I, and is a wooded, undeveloped site. Property to the south of the subject property is designated L-2 and is the site of the Hawk's Nest Golf Club.

For those reasons, development of the subject property under the proposed land use designation and zoning district will be compatible with surrounding areas.

Potential Impact on Environmental Quality

Subject Property 1 Subject property 1 is part of a larger parcel that contains a citrus packinghouse and therefore is an altered site. Since the subject property contains no environmentally important land, such as wetlands or sensitive uplands, development of the site is anticipated to have little or no impact on environmental quality. For this reason, no adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated.

Subject Property 2 Subject property 2 contains scrubby upland habitat and some wetlands. Because of the scrub vegetation on site, the subject property is suitable for scrub jay habitat. This site is a portion of a larger approved project that is currently being reviewed by county staff and the appropriate state and

11 larger approved project that is currently being reviewed by county staff and the appropriate state and federal agencies. An environmental survey ofthe property will be done prior to the issuance of a land development permit. Overall, the environmental impact will be the same for both the requested L-1 land use designation and the present C/I land use designation. Therefore, no additional, adverse environmental impacts associated with this request are anticipated.

CONCLUSION

The proposed amendment is consistent with the comprehensive plan, compatible with all surrounding land uses, and will cause no adverse impacts on the environment or the provision of public services. The proposed change increases land use efficiency and facilitates economic development. For these reasons, staff supports the request.

RECOMMENDATION

Based on the analysis, staff recommends that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend that the Board of County Commissioners approve the proposed land use amendments and the rezoning by redesignating 8.36 acres on subject property 1 from L-2 to C/I aqd rezoning those 8.36 acres from RM-6 to IL; and redesignating 8.6 acres on subject property 2 from C/I to L-1.

ATTACHMENTS

1. Summary Page Subject Property 1 2. Summary Page Subject Property 2 3. Land Use Designation Amendment Applications for Subject Properties 1 and 2 4. Rezoning Application for Subject Property 1

F:\Community Developmen'tUsers\LONG RANGBCompPlan Amendments.Small Scale Amendments.United Indian River Packers LLGPZC item UnitedRHighpointe.doc

12 SUMMARY PAGE Subject Property #1

GENERAL Location: West of Old Dixie Hwy and North of 77th Street Acreage: 8.36 acres Existing Land Use Designations: L-2, Low-Density Residential-2 (up to 6 units/acre) Requested Land Use Designation: C/I, Commercial/Industrial Existing Zoning: RM-6, Multiple-Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acre) Requested Zoning: IL, Light Industrial Existing Land Use: Vacant land

ADJACENT LAND North: Golf Course; zoned PD, Planned Development South: SFRs; zoned A-1, Agricultural-I (up to I unit/5 acres) and IL, Light Industrial East: Vacant lot; zoned CL, Limited Commercial West Golf Course; zoned PD, Planned Development

INFRASTRUCTURE Water is available from the North County Reverse Osmosis P.lant and seweris available from the North County Regional Wastewater Plant; access is from 77th Street.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None; Flood Zone X

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Staff Contact: Gale Carmoney Date Advertised: December 27, 2006 # of Surrounding Property Owner Notifications: 6 Date Notification Mailed: December 27, 2006 Date Sign Posted: December 28, 2006

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the request

13

Attachment 1 SUMMARY PAGE Subject Property #2

GENERAL Location: Approx 1,700 ft. south of 65th Street & 800 ft. west of Old Dixie Hwy Acreage: 8.36 acres Existing Land Use Designations: C/I, Commercial/Industrial Requested Land Use Designation: L-1, Low-Density Residential-I (up to 3 units/acre) Existing Zoning: PD, Planned Development Requested Zoning: PD, Planned Development (no change) Existing Land Use: Wooded, undeveloped

ADJACENT LAND North: Wooded, undeveloped; zoned PD, Planned Development South: Golf Course; zoned RM-4, Multiple Family Residential District (up to 4 units/acre) East: Wooded, undeveloped; zoned PD, Planned Development West Wooded, undeveloped; zoned PD, Planned Development

INFRASTRUCTURE Water is available from the North County Reverse Osmosis Plant and sewer is available from the North County Regional Wastewater Plant; access is from 65th Street.

ENVIRONMENTAL CONSTRAINTS None; Flood Zone X

PUBLIC NOTIFICATION

Staff Contact: Gale Carmoney Date Advertised: December 27, 2006 # of Surrounding Property Owner Notifications: 6 Date Notification Mailed: December 27, 2006 Date Sign Posted: December 28, 2006

STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff supports the request

14

Attachment 2 , ,. APPLICATION FORM •. . 1 I • 'i Lf ~ ·· LAND i t DESIGNATION AMENDMENT:C-UDA) r tr~------=e,i,=- INDIAN RIVER COUNTY hl'iiD 2829 lb'.!%

Planning Division accepts Land Use Designation Amendment application"'~! dmi~.tJ.!e /~,s. mont~s of January ~nd July of ea~h year. Each applic~tion must ~~o~!,itti,~ "'"J subnntted and ~us~mclude all reqmred atttchments. An mcomplete a~c~f,111:,!~,t"#y},, ~] . ''-·•-•,:ii w be returned to the app 1cant. f:;> be processed an r.fJ, u Q,.9 1 Assi=ed Proiect Number: LUDA - ~(>(J/,, 0'7007 1 -5'7D9< '

PARCELl Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Purchaser) Name: United Indian River N.A William W. Caldwell Packers, LLC Complete Mailing 4 310 77th Street 2125 Windward Way Address: Vero Beach, FL 32967 Vero Beach, FL 32963 Phone # (including area code) 772-589-4387 772-231-6540 Fax# (including area code) 772-589-6148 772-231-9540 E-Mail: exnortlmunitedcitrus.com [email protected] Contact Person: Thomas P. Kennedy William W. Caldwell

Si

Site Address: 431 O 77th Street, Vero Beach. FL 32967

Site Tax Parcel I.D. #s: 31-39-33-00000-7000-00034.0

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) NIA

Existimz Land Use Desiornation: L-2 and C/I Existin2: Zonin2: District: RM-6&IL

Requested Land Use Desionation: C/1 Requested Zonin2: District: IL

Total foross) AcreHoe of Parcel: 14.13 Acreage (net) to be Amended: 8.36

I Existing Use on Site: Portion of site is vacant· remainder o narcel contains a citrus nackin<> oneration.

Pronosed Use on Site: Lioht industrial develonment

ATTACHM.ENT APPLICATION FORM ,, l ud,

Complete Mailing 1910 82nd Avenue 2125 Windward Way Address: Vero Beach, FL 32966 Vero Beach, FL 32963 Phone # (including area code) 772-778-3143 772-231-6540 Fax # (including area code) 772-778-0295 772-231-9540 E-Mail: [email protected] caldwell2 [email protected] Contact Person: James R. Adams William W. Caldwell s·i!!Ilature or0w . ner /4,gent: ~ )h.)~r? ,-J ~- ' , ,? 0 0 .-\ ~ ) Property Information

Site Address: 4385 65th Street. Vero Beach. FL 32967

Site Tax Parcel I.D. #s: 32-39-10-00000-5000-00001.0

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) NIA

Existing Land Use Desi=ation: C/1 Existing Zoning District: PD

Reouested Land Use Desio-nation: L-1 Reouested Zoning District: PD

Total (gross) Acreru;,e of Parcel: 69.18 Acreage (net) to be Amended: 8.36

Existing Use on Site: Vacant

Prooosed Use on Site: Planned Develonment ·. ;;- . ~;' ~()\/ Zaw ,.!' Each application must be complete when submitted and must · · de -~IJo-.,,f~quI~a ,cm. attachments. An incomplete ·application will not be processed and will,\:-h,e r\~~ii,~idVtif.:t11.\ ·••1 app r1can. t ~--· . ··-· · tU.;;fr \~ . tfl/· . .~'1 AssiPTied Project Number: RZON - ..2l)Df;Jb'71)QC-fYJ -5?DSl' "-{£ !J/ -~) h I'~\' 1\;)'-"

Current Owner Applicant (Contract Agent Parcel 1: Purchaser) Name: United Indian River NIA William W. Caldwell Packers, LLC Complete Mailing 4310 77'1' Street 2125 Windward Way Address: Vero Beach, FL 32967 Vero Beach, FL 32963 Phone #: (including area code) 772-589-4387 772-231-6540 Fax#: (including area code) 772-589-6148 772-231-9540 E-Mail: [email protected] caldwell2 [email protected] Contact Person: Thomas P. Kennedy William W. Caldwell Si!!Ilature of Owner /4e~J tJ&,. .h__) ;:: -:...7 / - , , ..{' O> 0 ' - I ' Pronecty Information Parcel 1

Site Address: 4310 77ili Street. Vero Beach. FL 32967

Site Tax Parcel l.D. #s: 31-39-33-00000-7000-00034.0

.

Subdivision Name, Unit Number, Block and Lot Number (if applicable) __NI A

Existing Zoning District: RM-6 Existing Land Use Designation: L-2

Requested Zoning District: IL

Total ( !!Toss) Acreage of Parcel: 14.13 Acreal!e (net) to be Amended: 8.36

Existing Use on Site: Vacant

Proposed Use on Site: Limited Commercial Develonment

I

PLANNING 7A MATTERS INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA

MEMORANDUM

TO: The Honorable Members of the Planning and Zoning Commission NT HEAD CONCURRENCE: -✓ Robert M. Keating, AICP Community Development Director

FROM: Stan Bolin~P Planning Director

DATE: January 5, 2007

SUBJECT: Planning Information Package for the January 11, 2007 Planning and Zoning Commission Meeting

For this meeting's packet, the following articles are provided: (1) "Population experts point to economic factors that are cooling the Sunshine State's appeal", Orlando Sentinel, December 22, 2006, Babita Persaud. (2) "California growing more slowly/High cost ofliving seen as dampening its appeal", SFGate.com, December 21, 2006, Tyche Hendricks.

(3) "County OKs road surcharge", News-Journal, December 22, 2006, Bob Koslowdb. (4) "$7,000 fee hike draws criticism", Sarasota Herald-Tribune, December 16, 2006, Patrick Whittle. (5) "Report looks for answers to local housing crunch", Naples News, December 24, 2006, Charlie Whitehead. (6) "Houses affordable for everyone", Milwaukee Journal Sentinel, December 16, 2006, Michele Derus.

(7) "In Housing, Smaller is Big", The Magazine of the American Planning Association, December 2006, Anthony Flint. (8) "What's Next, Boom", The Magazine ofthe American Planning Association, December 2006, Jane Adler. (9) "Sprawl-fighting developments deserve an easier path", Portland Press Herald, Editorial December 2006. cc: Board of County Commissioners Joe Baird Michael Zito

F:\Community Development\Users\CurDev\P&Z\ARTICLES\Articles for 2007\011107.doc Population experts point to economic factors that are cooling the Sunshine State's appeal.

Babita Persaud, 2006 Orlando Sentinel, 12/22

For those who gripe that Florida is growing too fast, you may have gotten your wish.

A U.S. census report out today shows that the boom for the Sun~hine State has slowed, with Florida growing only 1.8 percent in 2006 after back-to-back years of adding more than 2 percent to the population.

So, is this just a blip?

"No," said Stefan Rayer, research demographer at the University of Florida's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. "It's back to normal."

In 2005, Florida was ranked No. 4 in the list of fast-growing states, just behind Nevada, Arizona and Idaho.

This year, Florida slips to No. 9. ·--~

William Frey, a demographer with The Brookings Institution, a Washington, D.C., think tank, said economics is playing a role.

"Generally, people are moving where it is not so pricey," he said.

And that is not Florida, he said.

Before, a few states were the select hot spots. Now, people are spreading around, Frey said. "They are going where housing is affordable."

Florida's existing-home median price -- half the homes sold for more, half for less -- tops $240,000. Costs are higher in markets such as Orlando -- at a quarter-million dollars -- and South Florida, where many homes are fetching $350,000.

On top of a mortgage,, for those who do buy, insurance costs have skyrocketed. Some premiums are up by more than 25 percent since the 2004 hurricane season.

The impact is starting to ripple throughout the state: Home sales are down more than 20 percent, school enrollment shrank in the fall student count, and state government is preparing for a revenue drop based on population projections.

"Florida i's still strong economically, and that will continue," said Sean Snaith, director of the University of Central Florida's Institute for Economic Competitiveness. "But the momentum has slowed."

Across other parts of the South, the 2005 tropical-storm season was a factor.

Before Hurricane Katrina, Louisiana's population was on the rise, growing by 12,000 to 4.5 million by mid-2005.

By the July 2006 count, Louisiana had lost nearly 220,000 residents, about 5 percent.

Where did they go? Rayer said Katrina's effect on Florida was probably "marginal," but "Georgia, North Carolina, Texas -- in those states, Katrina is playing a role." All grew by more than2 percent.

Census issues state population figures annually in December. The period of collecting the 2006 data runs from July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006.

Other findings in the new census report:

Arizona was the nation's fastest-growing state at a 3.6 percent change, breaking Nevada's grip on the title.

The Northeast region grew by only 62,000 people. In contrast, the South grew by 1.5 million and the West by 1 million. The Midwest added 281,000 people.

The South n·ow accounts for 36 percent of the nation's total population, with the West comprising 23 percent, the Midwest 22 percent and the Northeast 18 percent.

Florida remains the fourth-most populous state, with 18.1 million people. More than 321,000 moved here in 2006, off from the 401,000 who showed up between 2005 and 2005.

From the perspective of Priya Rajan, a Central Florida Realtor, "It is not bubbling as much as last year."

The Orlando Regional Realtor Association projects that 2006 sales will finish above 2004 but below 2005's red-hot tally of 31,230. --..~

So does that mean less traffic jams for Orlando?

Think again.

Orlando's rate of growth has hovered around 3 percent in the past few years, Rayer said.

"Of the large metropolitan areas in Florida, Orlando remains the fastest growing," Rayer said.

, ..#', ..- .i California growing more slowly/ High cost ofliving seen as dampening its appeal Page 1 of5

SFGate.wm Return to Tegu1ar view V:4:- ..·c·, !~,:;lii'\ ' ,.;t'fiRESTAUBANT PICKS

·.- .-. PLUS California growing more slowly SPECIALDINING OFFERS. High cost of living seen as dampening its appeal -Tyche Hendricks Chronicle Staff Writer Thursday, December 21, 2006 1i1illlk1III·N•

California's population growth rate slipped for a sixth year in a row as tens of thousands of residents left for other states, according to new estimates the state released Wednesday.

Demographers said many of those who left probably were seeking a lower cost ofliving.

New arrivals from other countries and babies born in California more than offset the departure ofresidents for other states, bringing California to an estimated total population of 37.4 million on July 1.

But even foreign immigration to California -- especially its largest counties, including San Francisco, San Mateo and Santa Clara -- is slipping as immigrants find that other states offer plentiful jobs and cheaper housing, demographic analysts said.

These changes could leave California without the educated workforce it needs, in part because of the widening achievement gap among California students. The Public Policy Institute of California projects that by 2020, the state's supply of college-educated workers won't meet the state's needs, said institute fellow D.eborah Reed.

"Potentially we can meet this gap by importing college-educated workers, but that strategy leaves behind workers born in California," she said.

Natural increase -- the difference between births and deaths -- uow accounts for more than two-thirds of the state's growth, the Department of Finance estimates show.

More than half of those babies are the children and grandchildren of immigrants, and how they fare will affect the future of the state as a whole, analysts say. Natural increase has been steady since 2000, though it remains lower than its peak in 1992.

"By 2003, the natural increase had become the primary reason for the state's growth," said Department of Finance demographer Linda Gage. "That's a shift, and it seems to be continuing."

About 212,921 immigrants arrived from other countries, while 67,345 more people left for other states than moved here from the rest of the country, for a net migration statewide of just 145,576 people between 2005 and 2006, according to the report. Including natural increase, the state gained an estimated 462,454 residents this year.

That's surprising, given California's relatively robust economy, said Hans Johnson, a research fellow at the Public Policy Institute of California who studies population trends.

"In the past when (the economy was strong), California has attracted a lot more people from other states. Now we're losing people to other states, and the Bay Area is part of that flow out," Johnson said. "Why? The answer is housing prices have a lot to do with this. A lot of people simply can't afford to live in California, or they're cashing out on a large amount of equity."

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/2l/MNGMHN3PNE1.DTL&... 12/26/2006 California growing more slowly/ High cost of living seen as dampening; its appeal Page 2 of5

Southern California counties already among the state's largest, including Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino, gained the most new residents.

But smaller inland counties are among the places growing the fastest, from Imperial and Kem in Southern California to Sutter and Yuba in the Sierra foothills. Yuba County had the highest rate of increase at 4.42 percent, an increase of just over 3,000 people.

Rice fields and peach orchards have long typified the Yuba County landscape. But the southern part of the county -- just a half-hour's conunute from Sacramento -- is seeing a boom in new housing developments, said John Fleming, the county's economic development coordinator.

"Any rapid growth obviously poses great challenges for things like roads, schools and wastewater," he said. "But we're embracing the change."

More than two out of three new Yuba County residents moved there from other parts of California or the United States, according to the state estimates.

"If you're in Yuba County, you're observing that a lot of people are moving there from higher-priced Sacramento and the Bay Area for affordable housing," said Johnson. "It's consistent with this story of people getting priced out of very high housing markets."

The growth in San Francisco, Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara counties resulted from babies being born· there and foreign inunigrants settling there, the report shows.

U.S. Census Bureau estimates of how California is growing have diverged from the state's ever since the 2000 census was released.

The census estimates that the populations of San Francisco, Alameda and San Mateo counties actually declined between 2000 and 2005.

The discrepancy -- an 8 percent difference in the case of San Francisco's estimated population and a 2 percent difference in the state's in 2005 -- is due to the different figures the agencies rely on. And the trend is expected to continue when the federal government releases its estimates for 2006 on Friday.

The state looks at 26 different data sources, said Gage, including school enrollment, tax return data, legal inunigration and the prison population, while the census relies primarily on its annual surveys, birth and death records, federal income tax returns and Medicare and military records.

The biggest difference, however, is that California uses change-of-address data from the Department of Motor Vehicles that its demographers say more closely track people moving into, out of and within the state.

"At end of decade, they've proven to be more accurate," said Gage, adding that when the Census Bureau did a population headcount in 1990 and 2000, the state's estimate was closer than the federal estimate to · the actual count. "We'll know how well we're doing in 2010."

The state's birth rate has been declining gradually, noted Johnson, including among Latinos, who account for an estimated 1 in 3 Californians.

For the past five years, more than half of all babies born in California have been Latino, and those kids started kindergarten this year, said David Hayes-Bautista, director of the Center for the Study of Latino Health and Culture at UCLA's medical school.

"That's the future labor force of the state," he said. "The big question is, 'How good will their education be?' because their productivity will fuud the Baby Boomers' retirement."

The Public Policy Institute of California is among a growirig number of policy groups and foundations

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/21/MNGMHN3PNE1.DTL&... 12/26/2006 California growing more slowly/ High cost ofliving seen as dampening its appeal Page 3 ofS

calling on the state to narrow its growing achievement gap in order to keep its economy healthy and serve all residents equitably.

"I believe it's the responsibility of California to provide a good public education that gives people the opportunity to be productive workers in the future," said institute fellow Reed.

California's population has continued growing ...

Population, in millions

2006: 37,444,385

... but the growth rate has slowed.

2006: 1.25%

More people have moved out than in from other states,

2006: -.18 %

the net foreign immigration rate has wavered,

2006: .57 % ·

and the rate of natural increase (births minus deaths) has remained steady.

2006: .85%

NOTE: Components of the growth rate may not add up exactly to the overall rate due to ronnding. All rates are calculated as the raw number as a percentage of that year's total population.

Source: California Department of Finance

The Chronicle

E-mail Tyche Hendricks at [email protected].

How the Bay Area's population changed from 2005 to 2006 Change in the Bay Area's nine counties slightly lagged the state's growth overall.

County Alameda Total population 2006: 1,514,909 Percent change 2005-06: 0.81 Births: 20,884 Deaths: 9,269 Net natural increase: 11,615 Net migration: 591 Immigration: 10,916 Domestic migration: -10,325

Contra Costa Total population 2006: 1,034,874 Percent change 2005-06: 0.90 Births: 13,234 Deaths: 6,752 Net natural increase: 6,482 Net migration: 2,765

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/21/MNGMHN3PNEI.DTL&... 12/26/2006 California growing more slowly/ High cost ofliving seen as dampening its appeal Page 4 of5

Immigration: 4,314 Domestic migration: -1,549

Marin Total population 2006: 254,769 Percent change 2005-06: 0.70 Births: 2,715 Deaths: 1,765 Net natural increase: 950 Net migration: 831 Immigration: 667 Domestic migration: 164

Napa Total population 2006: 135,228 Percent change 2005-06: 1.24 Births: 1,690 Deaths: 1,251 Net natural increase: 439 Net migration: 1,251 Immigration: ·573 Domestic migration: 642

San Francisco Total population 2006: 802,651 Percent change 2005-06: 0.82 Births: 8,189 Deaths: 6,030 Net natural increase: 2,159 Net migration: 4,342 Immigration: 9,826 Domestic migration: -5,484

San Mateo Total population 2006: 729,366 Percent change 2005-06: 0.77 Births: 9,922 Deaths: 4,569 Net natural increase: 5,353 Net migration: 251 Immigration: 5,137 Domestic migration: -4,886

Santa Clara Total population 2006: 1,791,869 Percent change 2005-06: 1.49 Births: 26,462 Deaths: 8,350 Net natural increase: 18,1128 Net migration: 8,153 Immigration: 13,199 Domestic migration: -5,046

Solano Total population 2006: 423,033 Percent change 2005-06: 0.66 Births: 5,873 Deaths: 2,635 Net natural increaSe: 3,238 Net migration: -451 Immigration: 1,918 Domestic migration: -2,369

Sonoma Total population 2006: 480,805 Percent change 2005-06: 0.47 Births: 5,610 Deaths: 3,789

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/2l/MNGMHN3PNE1.DTL&... 12/26/2006 California growing more slowly / High cost ofliving seen as dampening its appeal Page 5 of5

Net natural increase: 1,821 Net migration: 437 Immigration: 1,316 Domestic migration: -879

California Total population 2006: 37,444,385 Percent change 2005-06: 1.25 Births: 51,855 Deaths: 234,977 Net natural increase: 316,878 Net migration: 145,576 Immigration: 212,921 Domestic migration: -67,345

Source: California Department of Finance The Chronicle

Page A- 1 URL: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/21/MNGMHN3PNE1.DTL

©2006 San Francisco Chronicle

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2006/12/21/MNGMHN3PNE1.DTL&... 12/26/2006 SF Gate: Multimedia (image) Page 1 ofl

PREVIOUS NEXT SFG.ate,oom ; Ads by Google

Photo Gallery fJtlLfil.Q..[t£ California growing more slowly/ High cost of living seen as dampening its appeal Stop Genocide Changes in California Population. Chronicle Graphic In Darfur Take Action Today Changes in California population and Demand UN Peacekeepers in California grew 1.25 percent between Darfur 2005 and 2006, reaching an estimated www .savedarfur.org 37.4 million residents in July, Pqpulatioli grqwth rates by county July 1, 2005, to July 1, 2006, What's This? population estimates • •0.32% to 1.25% D 1.25% to 2,99% llli] 3% to 3.990/o lilll 4%to 5%

Sot1rce: ESRI, TekAllt.$, Cafiiomia DeJ>$rlflHUil' ~, Fimmce 111cC1rrmrfde

PREVIOUS NEXT

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/article?f=/c/a/2006/12/21/MNGMHN3PNE1.DTL... 12/26/2006 (And I bet the County would have been sued by lot owners (below) if they tried to refuse building permits!! -ken)

County OKs road surcharge

By BOB KOSLOWDB, News-Journal, 12/22

DELAND -- More than 1,000 property owners in West Highlands and Highland Park subdivisions northwest of Orange City could see up to an additional $430 on their property tax bills in the foreseeable future.

The Volusia County Council unanimously created a special assessment district for the 438-acre subdivisions Thursday to fix a'iid care for the 17 miles of non-maintained dirt roads that have trapped several emergency vehicles over the years. The fixes may cost almost $3 million and the annual maintenance cost is estimated at $231,000.

"It is not our intent to cause hardships but to take care of safety issues that we have to take care of," County Councilman Dwight Lewis said.

However, some of the 15 residents from the crowd of more than 100, said the cost is "exorbitant" and could force people to lose their homes. ·-~

"I am on a fixed income that is never going to go up," resident Harry Rickman said from his motorized wheelchair. "I have a SHIP house and I can't borrow money (against the home's equity) or I'm out ofa house."

The subdivisions' 3,880 lots were platted in 1925 with dirt roads and 25-foot wide lots so it took three lots to build a home. Development was slow until the late 1970s when Volusia County amended its land development codes and accepted only four miles of the roads to maintain as dirt roads. The others were left to the residents and some became nothing more than narrow trails.

Development increased through the 1980s and 1990s and vehicle and construction traffic turned many roads into sand pits.

Volusia County offici11ls took a serious look at the problem this past year. The plan presented and accepted Thursday was to seek bids to fix the roads so they are 20-feet wide and passable. The work includes surveys, clearing and grading the roads. The maximum cost is $2.95 million.The county is pledging to contribute $500,000 in stormwater fees and some countywide road funds to dig swales. That lowers the cost to $2.45 million for the residents to repay over 1O years, including interest. The owner of three lots would pay $251.52 annually.

Annual maintenance would add $178.61 for three lots.

Resident Mike Bradley said county officials should be contributing more since they helped cause the problem.

"The county allowed building permits and ignored the growth issues there," he said. "It's not right that we should be paying for county mistakes. We pay the same taxes as someone on a county-maintained paved street but we don't get equal services for equal taxes."

County officials said the costs are estimates and likely would be less, and maintenance costs would be controlled by residents setting an acceptable level of service as long as the roads do not become danaerous aaain. Countv Manaaer Jim Dinneen said. Other efforts to lower maintenance costs include a possible new surcharge to building permits issued within the district to cover the damage to roads caused by trucks. Officials also will look at developing a truck weight plan to limit what trucks can travel on rural dirt roads and reviewing whether the roads would be eligible for the dirt road-paving program.

Councilman Carl Persis even said he would like to eliminate the maintenance assessments and just have the county pick up the tab.

"We thank Mr. Persis for that, but the original work being proposed is too much and more than what we need or want," resident Patti Barnes said. "They need to cut that down first."

County officials hope to have project bids in the spring to award a contract and have the work done by the end of the summer. Final property assessments would then be set and a maintenance program developed ..

!·~ .- ... i $7,000 fee hike draws criticism

By PATRICK WHITTLE, Sarasota Herald-Tribune, 12/16

SARASOTA COUNTY -- With Sarasota County set to raise impact fees by more than 60 percent, builders and affordable housing advocates who have protested the hike for months are digging in for a fight at a Tuesday hearing.

A host of fee hikes, which county commissioners appear poised to approve, would raise impact fees for a new single-family home from $10,637 to $17,741. The increase could bring Sarasota County's impact fees into the highest 25 percent in the state, said county planner Gene Engman.

The move comes in the teeth of a frigid real estate market that has damaged one of the county's most important industries. But county officials said the hike is needed to pay for vital improvements to roads, parks and libraries.

After a booming 2005 when housing prices skyrocketed, this year has seen a downtown with prices dropping 18 percent in the Sarasota-Bradenton market. Sarasota Realtors sold 359 homes in October compared to 710 in October 2005.

At the same time, housing remains out of reach for many service industry workers and professionals such as teachers, nurses and law enforcement officers. ,~

Builders such as deMorgan Communities Chairman Dan Barwick warned the impact fees will create another expense for developers to pass on to home buyers.

"It's common for people to say, 'Well let the developers pay it.' Well developers don't ever pay anything. What we do is pass it on," Barwick said. "They'd better look at it before anyone who makes less than $100,000-a-year can't afford a house."

Impact fees, one-time taxes on building designed to make growth pay for itself, have been a contentious issue locally since April, when the county announced the fees would likely increase.

The hikes traditionally draw protest from developers because new fees add to their costs. Some builders have even said they might file a lawsuit.

Low-cost housing advocates, too, are concerned. Sarasota Habitat for Humanity executive director Mike Jacobson said the higJwr imp:;ict fees could prevent nonprofit agencies from building homes. . ! . "The pressure put on not-for-profit affordable housing buildings is just exasperating," Jacobson said. "This is just one more obstacle that we're going to have to overcome."

Counties such as Manatee and Charlotte and cities such as Punta Gorda and North Port have all raised, or planned to raise, impact fees in the past two years.

But builders are especially concerned about Sarasota's planned increases, in part because they could be followed by another hike early next year. That increase could bring the impact fees for a single-family home to nearly $19,000.

That figure is still $10,000 less than Collier County, which is 100 miles south of Sarasota and has one of the highest impact fees in the state.

Engman, Sarasota County planner, said impact fees are going up drastically because the county is far behind in infrastructure improvements. The county hasn't significantly increased impact fees since they were instituted in 1991, County Commissioner Joe Barbetta said. Estimates put the county $200 million behind in funding for recreation facilities and $1 billion or more behind in funding for road projects.

The lack of money has stalled some county projects, includLng a planned extension of Honore Avenue and a plan to build more public biking paths.

"We're terrifically behind in our infrastructure, and our fees have been too low for far too long," Engman said. The county is basing its new impact fees on a study by Texas consulting firm Duncan Associates.

The study proposes two fee structures: a flat rate and a per-square-foot system.

Lee Wetherington, president of Lee Wetherington Homes, said the county could be opening itself up to a lawsuit if it uses the per-square-foot system, which could potentially heap even more cost on builders.

Other counties, including Charlotte, use a per-square-foot system. But Wetherington said the system could stray from the impact fee's purpose of paying for growth because the square footage of a home doesn't necessarily mean more people live there.

"What if you have two cars on a 1,600-square-foot home and two cars on a 16,000-square-footer?" Wetherington said.

But Wetherington doesn't believe the flat rate system is equitable, either. -cc- "It's not going to affect the affordability on a $2 million home. They're just going to buy one less chandelier," he said. "Where it's really going to hit is the working class. The service industry is going to get hammered."

County Commissioner Paul Mercier said he is "sympathetic" to home buyers and the building industry because of the combination of increases in insurance rates, interest rates and impact fees.

But he also said higher impact fees haven't caused an affordable housing crisis in neighborhing counties.

Sarasota County's impact fees would still be lower than Manatee County's impact fees, which went up more than $3,500 last month. Manatee's impact fees are now more than $20,000.

Manatee drew criticism from everyone from local builders to state Sen. Mike Bennett, a Manatee Republican, when it increased impact fees last year. Bennett went so far as to propose a law that would have limited counties: ,ility to rely on the fees. i There was less drama in Manatee this year. Manatee County Commissioner Joe McClash called impact fees "the fairest system of paying for new growth" and said the high cost of land is more prohibitive for new home buyers.

In Sarasota County, public officials have had a series of meetings about the new impact fees with builders and developers. The builders have protested the hike at every meeting.

The county has heard the complaints. But the fees have been "artificially low for too long," County Commissioner Barbetta said;

"From a realistic point of view, we have to look around us," Barbetta said. "Our infrastrcutre has not kept up. Is growth really paying for itself?" Report looks for answers to local housing crunch Page 1 of3 naplesnews.com Report looks for answers to local housing crunch

By Charlie Whitehead

Sunday, December 24, 2006

Almost three quarters of Lee County businesses say housing costs are affecting their workplace.

That statistic is among a set of facts strung together by the Horizon Council, a public-private board created 15 years ago to advise Lee County commissioners on business matters. Most of the numbers point to good economic news.

The county's population increased 25 percent between 2000 and 2005.

Employment shot up 29 percent.

The median sales price for a home rose by 148 percent.

But there's a dark side.

The average working household in Lee County now earns $52,927. That means, according to federal standards, the family can afford a $177,875 home. With the median sales price of a home now at $278,000, there's a gap of $111,000 between what the family can afford and what a typical home costs.

It gets worse.

Some 71 percent of the working households make much less than the average. There are 112,796 households, according to economists retained by the Horizon Council's Workforce Housing Task Force, with an average annual income of$36,368.

Those households can afford to buy a $122,225 home. If there were any.

According to the task force report, the housing crunch isn't only making it tough on existing employers, it's preventing new businesses from coming here.

What's needed to address the issues, the report said, is increased building density and regulatory streamlining to make housing more affordable.

The task force met for almost a year. Economists told its members that increased building density is the single greatest strategy for mitigating home costs.

"Modest density increases can make workforce housing developments profitable for developers," the report says.

Perhaps the most significant component of home cost is land, it says, and more homes to the acre mitigates that cost. Smaller minimum lot sizes, reduced setbacks and incentives for infill development

http://www.naplesnews.corn/news/2006/dec/24/report_looks_ answers _local_ housing_ cru... 12/26/2006 Report looks for answers to local housing crunch Page 2 of3 would all help.

The report acknowledges the political difficulty of approving higher densities, citing the 'Not In My Back Yard' reaction such proposals often receive. It calls for local workshops to work through issues with project neighbors.

As for streamlining, the report says developers are often unwilling to tackle affordable developments unless there is some reason to believe the conditions to make it work will be approved.

Long permitting processes can make projects less affordable, so the complicated nature of affordable projects tends to work against them. The report recommends creating an affordable housing ombudsman who would coordinate review efforts with an eye toward getting affordable projects approved as quickly as possible.

The report also recommends yearly housing summits to educate people on the need for affordable housing and the need to make changes to produce it. It cites a 2002 report done for the county that said the lack of affordable housing already costs taxpayers $249 million a year in increased transportation, schooling and social service costs.

Horizon Council spokeswoman Jennifer Dunn said the report and recommendations will go directly to commissioners. The task force doesn't have more meetings scheduled.

"These recommendations are what they were leading up to," she said. "Our job is to make recommendations on economic development issues, and we focus on the board and their policies."

Commissioner Ray Judah said there's no question the problems cited in the report are real. He's argued to put more money into the county's Affordable Housing Land Trust but says other solutions are needed besides easing development review and increasing density.

"I'm not supportive of any undermining of a minimum professional review," Judah said. "I don't believe that's the issue. Our staff has a tremendous turnaround time. I don't believe that's a major challenge to solving our affordable housing challenge."

Judah said he would support increasing density in selected locations as the report recommends. Commissioners just gave a first approval to a new land-use category that would boost densities in infill areas across the county.

"That may be on target. There is potential for allowing for increased densities in some areas," he said.

Judah cited a recent zoning case in which an Estero developer wanted to pay into a county affordable housing fund in return for increased density. The proposed homes weren't themselves to be affordable, and commissioners denied the increase.

"I have no problem with additional units in infill areas, but the affordable units have to be on-site," he said.

Developers have shied away from so-called inclusionary zoning, which would require a certain percentage of affordable units mixed with other homes. ·

"The affordable housing has to be on-site," Judah said. "I believe the answer really lies there, with the

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/dec/24/report_looks_ answers _local_ housing_ cru... 12/26/2006 Report looks for answers to local housing crunch Page 3 of3 understanding that who we're talking about is law enforcement officers, teachers, med-techs ... good, decent professionals I'd be glad to have as neighbors. We need developers to realize that."

Judah said affordable housing will land back in commissioners' laps after the first of the year.

© 2006 Naples Daily News and NDN Productions. Published in Naples, Florida, USA by the E.W. Scripps Co.

http://www.naplesnews.com/news/2006/dec/24/report_looks _ answers_local_ housing_ cru... 12/26/2006 JS Online:· Page 1 of 4 JSOnline MtLW.A.lJ,t::EE: JOURNAL SENTINEi.. www.jsonline.com I Return to regular view

Original Story URL: htt:p://www.jsonline.com/stozy/index.aspx?id-542225

Houses affordable for everyone

Hartford's planning, foresight keep housing costs low enough for all

By MICHELE DERUS [email protected]

Posted: Dec. 16, 1006

Hartford - Lesson from a high-growth blue-collar city: upscaling beautifies, but inclusion stabilizes.

This Washington County outpost 39 miles northwest of Milwaukee has 13,000 people; 8,000-plus jobs that pay an average of $16 hourly; and zero unemployment, city officials say.

About 40% of city residents work within city borders, and property taxes have fallen for four years straight. ·

The secret of its development success: housing choices priced for everyday folks.

"We're a small, self-contained, inclusionary community ... that provides cradle-to-grave housing, all in everyone's price range," said City Administrator Gary Koppelberger.

"In Hartford, you can still find a new home/lot package under $200,000 - far below anyplace else in the area," Koppelberger said. "We have condos and apartments, and when it comes time that you don't work anymore, we have senior housing. We also have a hospital, a hospice, and when that's done, two cemeteries."

Hartford's housing prices range from about $100,000 to $400,000, according to Mayor Scott M. Henke.

That low end is rare in metro Milwaukee, where average resale prices are mostly in the $200,000-to­ $350,000 range and the average new-home price was $334,972 last month, Multiple Listing Service and MTD Marketing Service records show.

Cut-rate housing has proven a magnet for young workers and house hunters.

"I bought my house in 1999, when I was 25 and single," said Gina Wendt, a publication coordinator at Quad/ Graphics' Hartford printing plant. "Brookstone Homes was offering land-and-house packages for $129,000 - a two-bedroom, one-bath place on a city lot. I think I got a very good deal - my payments

htto://www.isonline.com/storv/index.asox?id=542225&format=print 12/26/2006 JS Online: Page 2 of4 were very close to my rent at the time, and the house has probably appreciated by $20,000."

Plus, there is the value of living near work: priceless.

Wendt once commuted more than an hour daily between Waukesha and Hartford.

"Way too far for me, especially working nights," she said. "Now I'm three minutes from work, especially nice in inclement weather. I see the news in the morning, with all the traffic backups and alerts, and think, 'I avoided that.' "

Homes in all ranges

Keeping prices affordable for its working-class residents in a region bent on upscaling to bigger houses on more land "took a lot of hard work over the last decade," Koppelberger said.

It took unyielding resolve, too, Henke said.

"We made a significant push, private and public, to have people live, work and play here. We wanted to grow, but keep our sense of community - not just be a place where people got in their cars and drove off to somewhere else."

Koppelberger added, "To do that, you have to provide housing for your work force."

Hartford's housing philosophy is this: Let the market provide, with minimal interference, what the people want. There are no architectural controls, no development impact fees and just a few consistent rules.

The city's chief requirement is that the development house entry-level workers and executives alike.

"We never wanted to isolate people by economic standing. The idea is, they're all neighbors," Koppelberger said.

Most newer Hartford subdivisions mix in modest houses, small lots and/or multi-unit buildings among single-family homes.

Some subdivisions have narrow streets and sidewalks or shallow setbacks.

It_ all curbs development costs and, in tum, purchase prices, Koppelberger said.

Hartford has been widely lauded for finding a fair and reasonable way to grow.

Phil Evenson, executive director of the Southeastern Wisconsin Regional Planning Commission, called Hartford "my favorite example of a community trying its very best to provide a range of housing appropriate to wages and salaries there."

Mike Kaerek, president of West Allis-based Kaerek Homes Inc., which has developed about 400 lots in Hartford, said, "What they ask is never that drastic. On our first subdivision five years ago, they required that 15% be priced at $130,000. Our average price at the time was $160,000 or $170,000, so putting in a few at less wasn't much of a problem. Normally, a piece ofland has a section where you'd have narrower lots anyway." http://www.isonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=542225&format=print 12/26/2006 JS Online: Page 3 of 4

Kevin Dittmar, president of Dittmar Realty Inc. in Menomonee Falls, which has developed 260 lots in Hartford, said lower house prices are due to city policies, not city mandates.

"Their engineering department is efficient, responsible and reasonable. Their guidelines are clear and they don't make endless changes and alterations, like some places do. That has a big effect on the costs of roads, sewer and water, which represent 75% to 80% of costs in a full-service urbanized area," Dittmar said. "Plus, they permit and maintain a good supply ofbuildable lots, and that holds prices down."

Scaled for all

Those practices stand in stark contrast to what Koppelberger called metro Milwaukee's "ever-increasing penchant for exclusionary zoning."

He agrees with builders and developers who say too many suburbs only want the wealthy.

"Our gold-plated standard" is how Mike Ruzicka, president of the Greater Milwaukee Association of Realtors, puts this region's emphasis on high-end development.

For Hartford, however, Ruzicka has only kudos.

"They're about the only community to truly take work force housing seriously over the last 10, 15 years," he said. "They've done a great job."

New homeowners Tara Thomas, 29, and Jason Anderson, 36, agreed.

The two, who work in Menomonee Falls, just bought into Hartford's low-$200,000s Spaeth Farms development.

"We found we could get more for our money in Hartford, and price was an important consideration," said Thomas, who had lived in Milwaukee.

"Our home rests against farm fields," Anderson said. "It's a very nice, quiet place, and the commute is about equal to what I had before" when living in West Bend.

Affordable magnet

Breaking out of the metropolitan pack has reaped economic rewards for Hartford too, officials said. Among them:

• Hartford's 60 industries provide more than 8,200 jobs, making it the largest employment center in the Washington-Ozaukee county area, according to Werner X. Wolpert, executive director of Hartford Area Development Corp.

"Three thousand people live and work here.That means 5,000 come from other locations," Wolpert said.

• With full employment, Hartford's average hourly wage is $16, Wolpert said.

"Even minimum-wage jobs are paying more like $8 or $9," Koppelberger said. "They have to. Look

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=542225&format=print 12/26/2006 JS Online: Page 4 of4 around; you'll see 'help wanted' signs everywhere."

• Property tax bills are dropping citywide for the fourth straight year - "taxes due, not just tax rates," Koppelberger said. ·

"We haven't raised sewer or water rates for the last four years either," said Mayor Scott M. Henke.

The city has broadened its tax base, due mostly to residential and industrial growth, he said.

Lately, the city's commercial sector seems poised for healthy growth too, he said.

• The city's bond rate has been upgraded twice in the last 24 months from A-3 to A-1.

Meanwhile, businesspeople are as close to contentment as businesspeople ever get.

A case in point is the Wendorff brothers, born and raised in the area, now running businesses and active in civic affairs here.

"Our work force is very stable," said Gary Wendorff, president of Hartford Finishing Inc., a powder­ paint facility with about 180 employees, and the group holding company, Wendorff Brothers Co. Inc.

"This is a good community to do business in. The housing system seems to work fine."

His brother, Terry, president of the Hartford Area Chamber of Commerce and head ofSno-way International Inc., a snow and ice removal equipment manufacturer that employs up to 80 workers, said: "The political powers have had enough foresight and vision to keep up with the needs of the businesses and people who live here. For housing, they made sure they blended in enough at the affordable level, yet provided executive housing too. We can all live, work and play in one community."

The upshot, said Terry Wendorff: "People really have roots here."

From the Dec. 17, 2006 editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Have an opinion on this story? Write a letter to the editor or start an online fornm.

Subscribe today and receive 4 weeks free! Sign up now. © 2006, Journal Sentinel Inc. All rights reserved. I Produced by Journal Interactive I Privacy Policy Journal Sentinel Inc. is a subsidiary of Journal Commuoications.

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=542225&format=print 12/26/2006 ming Association 21

In Housing,

Is

With an eye on the budget, Americans are reassessing• their space needs.

By Anthony Flin( t house size was 1,400 square feet; by 2005 it had a surprising, back-to-the-future trend: More •.·.!l·'··.·r·;.t moreen it comesbedrooms, to housing, more bathrooms,Americans likethree-car it big: blossomed to about 2,400 square feet, accord­ Americans-whether budget-conscious young I garages, and an ample backyard. ing to figures from the National Association of families buying their first home or retiring baby f These preferences have led to a whole new Home Builders and the Census Bureau. The boomers thinking ofdownsizing-ate starting !:=- language to describe suburban housing develop- share of newly built houses with four or more to make bigness seem old hat. . ment over the last two decades: McMansions, bedrooms rose from 21 percent of all homes Rising real estate prices and climbing eri._ergy starter castles, Garage Mahals. Thanks to con­ built 30 years ago to 40 percent in 2005, ac­ costs-both to fill the gas tank- to get around ventional suburban zoning, the common lot size cording to the NAHB. Today just four percent the far-flung suburbs and to hearandcoola big for these supersized dwellings is the equivalent of all houses have one bathroom; 25 years ago, house-are seen as the primary motivating fac­ of a football field, about an acre. that figure was 41 percent. tors. Giving up space for a more compact unit on ltwasn'talwaysthisway. ln 1970, the average But planners and housing experts have noticed a downsized lot in a tightly knit neighborhood is increasingly viewed as a worthwhile cradeoff. plans were conceived at a time when we lived park or a corner store, have become desirable. It all adds up to a major rethinking of how much more formally, she says. Now people are While the trend toward green building is much living space is necessary-with sweeping asking, "Do you really need that formal living strongest in commercial structures, home implications for planning and zoning. room, or the two-story foyer? And do we really builders and buyers also increasingly seek a "I've been watching this over the last 20 use the dining room?" Her rule of thumb: If lighter ecological footprint. A smaller house years, and now it's becoming a pretty com­ you use a room less than six times a year, you doesn't require as much in terms of building mon discussion in all households," says Sarah may not need it. materials, and those that are needed may have Susanka, a Raleigh-based architect and author Storage is another consideration as families recycled content or be shown to have minimal of The Not So Big House hO

American Planning Association 23

and the family budget. Reducing transportation ways over the past year. Aftt:r Hurricane Katrina costs allows buyers to consider homes closer to ravaged the Gulf Coast, tens of thousands of their workplace. people needed temporary housing. The response in the past was the FEMA trailer. But a group Cmnn1unity counts of designers came up with a different idea: the · Planners, builders, and real estate agents also Katrina Cottage, which costs the same as or less point to rising interest in community as an than a trailer, is sturdy enough rowithstandhur­ amenity. More Americans say they are ready to ricane-incensiry winds, can be built in a week, downsize ifthey can walk to a park and a corner and looks like a simple, old-fashioned house, store or have common areas nearby. That is only complerewith a front porch. possible with a more tightly knit configuration, The Katrina Cottage shows how smallness with higher density and smaller lot and home can be both well designed and affordable, says sizes---or at least a range of housing types, as its architect," Marianne Cusato. The cottage opposed to the single choice of a 2,500-square­ made its attention-getting debut at the annual foot house on a football field-sized lot. NAHB c:'on{~rencerlp Florida-earlier this year. In Bend, Oregon, the_ NorthWest Crossing USA Toi/,ay held a Contest asking readers which developmenc-1,250 units planned on 332 version ofthe Katd1{~ cottage they liked best. "It acres-offers sidewalks, walking trails, and struck a chord because it's not something that's parks, and a mixture of single-family houses, offered in the marketplace-small housing that attached townhouses (average size 1,800 square looks nice. Right now, if you want something feet), condominium·s, and live-Workspace. A hot. compact, the only option is a rraileror an apart- housing market in Bend has kept virtually all me~t," Cusato says. · prices h_igh. Kirk Schueler, president of Brooks Although intended for hurricane victims in Resources, the developer, says that the big draw Mississippi and Loµisiana, the Katrina Cottage is the neighborhood; he says buyers view house has taken off as a factory-crafted product that size almost as a secondary consideration. anybody can use. The giant home improve­ He offers as an example a couple that has ment chain Lowe's announced in August that expressed interest in a 1,188-square-foot, two­ the cottage would be sold through its stores. bedroom, two-bath house in the development, Kits for different versions, ranging from 300 for sale for $399,000, The couple now owns a to 1,200 square feet, are now available, with larger house at NorthWest Crossing. "They prices starting at $30,000. The models can be want to downsize, have lower maintenance added onto, notes Cusato. shed for the Bay Area cities of O_ak.laild, San responsibilities, and travel south in the winter," "The idea of the 'grow house'-buy what Francisco, and San Jose. Home size and elbow Schueler says. "It makes sense chat more people you can, and then expand as your family room are top considerations for long-distance will make that choice as the baby boomers·age expands-is something that we used to do. commuters. and prices continue to increase." We're just reintroducing it," says Cusato. "The "It's nice not to be woken up in the middle of Home builders have picked up on these Katrina Cottage can be adapted for a wheelchair, the night by neighbors, and to have some place shifting preferences. Like car manufacturers, or for a three-bedroom house, or for vacation to park your car. I don't mind having to drive ifit who are still churning out big SUVs but have needs-any number of programmatic needs," means coming home to a castle," Shana Orczyk, turned their attention to hybrids and lighter and she adds. "It's an idea, not just a house." a 27-year-old investment analyst who works in more compact vehicles, virtually all the major Cusato says she was convinced that there was Boston, told the Boston Globe in April. She had corporate home builders, such as Toll Brothers, a pent-up demand for compactness when she a $245,000 home in Uxbridge in Worcester Lennar, and Pulte, have started or expanded their started getting calls from advocates for housing County, an hour's commute to Boston. higl1er densily operations over the last year. For for the elderly and representatives from boom­ But with gas prices hovering at $2.50 a gal­ an industry that has been producing a record towns seeking affordable housing for service lon-and expected to go higher in the years 1.5 million single-family houses a year, there is workers. Now she's getting calls from developers ahead, according to oil analysts and car manu­ grudging recognition of an oversupply, as the envisioning clusters ofcottages and local govern­ facturers-the cost of commll.ting is starting turbulence in the real estate market has made ments looking for alternatives to trailer parks. to eat away at the advantages of the relatively painfuliy clear. A town in California was considering using the low initial sticker price of the far-flung home. Owners ofMcMansions across the country cottages as part ofits affordable housing strategy, The cost of owning and operating one car is have been frantically trying to unload the big she says; they would be allowed in backyards as estimated to be $10,000 a year; that translates properties, cutting prices, throwing in flat-screen accesso1y rental units. to about $100,000 on a mortgage. TVs, and wondering why they thought they "This started out as an alternative to the Buyers are beginning to recognize that, in needed ·so much space in the first place. FEMA trailer," she says. "We had to come up most contexts, a smaller house is a more af­ with something. Mile after mile, there were fordable house. Facing rising transportation Inspired by disaster simply no buildings. Financing was an issue, and energy costs, they are reexamining the The trend away from bigness-and appreciation and money was tight. The need for transitional tradeoffs chat they accepted in the past and for inexpensive, well-designed, ·and compact housing required us to think in a new way. Since taking a close look at space needs, convenience, living spaces-has manifested itself in other then, the market has really found us." 24 Planning December 2006

First steps Really Thinking Outside the Box The big. challenge for planners is to change Z-Oning and subdivision codes to accommo­ Sometimes the best solution to a problem like A team of engineers and architects came up date smaller houses and lots, says Steve Maun, the shortage of affordable housing is found in with a design for a metal building similar in some president ofLeylandAlliance LLC in Tuxedo, the past. A case in point is the Quonset hut, the ways to a barrel-vaulted structure, the Nissen New York. The firm specializes in compact, new corrugated shelter used all over the world by the hut, used by the British in World War I. The urbanise developments. In one such development U.S. armed forces during World War II. After the design could not be simpler. The corrugated, in Warwick, it took seven years to come up with war, Quonsets turned up as college dormitories, galvanized steel skin-which comes in four­ the appropriate zoning, he says. industrial workshops, storage facilities, airplane foot sections-is fastened to "I" shaped ribs to "Most builders won't spend seven years to hangars, movie theaters, and even single-fam­ form the roof and the walls. The roof diameter create a zoning package. They just go to the ily houses. Architects like Bruce Goff designed determines the width of the structure-just 20 · zoning manual, and see that the town asks you upscale variations on the basic structure. feet in the case of the house pictured here. to do the following~20 houses on 100 acres," When the Navy says Maun, who started out building production could n.o longer keep homes of 2,500 to 4,000 square feet and up, up with demand, it before shifting to neighborhoods with smaller contracted with the lot sizes and a range of housing types. Stran-Steel Division "We're building houses of a higher quality in ofthe Great Lakes Steel terms of design, on smaller building lots. That Corporation to. pro­ translates to Smaller squaie footage," he says. ducerhehurs (154,000 "The trend is clearly away from t_he idea that in all), which were used more square footage.is bettei·. The cortcept of for everything .from neighborhood seems to be very important for barrac~ and garages young peo.E._~- They are more than willing to to schools machine 1 manage with less square footage." shops, and chapels. Af­ In many communities, says Maun, traditional ter the war, manywere zoning requires a minimum lot size ofa half-acre. sold as surplus by the Outside the village limits, the minimum lot size Federal Public Hous­ is often two acres. Smaller houses built in a more ing Authority, which tight-knit fashion require only a 5,000-square­ made them available foot lot with narrower side yard setbacks and to nonprofit bodies, garages in the rear, accessed by lanes or alleys. particularly cities and Public space, village greens, and pocket parks universities. In Hack­ make up for the reduction in yard space. People sensack, New Jersey, a are much more willing to move into smaller street full of Quonsets An 800-square-faot Quonset hut, bought as mrplus after WorldWor II, houses if they know that such amenities are a went up on the aptly became a two-bedroom house in Southwest Michigan. short walk away, Maun says. named American Le- But this approach requires an overhaul of gionDrive. existing zoning. Cities seeking ways to bounce Today, most of the Quonsets are gone, and One reason for the Quonset's adaptability is back fro in population losses are eagerly making the rest are endangered, although they're getting its archetypal shape, reminiscent of the Native those changes, Maun says. He cites Norfolk, new respect from architect~~al and inslustrial American longhouse and the Gothic cathedral. Virginia, as an example of a medium-sized city historians. For some of us, tli.ero's anoth~ reason It's also part of the history of industrialized that is offering incentives for denser, mixed use to pay more attention to this innovative and building, including Buckminster Fuller's development as a part of an effort to revitalize versatile building form-and that is its use for Dymaxion House and the all-steel Lustron its center. housing in a variety ofsituations. house, which had a brief flurry of popularity Smallness puts the spotlight on good des_ign. The American version ofthe Quonset hut goes after World War II. "] think we'll see substantially better designed -back to the Quonset Bay Naval Air Station in For planners looking for temporary, or even affordable housing that is much more ta,ilored North Kingstown, Rhode Island. The base, on permanent, shelter ideas, Quonset huts offer to meet real needs," says Suzanka. "The less the west shore ofNarragansett Bay, was a strategic many advantages: They're easy to assemble, even space you have, the more important it is that it link in the New England air defense system. more so than the Sears catalog houses and other is thought Out." Early in the war, a federal directive ordered a "houses in a box." They're durable-the house speedup in the construction ofmilitary housing. in Michigan has been there over 50 years. And Anthony Flint, author of This Land· The Battle over Its requirements Were straightforward: a shelter unlike most mobile homes, they are considered Sprawl and the Future ofAmerica, is the public affairs manager for the Lincoln Institute of L3.nd Policy in that could be mass-produced, would be suitable real property and thus eligible for traditional Cambridge, Massachusetts. for both tropical and arctic climates, would take mortgages. Properly sited, they could be an up little room on an aircraft carrier, and could answer to many housing problems. be quickly put up and dismantled. Ruth Knack, Planning II : 34 Plan~ing December 2006 i1 By Jane Adler at's Next,

As the older population grows,

ith 78 million baby boomers starting to retire, planners are asking a lot ofques­ tions about age-restricted housing: How much ofit will be needed? What services will residents require? What about public transportation? Wider questions are also being asked. How do age-restricted projects fit into the broader community? What is the impact of having a large senior population? Will seniors vote Ji against schools and other issues important to ~ the general population? "i And then there is the question of whether i1 age-restricted housing will ·c~main pop_ular given i the fact that the nation's five-year hou7ing boom has started to slow. Still, developers in many locales are proposing this type of housing, and local governments are accepting it because they see seniors as a potential boon. It is thought that older people put little the University of Southern c~lifornia. "It's developments, cater to younger seniors who strain on local services, including schools, while the underlying demographic change that the want new houses in developments with lots they he~p to support the local tax base. housing represents." of amenities such as golf courses and fitness In response, planners are beginning to ex­ Current housing surveys indicate a rapid centers. Sun City, Arizona, built by developer periment with a variety of tools. In some cases, growth in senior projects ofevery kind.Afford­ Del Webb in the I 960s, was one of the first zoning ordinances and overlay districts with able rental apartments for low-income seniors active adult communities in the U.S. But many density bonuses are being used to encourage are growing in number. New assisted-living similar projects have followed. age-restricted housing. But other communities complexes, built at a rapid pace in the 1990s, are taking a more skeptical look at this housing are now found in most towns. Legal backup type. "The age-restricted housing itself is not Condominiumsandsingle-storytownhouses Today's age-restricted projects aren't locate( the problem," says Christopher Williamson, in age-restricted developments are among the solely in warm-weather states, and not all the AICP, senior planner in Oxnard, California, fastest growing type ofhousing for those age 5 5 projects are huge. Active adult communitie: and a demographics expert who teaches at and above. These projects, called active adult can be found in the Northeast and Midwest

•,,'·• •n, .-.·r,c-,, ,, "" -~ ,.- · -- .. -~..... , .... -_. --. , ' --•, .. , ',:•. ✓-, •, T.---·• .. • ~-- American Planning Association 35

Sun City Summerlin in Las Vegas (left) is one ofmore than 2,000 developments for people age 55 and over. Charlie Schridde (above) lives in another-Burba~k Senior Artists Colony in Burbank, California.

and small actiVe adult projects-some with as other for the scant government funding avail­ over were aware ofactive adult projects; in 2006, l few as 12 units-are gaining in popularity. In able. Developers who are familiatwith tax credits 87 percent ofsuch households were. According addition, new master planned communities and other affordable financing vehicles can be to another study by Wylde, involving 5,000 often include an age-restricted section. difficult to attract. And land costs _may be too households, fewer than half of them favored "Fifteen. years ago, age-restricted communi­ high to make an affordable project feasible. these developments in 2000. But by 2006, 53.2 ties were synonymous with Del Webb," says Market-rate projects designed forseniorswith percent of households said they would consider Timothy Sullivan, a housing consultant and a moderate or higher income may or may not be moving to an active adult project. president of the Sullivan Group Real Estate age-restricted. Rather, these developments may "Now people can find a project chat fits what be merely age-targeted: The units are designed they want-from a small, 40-unit community to -~ Advisors in San Diego. "But that is no longer the only answer. The market has fragmented for people without young children, but children a big destination community," Wylde says. significantly. There is great diversity among are not prohibited. Forthosewho track population trends, how­ age-restricted projects." Most age-restricted and age-targeted housing ever, there is a basic queshon about the demand Housing law has also contributed to the units are single-story, with two bedrooms and for age-restricted housing. MRP-the giant growth o~ age-re~tricted projecJti.• Althm.i~h small yards. Outdoor maintenance is provided Washington-based organization for Americans U.S. housmg policy has generally sought' to by a home owners association. age 50 and over-is about to release the results prohibit discrimination, the Fair Housing Act of a study of migration patterns among those was amended in 1988 to permit the establish­ More choices age 60 or older. The most striking finding is that ment of retirement communities. The thinking Age-targeted and age-restricted housing is be­ 90 percent of people in that age group stayed behind the law was that older people sho11ld he coming ever more widespread, says Margaret in the same home or at least in the same county Wylde, a consultant at the Oxford, Mississippi­ over a 20-year period. In contrast, about halfof ·,, li•· alb lobowehd to dlive in places whedre they would not e t ere by younger resi ents. based ProMatura Group, which focuses on the the American population moved at least once The law was clarified by the Housing for senior real estate market. Although the growth over the last two decade~. Older Persons Act of 1995, which defines an rate of active adult housing is difficult to gauge "We really have to start there," says Elinor , J age-restricted community as one intended for because it hasn't been tracked until recently, Ginzler, directorofMRP's Livable Communi­ .;. J individuals age 55 or older, with at least 80 Wylde's company has assembled a database of ties Initiative. "Only a· small percentage of the percent of the units occupied by such a person. such projects. There arecurrently2,043 projects 60-plus age group is moving." Not all buildmgs for seniors use 5 5 as the cut-off nationwide designed for those age 55 and over. l~I age, however. Federally subsidized apartments Of those, 1,325 are age-restricted. Age spot for seniors set 62 as the qualifying age. Wylde's research also shows that consumer Even the small percentage of the baby boom Affordable projects for low-income seniors interest in active adult developments is growing. population that does plan to move represents a Ij face many hurdles. Towns compete with each In 1998, 62 percent of households age 60 and big potential market for builders, And the growth 1 ~ --'---·-·--·------· ------· ------·_- ____ . ,-----.--~-e,-•-~ __ ,_ •• •••• - '------36 Planning December 2006

ofactive adult projects has definitely caught the attention of planners. In Maryland, the Frederick County Division of Planning earlier this year published a 56-page analysis, ''Age Restricted Community Report." With 10 major age-restricted projects totaling 5,500 units underway, the county commission wanted to understand the underlying trends and . issues, says the report's primary author, Steven Kaii-Ziegler, AICP, the Frederick County plan­ ning director. "We are trying to be responsible planners beca~se there have been dramatic demographic shifts," he says. The srudy"showed that in the next 25 years the population of residents age 55 or older will grow by about 51,000. By 2030, one 6ut of3.6 county residents will be age 55 or older. And, at some point berween2010and2015, people age 55 or older will outnumber the school-age substantial amount of land for large planned housing. Some of the_se ~ools include rezon­ population. "That really gets people's atten~ unit developments-and thus was encouraging ing of specific sites, senior housing districts, · rion," says Kaii-Ziegler. "If our school-age the rapid growth of age-restricted units. Also, clustering or planned unit developments, and population were growing _at the same rate as age-restricted projects are not tested for school overlay districts. All told, more than 70 bylaws the older population, people would be scared impact, malcing it easier for senior projects to and ordinances were identified. Further, devel­ to death." win approval. opers at<::_ winning approval of age-rest_ricted The county report details the positive and In the wake of the report, the Frederick projects b"yusing the state's affordable housing negative aspects of age-restricted housing. On County planning division began worlcing on zoning law, Chapter 40B. That law allows de­ the plus side, age-restricted housing produces new regulations that would apply to any pro­ velopers to override local zoning provisions if far less traffic. Senior h9useholds are taking an posed age-restricted projects. Three new rules the project provides an affordable component average of3.5 road trips per day, compared to 9 .5 are being considered: and the community has fallen short of its af­ for a household in a traditional new subdivision. • All age-restricted communities would have fordable housing goals. Also, age-restricted projects are far less crime­ to be located in designated growth areas with The report questions whether age-restricted ~ ! prone than other types of developments. planned water and sewer service. housing is being overbuilt while also arguing that Frederick County also took a close look at • Any age-restricted community would have housing for older people is being built at rhe the impact on schools. The report suggested to include a minimum of 200 housing units. expense of housing for young families. "What thar as more age-restricted projects were built, It was felt that very small projects were being see01s to be happening is that communities are local seniors might move into them-selling proposed only to win quick approval because encouraging age-restricted housing because their houses to families with children. "The they could avoid school impact tests and fees. they want to restrict school-age children from age-restricted housing produces an indirect • Applicants would have to declare from the moving into their towns," says Aaron Gornstein, impact on schools," Kaii-Ziegler says. outset that the project would be age-restricted. the association's executive director of housing The report estimates that the current number That way, projects that "fail" the school test planning. "It raises public policy questions about ofage-restricted units in the pipeline represents vvould not be able to change their status to fairness and choice for families." a 25-year supply-possibly too much. "One "age-restricted" in order to win approval. He notes that his agency's report has received would think there is a ra1:101lal way t6 estimate considerable attention from state policy makers. how much age-restricted housing a community Putting on a cap "They're concerned," he says. would need," says Kaii-Ziegler. "But there is no Age-restricted housing has become a hot is­ Leicester is one Massachusetts town that tried-and-true mechanism to forecast or estimate sue in Massachusetts. InJi.lne 2005, Boston's changed its zoning laws to accommodate age­ how much a community should support." Citizens' Housing and Planning Association restricted housing. In 2002, Leicester (pop. The report also analyzed surrounding coun­ issued a report on che state's age-restricted active 10,000) decided to encourage the construction ties to see whether cheywere being flooded with adult communities. Two trends were noted: of senior housing by adopting a zoning byla\.'\ age-restricted projects. But the only ocher place the aging population-and the fact that active for "senior village development." The measure with nearly as many age-restricted units in the adult housing is being encouraged by local offered developers density bonuses for age-re• pipeline was Anne Arundel County, and its land-use policies. The report notes: "Using a stricted projects. After the zoning amend.men population is almost twice that of Frederick variety of zoning and regulatory techniques, -was approved, the village permitted six senio: County. "We were doing something that was over 60 percent of the communities in eastern developments with a total of 553 units. making age-restricted housing more attractive Massachusetts have permitted age-restricted "The town saw (age-restricted housing] a [for builders] than the surrounding counties," housing in locations, or at densities, not oth­ a way to improve the tax base without the as says Kaii-Ziegler. erwise allowed." sociated costs ofschool children," says Michell, It turned out that, under its growth man­ The report counted 30 communities with Buck, AICP, Leicester's town planner. agement plan, the county had set aside a zoning provisions that support age-restricted The bylaw also put a cap on the number o American Planning A;soci~tion 37

Bigelow Farms a senior housing overlay district that allowed Because the area draws man)' retirees, is an active adult higher densities for age-restricted_developments. construction of age-restricted projects is com­ communit:y of A rush of building applications followed. "The monplace. "We have not experienced problems 4 I homes-and planning board wanted to scale back the [project] or issues with senior housing," says Allison. a private clubhouse~ volume,'' she says. He explains that large new developments in Northborough, often contain an age-restricted neighborhood. Massachusetts, Resistance For example, Sun City Summerlin, with about 30 miks west Although planning policies and zoning have about 7,900 housing units, is part of the larger ofBoston. been used to fast-track age-restricted housing, Summerlin development (which has 37,400 developers say many towns still resist this housing units.) type. "People think age-restricted housing is a Clark County has 11 land-useplanningareas. slam dunk," says Dave Smith, vice president of Two plans are updated each year. The county marketing and product devGlopment at Cam­ offers a density bonus for age-restricted develop­ bridge Homes, one of Illinois's largest home ments. In areas zoned R4, for instance, the code builders. "Ir's not." allows 25 units per acre, bur an aie-restricted $mith says zoning codes often become an project can have as many as 39 units per acre. obstacle for active adult community developers. Maricopa County, Arizona, is also growing Many codes require large lots, he says, and school rapidly. "We are not encouraging development. districts continue to demand impact fees even We are just t1ying to keep up," says Darren though the developments are age-restricted and Gerard, AICP, deputy director of the Maricopa don't supply students to the local schools. County planning and development department During the approval process, questions often in Phoenix. The county has had an overlay arise about police, fire, and emergency services. district ordinance in place for age-restricted Smith points to one town that-wanted an age­ housing since 197_9. restricted project to pay higher impact fees to Developers h;ve the option of applying the park district because the older people would for an overlay in order to build this type of age-restricted units the town can accept. The be using the facilities more than younger people. housing, but most developers decide not to, cap equals 25 percent of the total single-family Yet the town had no recreation programs for Gerard sa:Ys. They prefer instead to aqow an housing stock in the town. Currently, Buck older people. "The towns see the fees as a gold age-restricted community to impose deed re­ says, the town can allow 189 additional units mine," Smith says. strictions, private covenants, and home owners of age-restricted housing. association rules. "Enforcing the age restriction Although fewer than 20 units ofage-restricted Geographic differences costs us money," says Gerard. "Ifwe get com­ housing have been built so far, Buck says con­ While built-up areas grapple with the fine points plaints, then we have to enforce the rules." He cerns are growing that the town has already ap­ ofage-restricted housing, rapidly growing places adds that it is no more expensive to provide mu­ proved too many units. "There's some discussion face other issues. This is especially true in the West, nicipal services to the retirement communities ofperhaps lowering that cap," she says. "There's where large tracts ofempty land are being devel­ than to any other type of community. certainly no movement to raise it." oped into massive age-restricted communities, But municipalities are concerned about The town of Northborough (like Leicester, like the original Sun City project in Arizona. creating enclaves that lack transportation and n in the central partofMassachusetts) adopted an Clark County, Nevada, where Las Vegas is are unconnected to the larger community. ' ! age-restricted housing cap last April. No more located, is one of the fastest growing counties "Integration into the wider community is a ' than four percent of the total number ofhousing in the nation. The average annual population challenge," says Mary Kihl, FAICP, professor of units-in town is to be age-restricted. growth rate between 1999 and 2005 was 5.69 planning at Arizona State University, Tempe. According to town planner KatHfynJoub.irt, percent. One out of five new residents is 55 or Pulte Homes, a national home builder that the town has room for another 80 units. She older, according to RodAllison, assistant director several years ago purchased the Del Webb active explains that the cap was a response to what hap­ of the Clark County comprehensive planning adult brand, is trying to improve connections pened after the town planning board adopted department. between the age-restricted communities and the general population. Public libraries are being Re-sources built at several new developments. Arizona State University offers classes at a lifelong learning Experts. AARP: www.aarp.org. Del Webb: www.DelWebb.com. National Association of center housed at a Del Webb development. Home Builders: www.nahb.org. Citizens' Housing and Planning Association: www.chapa. Achieving the right amount and kind of org. Fre$'¢ir:5p.f~L1@h ftl~qdt

II 'some• tri:3geiqffs;,bt1f.th~•. per'.\.<;:if:i{$' ~ri~:W.qrtffl if< 1 0 reijinie fya .to.·~ttc!<.. b,v:;tlieiI;,l>P!ltoyals:,..:.~veµ•jft)J.i\t· ·•. Where there were ~o.o housing units me.ans Iilhiting <;itizef\petition rigjitg: .··· planµed; n,ow:,Jljer¢•,:•;i.re,•.•i8.8:. Unfor; 'l'hepayoffw:illb~·developrtielitthat oc0• turia\ely, tli,i,J}s 11? more. liomes t\lat curs "'.here itmi!kes sense, near existiJ:ig !lliglit,!i.•\Y~~liiJJ!t/li.£Jl()1?~,~tter)o.ts.·. ~ew:er, f11t.e,r,•gcli,fol and poJire and fire . that consll!lle ppen spa,ce two 11cres at ser'vice"', .Ev'ety den~e develop111ent;,in · · atJm..f'. >ttti c· >·•<•.·•· ., . .31i.itlr¢adytiof)Jl!a\ed area ~II li"l~l;!ll!ess · ; '.i'lie DilristiiilY ro"ect or startM\vith · qeiJ.l;1i\4{9t l!\iµses i!1. the coµpfryside, §Oni~•r;fui#~;a[d iif~~•fl'!)riijti,t]i aiicJ (ii'e~iitvwilofieifspace. , > ·· ·.· · ··. local off\¢i11ls. ~\lt people livif\g nearby All that is good public policy, but it 9bj~~te!l, ·w:~~ri~•l ~lioil\ tt~c and tlie . w:on't .be to eyeryone's liking. Making the nnpact. on sc.hooII, a,mong •other con- kind offundil.inental changes required to cerns, · · ; . • · · . · alter the existing pattern of development A townwide referendll!ll repealed ap­ in Maine means big changes. proval of· what was called The Great If sprawl is to be stopped, people have Ame1in.an Neighborhood. The co\lrts tr. live differently than they do in other.( reversed that decision. parts of the country. But then again, 011~ of the hard lessons of Dunstan isn't that what we're trying to preserve Corner is that fighting sprawl will in Maine?

·' .ii • ~ !

7B

PUBLIC NOTICE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY AFFORDABLE/WORKFORCE HOUSING WORKSHOP

The Indian River County Board of County Commissioners will be conducting an Affordable/ Workforce Housing Workshop to discuss innovative affordable and workforce housing strategies. All interested parties are welcome.

THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 1, 2007 1:00P.M. COMMISSION CHAMBERS COUNTY ADMINISTRATION BUILDING 1840 25™ STREET, VERO BEACH, FL 32960

If you have any questions, please call Sasan Rohani, Chief, Long Range Planning at 772- 226-1250.

*****************************************************

To be advertised January 21, 2007.

Publish in Sunday Real Estate Section Size: 2 columns width X 2 depth Title Heading 14 points minimum (approx.) (Proportional to remaining type as indicated)

Please forward proof of publication to:

Carla Tesnow Planning Department 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960

F:\Community Development\Users\VICKIE\SASAN\PUBLIC NOTICEaffordableandworkforcehousing.doc Indian River County Affordable/Workforce Housing Workshop

Thursday, February 1, 2007 1:00 p.m. Commission Chambers County Administration Building 1840 25 th Street, Vero Beach

AGENDA

1. Call to Order

2. Pledge of Allegiance

3. Welcome and Introduction

4. Presentation on Affordable Housing Needs within Indian River County

5. Presentation and Discussion of New Innovative Housing Strategies:

• Community Land Trusts

• Inclusionary Housing

• Employer Assisted Housing

• Linkage Fees

• Private/Public Housing Trust Funds

• Other Strategies

6. Regional Perspective on Affordable/Workforce Housing

7. Coalition for Attainable Homes Presentation

8. Wrap-up Questions and Answers

9. Adjournment F:\Community Development\Users\VICKIE\SASAN\affworkagenda.doc