Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/31/20021225 Main Street [] Sebastian~ Florida 32958 Telephone (772) 589-5330 0 Fax (772) 589-5570 City Council Information Letter May 31, 2002 Recent Position ~tor's Office Relative to Recreation Services ProRrammin.cl Late yesterday afternoon, I received the attached copy of a memorandum as compiled by indian River County Administrator Jim Chandler, delivered to the Board of County Commissioners outlining the most recent set of recommendations relative to recreation service provision. At this time, Mr. Chandler feels that the best scenario relative to recreation programming involves Indian River County providing services to the unincorporated areas, with municipalities being responsible for respective jurisdictions. A number of dynamics apparently yielded this latest proposal, including such notable issues as current and projected County facilities anticipated to provide viable programs, budget time frames, consolidation of positions and salaries, as well as the necessity for Indian River County to address respective transitions with the City of Veto Beach. As such, I am not yet certain as to how this issue will impact your need to debate and direct a policy regarding partnership with Indian River County as previously scheduled to take place during your June 12th meeting. Perhaps the County Administrator's position will change again by that time? Discretionary Sales Tax Expenditure Plannin.q Process. With the recent action of the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners to endorse extension of the community's Discretionary Sales Tax Program an additional 15 years, please be advised that staff is working to compile a respective plan to outline City projects to be funded by discretionary sales tax proceeds in the coming years (e.g. necessary capital and infrastructure related projects and programs). We currently anticipate delivering the City of Sebastian Optional (Discretionary) Sales Tax Program for your consideration for authorization in time for your July 10th regular meeting. Once and if authorized, an education process can be formally City Council Information Letter May 31, 2002 Page 2 initiated to communicate the benefits of maintaining this progressive revenue stream. Interestingly, as the Discretionary Sales Tax Program represents a substantive revenue sharing initiative, funds to the City of Sebastian are anticipated to continuously increase if voters approve extending the program, a direct result of increasing population figures in the community (one of the 'population driven' revenue sources Paul Tischler discussed via his fiscal impact analysis presentation during your May 8th regular meeting). Pendin,q Policy for Delinquent Collections During your May 15th code enforcement workshop, reference was made relative to employing possible initiatives to effectively collect delinquent parking and code citation fees incurred in recent months. Days following this discussion, analysis was directed to ascertain total dollar values of outstanding balances owed to the City of Sebastian respectively. As referenced on the attached spreadsheets, total figures, including parking, false alarm and code enforcement citations currently total $1,855.00. This amount represents a very insignificant figure and therefore does not justify a need to commission outsourcing services to collect balances on the City's behalf. As such, an administrative policy is currently being compiled to outline initiatives and efforts designed to procure outstanding fines owed via employment of in-house resources, to include specific provisions for possible adverse action against those cited (e.g. negative reports to credit bureaus). Once the policy has been fully compiled and authorized by the City Manager's Office, I will provide you with a respective update. En,qineerinR DesiRn for Sebastian Boulevard (County Road 5'12) Alley Construction Please be advised that the necessary engineering design program to outline the reconstruction of the Sebastian Boulevard alley will be delivered to City Hall within the next couple weeks. I recently received a respective status report from Kimley Horn Managing Engineer Jeff Mullis regarding this matter, as arrangements will soon be made to solicit construction bids for this much anticipated capital improvement. Both the City Manager's Office and Department of Finance are working to assemble necessary funding from the community's Discretionary Sales Tax Contingency Fund. As such, respective recommendations are anticipated to be forwarded sometime this summer. City Council Information Letter May 31, 2002 Page 3 Necessary Direction for Dock Construction - June 12th Re,qular Meetin.q As previously reported, representatives from both Kimley Horn and Brandy Marine will offer a presentation relative to the recently compiled Sebastian Marina Feasibility Study during your June 12th meeting. It will also become necessary for City Council to offer direction with respect to the scope of dock construction, so as to be able to complete necessary engineering design to outline final construction plans accordingly. As you will recall, funding from the Florida Inland Navigation District's Waterways Assistance Grant Program is a primary funding source for the initial phase of this project. Arrangements have been made to request necessary time extensions, so as to be able to maintain funding levels accordingly. It will therefore become necessary to compile bid packages in the coming weeks for dock(s). Kimley Horn was authorized several weeks ago to commission final engineering design for the project. However, scheduled delivery of the final product was postponed until consensus was established by city officials relative to the overall scope and use for new docks along Sebastian's waterfront. As such, you may wish to consider ideas relative to possible construction specifics, including number of spaces for smaller vessels, lighting, electricity and/or other recommendations you may wish to offer individually. Enclosure(s): Memorandum from indian River County Administrator Jim Chandler - Recreation Services Spreadsheet Matrices - Delinquent Fine Report(s) My Docu merits/Info Letter 135 05/30/2002 13:22 561-B7~-1822 IRC ~DMIN P~SE 81 T~'~cphonc: (77~) 567-~00 INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMI$$1ON£R~ 1840 25th Street, Veto Beach, Florida $2960 FAX COVER SHEET OFFICE OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR DATE: May 30, 2002 TO: ,Rex Taylor, City of Veto Beach Terrance Moore, City of Seb. Emie Polverari, Town of Orchid Virginia Gilbert, I.R. Shores John Little, City of Fellsmere Fax 778-3856 Fax 581-0149 Fax 589-2826 Fax 231-4348 Fax 571-1901 FROM: Jim Chandler, County Administrator FAX NUMBER: (561) 976-1822 SUBJECT: Recreation Services Number of pages transmitted including cover sheet: 14 INDIAN .,~VER COUNTY INTER-OFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: Board of County Commissioners May 29, 2002 Recreation Services At thc conclusion ofla~ summers budget workshops, ~c Board directed ~ff'to examine County dehvery of recreat/on services and established a goal of eliminating thc annual $680,000 payment to the City of Vcro Beach. Conditions have changed substantially since thc informal agreements were entered/nto many years ago with Veto Beach. There has been a significant sustained population growth in both the unincorporated areas and north County. Additionally, thc County has dcvclol~d recreational facilities to the extent a viable system now exists, This was not the case when the original agreements were pursued. Although the original arrangements have served the community extremely well, with the changed conditions, thc existing system and annual payments are no longer justified. In recent months s~ has developed two alternatives, both of which eliminate thc $680,000 annual payment Attached is a very preliminary financial analysis which reflects the alternatives. Scenario 1 would involve the County providing services irt the unincorporated areas with the municipalities responsible for their resl>ective jurisdictions. The ,econd (Scenario 2) provides service delivery countywide by tho County. In my opinion, long range a countywide system would provide for a more efficient ~nd cost effective service delivery to all citizens. There would not be overlapping of programs; duplication of facilities, staffs, management; nor vm3ring fc~ structures. However, with current and projected County facilities, the County is in a position to provide a very viable program in the tmincorporated ~eas only. Staffhas met with the Recreation Advisory Committee, municipal City Manager~, and attended m,o municipal workshops. ~ Memo to Board of County c0mrmssioners Recreation Service~ May 29, 2002 Page 2 At the m~etings with thc Managers, the primary thrust was to consider a countyvdde system and determine if th*re wa~ aumform/nterest in pursuing such a system. A countywSde system w~uld require the approval of all jmSsdictions. General parameters considcredwcre: 1) actSve recreation only; 2) each would own, maimain, and develop their respective facilities; and 3) County would provide programming countywide with funding, through General Fund re~culues and user fees. At the last meeting on April 11t~, the preliminary financial analysis was dislributed and discussed with the Managers. The analysis was developed as a gUide utilizing the g~leral parameters and financial input from the cities. It projected potential first year expenses and millage impacts. The Manag~:s advised of a need to discuss the matter with their respective Councils to determine whether there was an interest m pursuing a coun.tywide system. At each of the meetings, everyone expressed that the time flame was going to be an extremely critical element. With the time frames required for almual budget preparations, submission to the elected bodies, and workshops in July, if a countywide system were to be pursued significant fundamental implementation decisions needed to be completed by the end of May. Both Veto Beach and Fellsmere expressed an interest in continuing to explore a countywide system. The Town of Orchid Council expressed no interest in considering such a system at this time. Although the Sebastian and Indian Kiver Shores Councils have considered the matter, neither has arri. ved at a decision nor is one anticipated prior to the June 4~ Board meeting. Considering there is not total concurrence and now even if arrival at within the next couple weeks, realistically there is not sufficient time to accurately finalize projactiens to adequately con~ider a countywide system for implementation next fiscal year. Sigr~ificant fundamental implementation determinations remain to he addressed, primarily between Vero Be,ach and the County, and there is not sufficient time to do so considering the bud~ schedules. Thc dcte~ninations, such as reconciliation of salary ranges, pensions and other benefits, had not been initiated pending au expression of total interest for a countyw/de system. As a result, presently there are reahsticalty two alternatives: continuation oftbe status quo for another fiscal year, or provision of services within the unincorporated area by thc County with the municipalities being responsible for their respective jurisdictions. Given the fa~t that there is not a total consensus for countywide and that the status quo does not amhieve elimination of the $680,000, it would appear that the only viable option is the second one. If the Board concurs, staff will proceed with appropriate budget preparations and action necessary to implement that alternative as well as advising each municipality. 05/30/2002 13:22 Memo to BoardofCoun~dCommissioners Recreation Services May29,2002 Page 3 YEOdmg cc: Assistazr~ CounW Adminis~'ator ~loe Baird Indian River Shores Town Manager Virginia Gilbert Fellsmere Admires' trative Assistant to the Mayor 3ohn Little Sebastian City. lVianager Terrance Moore Orchid Town Manager Emie Polverari Vero Beach City Manager Rex Taylor Interim Associate Recreation Director Mike Redstone Interim Associate Recreation Director Rob Slezak APPROVED AGENDA ITEM FOR 6-04-02 05/30/2002 13:22 561-970-1822 IRG ADMIN PAGE 05 Recreation Reorganlr~ttion Anilylis C~mpartson of ~ilJ~a Rata~ for ~J! MunictpelJfle~ - ,.~cena~to 2 va. Stat~s Ouo Millage R~te for City of Veto ~roperfy County Genera! Fund Millage Rata County M.S.T.U. Fungi MIl~aga Rata Cib/General Fund Mftlage Rate Tetal Millage CI~ & Ceun~ Increase % In=ease Status .Q..uo Scenario 2 (Decrease) {Dec. m. ese} 4,0885 4.3340 0.2455 2.1425 'J .4353 (0,7072) 6,23t 0 $~7693 M#lage Rata for Ctty of Sebastian Property Owners County C-:-:-:-~nenal Fund Millage Rate County M,$.T.U. Fund Millage Rate City General Fund MIItage Ra~e r~Mi Millage CIt~ & Count~ Increase" 4.9885 4.3340 0.2455 5.0% n/a 4.5904 4,5424 (0.0480) -1 ~e~ ~ne~ ~tus Qug Scena~ 2 (D~ase) C~n~ Gene~ Fu~d Mlff~e Rate 4.0885 4,~0 0.2455 ~un~ M.$,T.U. Fund M~e ~ n/a C~ ~neml Fund ~llage Ra~ (1) 5.7500 4.8771 (0.872~) -15,~ Total Mitlaae Clt~ & O~anty 9,8385 9.2112 (n.6274) -6.4% (ir) 7he ~ af Fe#sme~ ~ur~,ltty I~ not levying taxes fo~ /~cmatlon, however, this cai~xae~x~ 1~ t~e~e~ on a Millage Rate for Town of It~dlen PJver Snores Property Owner~ Increase % Inorease Status Quo Scenarto 2 (Decrease) (DecreaseI County Gene~a~ Fu~d M/liege Ra~e County M,$,T,U. Fund Millage Rate City General Fund Millage Rate (1) 4.0885 4.3340 0.2455 6,0% 1.4284 1.4284 0.0% Total Mllla[~le City & County 5,5160 5.7624 0.2455 4.5% Millage Rate for Tewn of ~)rc~htd ~pa~y own~ County Oe~e~l Fund Mil/age Ra~e County M.~.T.U. Fund MIItage Rate City General Fund Millage R~te (t) Total MIIlaEm CIt~ & Count~ Status Quo Scenario 2 4.0885 4,3340 0.2455 6,0% 1,3430 1.3430 0.0% 5.431S 5.6~70 0.2455 4.50~ M#lege Rate for Prope~y Owner,'in Unin~erpo~ted Areea ~u~ Ge~mi Fund Miata ~ C~ Ge~ral Fund MlUa~ ~ TO~ MIIl~e CI~ & ~ufl~ increase % Inc~eas; Status QUO Scenario 2 (De~reese) (Dec, me~e', 4.0885 4.3340 0,2455 6,0% 1,4733 1.270T (0.2026) -13.8% n/a 5.56't 8 IS.,BO47 0.0429 0.8% 0§/30/2002 13:22 §61-9?$-1822 IRC ADNIN WA~ ~ Recreation Scenario Analysis Total Cost Summary - Scensr~ 1' Scenario Revenue De~crlption Program Ac~Jvity Fees Pool User Fees · Concessions Summer Camp Other Recreation Fees Rentals TotalRevanues Status Quo Increase (Annualized) Scenario 1 (De?ease) $70,500 $100,315 $29,815 $160,000 $160,000 $0 $3,000 $3,000 $0 $60,000 $36,740 ($23,260) $8,500 $8,$00 $0 $2,500 $2,500 $o $3o4,500 $3~ ~,oss $~555 Expenditure Description Salades Benefits Operating Expenc~itures Capital Outlay Transfers to Outside Agencies Total Expenditures Expenditures Net of Revenues Status Quo Increase (Annualized) Scenado 1 (Decrease) $1,227,153 $1,471,839 $244,686 $379,994 $477,248 $97,254 $432,753 $563,714 $130,961 $15,900 $15,900 $0 $680,000 $0 ($680,000) $2,735,800 $2,528,701 ($207,099) $2,431,300 $2,217,647 ($243,,653) Non-recurring Startup Costs $0 Total Expenses w/Sta~up Costa $2,735,800 Expenses Net of Revenues wlStartup ,, $2,431,300 $77,982 $77,982 $2,606~68~ ($129,117) $2,295,629 ($'135,671) N~e: 7his scenario 1~ an estimate of ~e ~at e~nd~s and mv~u~ of a Re~on ~ln~eE ames of ~ c~, In ~ age.fig, ell ~di~dual munlci~l~s ~utd p~ ~ated ann~gzed cos~ ~ ~em~ng ~ No~ Cou~ P~. $in~ ~ ~cll~ ~as not ~ed em ~t ~a~ In a~, ~e ~d e~a end ~n~ a~ ~ e~ma~s. $~ff ~ p~ed by fha Re~ Depa~e~ 8~ flnanoiat ~ff ~m the ~s en~ has u~ll;~ ~1 O:~budget~aeon~aflen~ganlzatlon analysis l&2 ,~'29J2002 05/30/2002 13:22 561-978-i822 IRG ADMIN PAGE 09 bias Quo w/ A~mtnislratJon 8ports Pro~ram~- Programs wllhla 8uma~r Camp Total r~.~..~. No Co. Pood Ooet~ C~mty Resiclems Cities Cu~antly ia CAQe~ Sce~affo 1 Re~;m Use~' ~ ~4.500 44.748 (~.~0) [~) ~u~r S~ ~9,~ ~,000 t72.~ (~) ~,0~ ~me ~.~0 0 (2~] 32.712 ~pe~t ~7 8.750 0 5,7~0 ~u~ Temp. ~n t ~,120 28,5~ (10,~) ( 13,~7} 142,~8 ~oc ~c ~ng 76.~8 5.~B ~3.0~ (2.17g) (~2) gl.82~ ~t Coo~b~on ~,~5 6.~2 14.~ (1,7aS} (167) 102.~9 I~-Li~ & ~a~ 127.~t 11.7~ 38.~5 (5.~0) t71.02t W~'= ~m~a~ 76.~ B.7~ 12.323 (2,151 ) (~ ~) 9111 ~ ~g 17r7~ 1.~3 2.33g (511) {~5} 20.750 T~I ~mW~d ~ ........ ~',6'b~,147 ~,~1 281r823 (47.6~) (17.818) ~er ~s~al ~o 78,~8 ~.87D (14,2~) ~.718 Vehk~ .Nlcn~ance 3.30B 2.092 5.3~2 ~1Tmv~ 4.1~ 14~ (1.~) Tel~o~ 8.700 0 (4~) 8.220 ~ Offi~ ~pl~s 3.7~ 2.000 1.~ 7.2~ U~ & ~thl~ 10.31~ 4,438 [140} 14.~13 F~ 3~0 0 3,~0 ~l~ 33,1 O0 31,700 (6.~) 58.6~ T~ Opening 432 7~, 36.~0 127.~1 (25.9~) (6.58~ ~t714 C~n~ons ~uip 1.~ O 1.~ o~ M~. & Equ~ 3.0~ 0 T~I ~s~ ' 2.7~0 [518.3~) 409~3~ ~) ~) 2.~8t701 ~ ~quipm~t 4.4~ 4,~ Recreation Scenario Analysis Total Cost Summary - Scenario 2 Scenario 2 Revenue, Description Program Activity Fees Pool User Fees Concessions Summer Cam;) Other Recreation Fees Rentads Total Revenues Status Quo Iru~ease (A~nua~tzed) Scenario 2 (Decrease $70.500 $109.504 $39.004 $160,000 $160,000 $0 $3,000 $11,800 $S,800 $60,000 $60.000 $0 $~,500 $587.900 $579,400 $2,500 $2,500 $0 $304,5~0 $931,704 $627~04 Status Quo Increase (Anrtuaiized) Scenario 2 (l~crease Salaries & Benefits Opera#rig Expenditures Capital Outlay Transfers to Outside Agencies Total Expenditures $1,607.147 $3,120,805 $1,513,658 $4-32,753 $1,177,202 $744,449 $15.900 $115.900 $100.000 $680,000 $0 ($680,000) $2,735,800 $4,413,907 $4,67B,107 Expenditures N,.et of Revenues $2,431,300 $3,452,203 $1,050,903 Non-recurring Sta~up Costs 0 0 $0 ets $2,735,800 ,413,907 $! 678 1~' Note: Th~s scenetfo es~fmete$ the ~uet ~ of P~d~9 e ~un~wl~e ~Oon ~mm. mun~ and ~e un~ eme~ wou~ have ~uel a~ ~ se~i~s p~ by the ~un~_ u~er ~W e~ne~ In~ ~e ~ ~ ell ~un~ rec~e~ p~gmm~ and ~an~ ~ ~ as~a~ w~ es~e~d ennue~ ~ of ~m~ng ~e N~ Coun~ ~, Sin~ ~i~ fa~ has not ~ned ~[ n~ ~a~, In add~, ~ ~ e~s ~ mven~s ~ only e~e~. ~ff ha; ~ u~ mtn ~e e~ ~de hUmUS o~e~ e~mp~n~ ~ a~ at ~e e~M e~ove. Se~, ~e~s, a~ ~r e~ns~ O:~udget:~JaeonV~;reatl~l\raorganizalk~ arralysie 1 &,?. 5/29/2002 05/30/2002 13:22 562-978-2822 IRC ADNIN PAGE -1 llSlere.~ 2erla. s ~l, t3.tq ...... a,41~,A~ 0 0 0 0 0 O RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFFING Fiscal Year 200112002 Budget FTI PT/ i General M.S.T.U. Position T~e BT'"' t Fund Fund Total ~quafic Supervisor '-- FT 1 , 1 Certified Poo~ Operator FI' 2 i -- 2 Fadlity Manager FT 1 i t ,,- 1 Lifeguard I FT 13 Lifeguard II FT Recreation Coordinator FT I 1 Recreation Leader FT 2-- 2 Re ere afl o-"~-"'~peretlon s Manager ~ 1 1 Recreation Fa~tl_~ity Manager I FT I_. ~ 1 )taft A_~_~L~tant III I FT 1 1 Total Full Time 21 3 ...... 24 Clerk PT 6 6 ~.ifeguard I PT I~ecreation Leader PT [ 2 I 2 Recreation Aide PT I ,,l,._ 1 Park Attendant PT I i 1 Total Part Tlrn~ , ,2~ ..... I , 2 31 BT 5 / 5 L/feguard I Recreation Coordinator BT 4 1 Recreat!o .n, Leader .... BT 30 Total Tern orar~ 39 I 40 85/38/2882 1~:22 561-978-1822 I~C ~DMIN P~E 1~ RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFFING Comparison of Scenario 1 To Current Staffing I l=T/PT/ Budget ln~=rease Position Title BT 200112002 Scenario 1 (Decrease) Recreatio~ Director ' FT I ..... 1 I 1 Aquatic Supervisor FT ~ 1 1 0 Certified Pool Operat6~- FT i __~ 2 ...... 2 "0 ..... FT ' 1 i I 0 Facnit~ Manager Lifeguard I -- FT 13I 13 0 ........ Lifeguard I1 ,~ FT 1 1 0 ,,~__ Recreation Coordinator .... FT' ~ .... 1 3 ,,, 2 Recreation Leader FT 2 ,5 3 ReCreafior~ Operations Manager FT I "-~- 1 '- 0 Athle~rvisor FT 1 1 Recreation Faci!l~ Mane~er ' _ FT i ' 1-~ 1 0 Maintenance Worker FT' I 1 1 Staff AssiStant Itl FT 1 ..... 1~ 0 ~---ASs/stant I FT,, 1 Total Full Time 24 33 , I 9 J Clerk ....... PT 6 6 i 0 iLi'-'~eguard I "PT 21 21 / 0 Recreation Leader .... ~'T 2 2 0 Recreation Aide PT I t 1 0 r~aintenence Worker '- ' 15'1' I I 1 Park Attendant PT 1 I i 0 31 I 32' 1 Total Part Time Lifeguard I ,, i BT 5 5 0 Rec~reaflon Coordinator . i , BT 5 5 ' 0 Recreation Leader ........ ~ BT 30 32 2 Total Temporary I ) 40 42 2 Total All EmpI~~aes i i 05 107 .... 12 O :~ udget~a~o~ation\re~la nlzs~o n%~ta fRng levels 5/29/2002 05/30/2002 13:22 581-B78-1822 IRC AD, IN PAGE 14 RECREATION DEPARTMENT STAFFING Cornp~rison of Scenario 2 To Currant St:a~rlg I F'U PT/ Budget City ~f City of ipeson Title [ BT 2001/02 Veto Sebastian ~ Fallsmero Scenario 2 ! (Decrease) [ecreation Director FT ..... 1 1 1 )ff'k~e Manager FT 1 ,, _, 1 1 .. ~ustocltan I. FT 2 ._. I Z .....2 ~Leisure Programs I FT 'i Aquatic Supervisor FT I .... I O Cerfif%ad Pool Operator '~ FT 2 t "' 3 ~:adlJty Mena. ger~__ F'![ , I '" ~ _ 2 t FacitK¥ Supervsor FT 2 2 2 L-"~eguard I ~ FT" 13 -- 8 ._ 21 Llfeg'~ard Captain FT I ...... Recreation Coordinator FT 1 6 l 8 7 Recreation Leader Fl' 2 -- / - 2 .... 0 Recreoftotl Operations Manager FT '- t ' ,,. 1 0 Teen Perf~isor FT I t 1 Athl~dic Supervl~or ' FT 1 --- Maintenance Supe~is~ FT t Maintenance Worker ' ~ FT 3 .... '- , ~ 3 Staff Assistant Ill FT 1 [ I 0 Staff Assistant I fit ~'- 1 1 Total Full Time ~,4 31 0 1 S6 32 LIfc~uarcl I / PT 21 ... 21 0 Reoreation Leader/Coordinator PT 2 6 8 6 ReoreetJon Aide PT "~-' '-~ I 0 Park Attendant 'F~T I 0' I 0 Total Pa~t Time '" 31 6 i 0 37 6 L~feguard t BT 5 1 ~ 5 0 IAeoreetio~ Coor dlna"'~-7-------- ST 5-- 5 0 Recr,~a_ !~n ! .~m,~,.~ B"I~' 30 , 26 6 [ 62 32 'olml Temporary 40 26 ' ' ' 6 '" i 0 72 32 Total Ail Employees 95 63 6 1 ......... 165 70 3to: Th~ table provides a oomparison of current sta~'~ levels a ~s~ ~un~de Re~g~ ~$u~t/ons have ~en me~mlted up~ f~ the ~e~lo~en~ of tht~ labia as di~cu~ed ~w. ~unty s~ff ha~ ~d u~ fo~a~oh ~vtd~ by ee~ o~ m~ng ~ati~ ex~nse~ ~ ~effing ~ls. For ~ pm~o~, ~ staffing level~ ~u~ntly In ~ for t~ ~un~ and ~r ee~h ~ ~e ~, This p~on ~ ~i~$ le~$ be~n the ~uoty or any ~ the ~les. ~r Cou~ ~ffing ~vela, ~ew ~s~io~s ~r ~e N~Rh Co~ty ~cua~c Facfl~ ha~ ~ in~u~ and annualized In o~ to p~e~ng ex~n~ng for a~ wi~ ~er due to charting ~a, ae ~ ~ ~engmg ~ leve~ ~h~n ~e depe~nt, S~na~ 2 rder ~ ~na~. ~ Coun~ ~uM ~de Opening and maintenance of ecH~ ~maM~ ~l~es. Mainte~an~ and e~E~ of ~s~ ~a and ~ ~1 ~m~n w~ ~ ~b~s- A~nal~, cap~l and infmst~tu~ im~emen~ O:;bu~lget~jaaon~re~-eaaon~-eorganizatlu~ataffir~g levels 5/29/2002 UJ Z UJ o o o o oo 0 DRAFT Subject to Modifications TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 7B2 From: Staff Date: May 17, 2002 Council Meeting Subject:: Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Adopted Amendment to the City of Sebastian Plan DCA Reference No. 02-1 (formerly 00-1) Back~ound The City of Sebastian has adopted one amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of its Comprehensive Plan. Council reviewed the proposed amendment at its meeting of April 21, 2000. Council had two objections and four comments regarding the proposed amendment. The City voted not to adopt the proposed amendment on September 12. 2001. On September 26, 2001, the City voted to allow the proposed amendment to be reconsidered. On October 24, 2001 the City voted nor to adopt the proposed amendment. On November 14, 2001, the City voted to allow the proposed amendment to be reconsidered. The City adopted the amendment with no modifications on February 27. 2002, by a 3-2 vote. Evaluation The Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) issued an Objections, Recommendations,. and Comments (ORC) Report on May 24, 2000. The report contained a total of four Objections and one comment. Following is a summary of the DCA objections, the TCRPC objections and comments, the concerns expressed by Indian River County, and the City's responses. A. DCA ORC Report and City Response DCA Objection--The City's plan includes a number of criteria to be used in assessing new industrial uses, but the information provided does not show that the proposed change to industrial meets the criteria in the plan. The City should provide additional data and analysis including a traffic analysis to demonstrate the proposed change in land use is internally consistent with the City plan. City Response--The City stated that the plan amendment is consistent with the goals and policies of the City's comprehensive plan concerning location criteha for DRAFT Subject to Modifications industrial uses within the City. (Note: The City did not provide data and analysis including a traffic analysis to demonstrate consistency with the City planO 2. DCA Objection--The amendment is not consistent with a number of goals and policies of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council's SRPP. Include adequate data and analysis that supports the proposed amendment and that evaluates the impact of the amendment on water quality, endangered species, and the natural habitat that support those species within the North Sebastian Conservation Area. City Response--A response was made to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council objections and comments (see below). DCA Objection--The City of Sebastian has not complied with the requirement of the Florida Legislature to adopt criteria to encourage the collocation of public facilities with schools by October 1, 1999. The City should revise its Future Land Use Element to address this requirement either prior to or simultaneously with this amendment. City Response--The City has adopted school siting criteria. The criteria were adopted on September 14, 2001 by Ordinance #0-01-21. DCA found this amendment in compliance on October 31. 2001. 4. DCA Objection--Since this amendment is directly related by its immediate proximity to the unincorporated areas of Indian River County and will impact county facilities, the City must comply with new statutory provisions on intergovernmental coordination. The City has not yet adopted these changes nor has it demonstrated that the impacts of the proposed amendment on Indian River County were considered. The amendment does not appear to be internally consistent with the City plan nor consistent with the County's comprehensive plan. Consistency with the County plan .is important because primary access to the s~te is through the County. City Response--The City has had correspondence and met with County staff m discuss impacts the proposed plan amendment could have on Indian River County. In particular, the issue of site access through existing County residential areas has been discussed and has not been resolved at this time. The Cky believes this issue should be resolved during the site plan review stage not at the comprehensive plan amendment stage of approval. B. TCRPC Objections and Comments and the City's Responses 1. TCRPC Objection--There are inadequate pubhc facilities (i.e. water, sewer, and roads) to support industrial development in this area. Therefore, the proposed FLUM amendment is not consistent with several goals and policies in the SRPP. Additionally, there is no demonstrated need for additional industrial land. There are several nearby areas designated for industrial use that have adequate facilities in place. 2 DRAFT Subject to Modifications City Response--Public sewer and water service is not a mandatory State requirement. All state and local health regulations will be strictly enforced by the Health Department. Other industrial areas just to the northeast, originally platted as industrial with this site, are also without central sewer and water. Most of the land the City had previously designated for industrial use has been pumhased by Indian River County as part of the Conservation Area or is located in the airport "Industrial Park" that is currently inaccessible and would require significant infrastructure improvements prior to being occupied or developed. The latter is available only for lease due to Federal Aviation Administration restxSctions, rather than sale. TCRPC Objection--The proposed industrial use may result in detrimental environmental impacts to water quality, endangered species, and natural habitat that support those species within the adjacent conservation area. Therefore, the proposed amendment is inconsistent with several goals in the SRPP. City Response--The City has stated that the Fish and Wildlife Service has indicated that light industrial development is preferable to residential when abutting or neighboring conservation areas. Also, the City stated that they could require a significant buffer area for commercial/industrial developments and that all preventative measures shall be exercised and exhausted so as to prevent contamination to the surficial aquifer. ¸3. TCRPC Comment--The amendment materials provided by the City include incorrect surrounding land use classifications. City Response--The City has acknowledged that an error was made. See response to County comment gl below. 4. TCRPC Comment--The proposed land use is not compatible With surrounding residential and conservation uses. Altemativ~ sites for locating industrial uses should be considered. City Response--Compatibility with conservation uses was addressed above. The City has adequate provisions in its land development regulations to protect industrial areas. The industrial development will be required to effectively screen any proposed use from the neighboring residential district by utihzing a solid wall, fence, or natural landscaping providing a 90% .opaque screen. Other provisions of the code help to ensure that nuisances will be prevented. During site plan review, ail necessary preventative measures will be conditioned upon the development to prevent adverse impacts on the surrounding properties. 5. TCRPC Comment--The proposed industrial use is inconsistent with City plan policies that indicate that properties assigned an industrial land use desi~maation shall be accessible by major thoroughfares and buffered from residential neighborhoods. DRAFT Subject to Moditications City Response--The amendment is consistent with City Policy 1-2.3.1. The site is accessible to a major thorou~afare (County Road 505--Roseland Road), approximately 3~4 mile to the north via 129th or 130th Avenues. Accessible does not mean adjacent. As referenced above and below, buffering will be required as part of the site plan review process. The City has adequate provisions within the land development code to address adverse impacts to the surrounding properties. Public safety, health, and welfare are of the utmost concern to the City. TCRPC Comment--Prior to the consideration of adoption, the City should address the comments made by Indian River County in their letter dated March 28, 2000 to the DCA. City Response--A response has been made to the County comments (see below). As part of the report transmitted to the City of Sebastian on April 21, 2000, Council as a separate motion made an additional recommendation. The recommendation stated that due to the lack of industrial land in the City and the need for such land uses, the City is encouraged to comprehensively evaluate their need and consider a comprehensive coordinated approach to looking at industrial land use change; The City stated that it has hired a consultant to do an annexation study for the City. Once those findings have been submitted to the City, it will look at these potential annexation areas for potential use as industrial sites consistent with the goals and policies of the City. C. Indian River County Comments and City Responses County Comment--The City transmittal letter of March 10, 2000 identifies an incorrect zoning for the unincorporated property surrounding a portion of the subject property. City Response---The City did make an error in the original transmittal. The County has correctly identified the property as having a designation of L-2. 2. County Comment The only access from the subject property to the thoroughfare' system is through a residential subdivision. This is inappropriate for industrial-type traffic. City Response---The referenced access via Dale Street (129th) is not the only access to the property. The applicant has provided a Quit-Claim Deed for a 60' wide right- of-way that would provide additional access from Gibson Street (130th). There are ongoing negotiations with the County to obtain right-ofTway through the conservation area to create access from the property to Gibson Street. This would become the primary access to the property, rather then via 129th Street. 3. County Comment--The City ordinance incorrectly identifies this'amendment as small scale. DRAFT Subject to Modifications City Response--The City stated that the adoption ordinance incorrectly labels this as a smallIscale amendment. 4. County Comment--The subject property is adjacent to environmentally sensitive land (North Sebastian Conservation Area) and residential areas. Industrial development could have a negative impact on adjacent uses. Industrial uses may not be compatible with the periodic prescribed burns necessary to manage the conservation area. City Response--The compafibihty issues have been addressed above. Residential uses are likely to be more incompatible with live burns than are industrial areas. While the required buffer for industrial development provides protection from the prescribed burns, residential setbacks are not so great. D. Extrajurisdictional Impacts There have been numerous conversations with the County concerning access to the property. The County has stated that access down 129th Street is unacceptable. It is a dirt road with low density residential on both sides. The City proposed access through 130th Street, which would require an easement through County owned conservation lands. The landowner requested a land swap with the County in order to obtain alternate access to the subject property. The land to be acquired was within the Conservation Area between Gibson Street and the subject property. The County was willing to approve this request based on various conditions. These conditions included providing water and sewer to the property, mitigating for wetland and upland impacts associated with the roadway construction, securing Florida Communities Trust approval for conveyance of the property, and obta/ning jurisdictional agency permits for the roadway improvements. The landowner has not agreed to these conditions. Conclusion The City of S~bastian has not adequately addressed the concerns raised by Council nor has it provided the level of data and analysis that would be expected for such a fundamental change in land .use. In response to Council's concern about the lack of adequate facilities of an industrial use, the City indicates that the law does not require that an industrial use be connected to a public water and sewer system. Regarding concerns about inadequate roadways, the City indicates that their plan does not require industrial uses to be adjacent to a major thoroughfare only that they have access to one. The City acknowledges that there are access problems/issues but feel that they should be addressed later at the site planning stage. In response to Council's concern about impact to the North Sebastian Conservation Area, the City suggests that industrial uses may be less offensive than other uses especially regarding complaints about prescribed bums. Other impacts can be addressed by buffeting, according to the City. Finally, in response to Council's recommendation that the City comprehensively evaluate their need and consider a coordinated approach to looking at industrial land use, the City indicates that they have hired a consultant to do an annexation study. Upon completion of that study, DRAFT Subject to Modifications the City will look at annexation areas for potential uses as industrial sites. Relative to interjurisdictional impacts raised by Indian River County, the issue of access remains unresolved. Although the Indian River County Board of Commissioners voted on May 7 not to adopt the County staffrecommendation to formally object to this amendment to the DCA, the issue of access appears to be problematic with no apparent solution. Council respects the authority of local governments to prepare and amend their comprehensive plans to reflect the local vision of the community. The creation of new manufacturing jobs (estimated at 10-15 for the proposed facility) for citizens of the Region is an admirable goal and consistent with the SRPP. HoweveL the modification to an adopted comprehensive plan is a very serious matter and should be undertaken consistent with sound planning principles and after a careful analysis has shown that the new mix of land uses and location is appropriate and consistent. Although the City argues to the contrary, Council does not believe that City comprehensive plan policies were intended to encourage or allow the location of industrial uses m isolated areas with none of the public services commonly associated with industrial uses (central sewer and water) and with access limited to a narrow, unpaved local street. Council does not consider this amendment to be the result of sound planning principles for the following additional reasons: 1. It establishes an industrial use at an isolated location surrounded by rural residential and conservation lands. 2. There is the potential for negative impacts to the North Sebastian Conservation Are& The establishment of an industrial use at this location sets a precedent. Adjacent landowners may now claim that industrial ~s a compatible use. This area is too poorly situated and serviced to become an industrial area unless the City intends m finance major improvements to the area. The adopted FLUM amendment is inconsistent with goals 8.1, 3.4, 6.2, 2.1, 6.1, 6.3, 6.7, and 6.8 of the SRPP since there are inadequate public facilities to support industrial development in this area and the industrial use may result in detrimental environmental impacts to the water quality of the area, endangered species, and the namraI habitat that support those species. Also, the proposed amendment may affect the health, safety, and welfare of the citizens in the adjacent umncorporated area of Indian River County. Therefore, the adopted amendment is considered INCONSISTENT with the goals and policies of the SRPP. Recommendation Council should adopt the above commems and approve their transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs. Attachments EXHIBIT A TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLAN'NING COI. YNCrL MEMORANDUM To: Council Members AGENDA ITEM 8AI From: Staff Date: April 21, 2000 Council Meeting Local Government Comprehensive Plan Review Draft Amendments to the City of Sebastian Compx;ehensive Plan DCA Reference No. 00-I Introduction The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, requires that the Council review local government comprehensive plan amendments prior to their adoption. Under the provisions of this law, the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) prepares an Objections, Recommendations. and Comments (ORC) Report on a proposed amendment only if requested to do so by the local government, the regional planning council, or an affected person or if an ORC Report is otherwise deemed necessary by the DCA. If the local government requests DCA to prepare an ORC Report, then the Council must provide DCA with its own objections, recommendations for modification, and comments on the proposed amendment within 30 days of its receipt. Background The City of Sebastian is proposing one Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment to its comprehensive plan. The City has .requested that the'DCA prepare an ORC Report. Evaluation The FLUM amendment is shown on the attached map and summarized in Table i. TABLE 1 CITY OF SEBASTIAN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTIfRE LAND USE MAP AMENDM2ENT--DCA REFERENCE #00-1 Amendment Acreage Current Proposed Location No. FLUM FLUM Designation Designation O-00-05 14.9 Low- Industrial Adjacent to 129th Street, west of CNK. Inc. Density Gibson Road along the northern Residential boundaries of the City This amendment is for a 14.9-acre parcel located along the northern boundaries of the City adjacent to 129th Street, west of Gibson Road. Access to the property is via Roseland Road. The current FLUM designation is Low-Density Residential (which permits up to 5 dwelling units per acre), and the proposed designation is Industrial. The property is presently vacant. It had been previously cleared and used for agricultural purposes. The landowner seeks a land use desig'nation of Industrial to accommodate a proposed Styrofoam manufacturing facility. Land directly to the northeast and northwest of the property is in unincorporated Indian River County and has a FLUM designation of Low Density Residential 2 (up to 6 dwelling units/acre). Its present use is a mix of mobile and manufactured homes. Land directly to the southeast and southwest of the property has a City FLUM designation of Conservation (the North Sebastian Conservation area) and was purchased previously for scrub jay habitat and passive recreation facilities. The proposed land use does not seem compatible with the surrounding land uses. The amendment materials provided by the City indicate that the proper~y to the north and east of the parcel within unincorporated Indian Privet County is industrial. As the attached letter from Indian River County to the Department of Corm-nunity Affairs indicates, this is incorrect. The subject parcel is adjacent to residential lands to the north and east and environmentally sensitive land to the south and west (the North Sebastian Conservation area). Industrial development could have negative impacts on the adjacent residential uses and environmentally sensitive lands. Presently, the only access to the property is through a residential subdivision in unincorporated Indian River County. The access road (129t~ Street) is unpaved and seems unsuitable for industrial traffic. Currently, the residential subdivisions proximate to the site have private wells and septic systems. The nearest publiC water and sewer service is approximately 3/4 miles to the north along Roseland Road and is provided by Indian River County. Expansion of the interlocal a~eement with the County would be necessary to provide water and sewei- to the subject property. · The environmentally .sensitive land south of the' property (The North Sebastian Conservation area) was purchased in pieces between 1996 and 1999 by Indian River County utilizing funds from the Florida Communities Trust Fund (P-2000) for the protection of scrub jays and their habitat. The land use designation change to Industrial would allow any type of industrial use. Industrial uses may result in significant impacts to these environmentally sensitive lands. Indian River County is obligated to manage the conservation area with periodic prescribed bums. An intense use such as industrial on the property may result in a conflict with these management activities. Future Land Use Element Policy 1~2.3.1 of the City of Sebastian's Comprehensive Plan states, in part, that: 1) an industrial la, nd use designation shall be allocated to industrial sites accessible to airport facilities, rail facilities, and/or major thoroughfares; 2) the sites shall be buffered from residential neighborhoods; and 3) heavy metal fabrication, batch plants, salvage yards, chemical or petroleum manufacturing or refining, rubber or plastics .... ~t doCU~ , ~-~n~ thc C ~ = ~ w~c~n~. ~dus~l, ( s ~oC ~s~~c~ ~ S96 ~c~eS ~ ~c~ ~o be ~s~C~~ ,..:~al I~P~cts ~C ~~OpOS ,~ pnvat= v . iFtcant gefonal gesoU~--- g~ectS on S~gn ~.,-~se _ __mendations for Moa~ficaU°n' and objectiOnS, b'cctionS .... Dcilities kl.c~ t~~ nropOS= , ~p. . . .,,s~al d , not co== .n= policies a) Goal c) O°a~?~the degradaUO~ o, ~ , !n add..lt~on, there lo no demonstrated the C~ty Plan, the~ .deslgnated ¢~_. re are w¢)~ need for ~. - ~ndust · · '~ ~ndus~a] *~ over 200 ~r~onal ind.. . ~eas ~al use ne~bv ;~ ~se. PU~he~ acres of vacan, ~Srnal land. Ac~_ . ~ are not ~ , ~ "~ ~OSelo~ · ere, ~er~ ~ ~and i~ *~ ~uraino racili~es ;_ . ~my alread,, ~ ?"~ m uninc~ ~ ~e addition~ ," me City '" P/ace J uesl~at~ ~ ~porared r,~. "~ ~ands ~_. 2 ' ~ ZOr industry, ~,man ~Ver C ~ated for -' ~.prOposed indus~.t, m use but ha._ -pUnty. These the ~Y' endangered s~2. se may result ~ ~ . ~¢ a~equate public w;,~*~nservadon ~ ~¢c~es, and the - '" uet~ment~ ~- . ~ =~s and ~ol;~ "* proposed ~t~~ SUppo~ tho '*'s~¢t~ to water suPP°~mg POhc~es addressing the - b) GOal 6? ~d. sUpPoSing pOlicies c .,or consistent compat~bh w~th. prese~a~°n °f naturai systems preserves ~e protectmn and ~mmg Pattem~ ~ . '"~menance of o ur.~eVelopme_' _ natural syste~- m ?at ~e c) Goal 6.3 and saPP°ni~g "~ aha naive quanfry POlicies addressing ~e protection of Water quality and d) Goal 6.7 ~nd SUpponin* . . C°~unities a~- ~ pohc~es . e) "~ CC°systems ' ad~essing the protection Goal ¢-8 and SUppo~in~ , , of upland natural potentmlly end~e.~~ ~ pohc~es ~ .*u species ad~essing the protection of endangered and I. Indust~al develo~ ~.. ~~°p~ent. ~x.~ Where the~ ~=a m ~eas al "~ ~lry shog~ -- "maustdal n~.~..~ ~o the east ~) ~ ~Upp°~ Suc~ proposed i~ ~ not adopt th ~ to the wes* .,ong ~e fa:' " the w-- '~auStda] use 5J ,,e proposed " ,~rOad ~.~_ ater quality ~.[ or the subl .... amendment ~ca. - ~ t~e area ~ ,~t prope~v wi. -mess it can ~ ~ me adjacent 2. f not have d~..oc assured thar .~ o, [~ ye COnservation '~.~uS~al, ~ounty is classi~ u e~t of the ~.mng land ,Ce as Low Density ~?1 wit~n ~ **cSlaential not 10 ~ ,,~c [or this p~cc~ ,= m~ C~ shomu ..... . ~,c ~ropos~d l~u~d couscrvauou' ~ ~ol~Cy states, ~J~,c' by ~ m~o~ thorOU~" shall b~ ~cc: ' c co~cnts mad~ b~ · o~hoods. , ; uld addreSS th .~. co~mcut of . ~o~dOn, me C~ty s~o oS ~000 to ,,,~ D _ o~nr to ~hc cou~zd ... ;~ thcl~ lcttc~ of ~cn CommUnitY Aff~S tSCC ~tt~chcd)' ~ thm~ ~r~us~t~ to thc cogents ~nd CounCil should ~dop% thc above Dcp~mcu~ o~ C°~un~%~ 11 ~ ~ Rrevard Coun 12 City of Sebastian General Location Map 0 mi 2 Iocation of amendment 4 C~ty o~ Sebastian yuture Lane1 ~se MaP ~naen6me~at March 28, 2000 R'.,y Eub~nks Communitt PrO_ora ' humid Oab~ , tyAffairs , r~ 32399.~1~ DCA Re[ ~ ~1 ~P°sed Pl~ A~en~ent ease be advised that .Fhe C~t3 .s transm. . , n~ the ~bltffwi~h~ review~ t~ . ~mnco~orated "r_~rt~ letter, dated *, g co~ents: ne aOove ~feren Ct¥,'s Pmnos~ ~ ~' su~u-~. ,~larch ~ O. 2n~ . Ced COunty l~,~ : *Y~amen<menr ,q~2,~ng ~ 4.85 ac ~ sdentifies . *~p ro 4 anitx/ - 'cSidenti~ ._~ -' ~w-~nsi~, n ~ navin~ ind .... (' While ~e w~ acre) ~d A · ~,~ a~cu/r,._' v ~eS~n~) . ~ueon/~a. 'z'A~cU.- ,m~USes ~_ ~{Upto6. · ~,me .,,. ~. . keens r'r,~ ~t~ra/.; ~. t-xuSe~ D-- -al r3pe of- --' ,.e unto. . [o the rho-~ . ~cres). "Paved resident~¢~ss ~s not ~_~ '~ road) ~Pr°pnate for . ' ~ecr ' ' - -uSi . ~tt ance. The city' ~en~ent d- ' ~il~eS thi- ' '~s~duaI lea... ~t qualify fo..~ ~ "CO~ecttv ide~,~ me s~te's s~'~''t ~ Small sc~, subject Pm-- . ' ",~nes the Pm-o "~' sc~e ~en~ ~,e; itive ~_~ ~V p~Do~ ~ ~ ~a ~end~ Ument · ~du . an C dustd . . .nual Uses ~ ,~ s~ devet~Onse~ation ~ al ~s adjacen . , ~ra. lc 2c~ ~ nave ~ _ ~ ior n.~. . ~"~Iy =" resi~,. , '-pact on --,~a~ ~ ~3acent 14 ~stfia~ usc couP6 ~ cs~ab~s~C~ o~ ~a~ p~o~'. So~c ~n6us~a~ uses ~a~ hav~ a ' S~bast~ ~c~at~c ~c~ ~ a~v~s~ t~a~ thc co~tY ~s ob~gatc~ ~o ~gc th~ ~6ja~t ~o~h wi~ ~o~C Pr~sc~d b~S. Thc c~Osc Pr°x~y of thc prO~~d .. con~Ct with conSC~on l~d bum ConSc~'~t~on m~agcmcn Should. u\v~uban~ 15 Council Received a Petition with 145 Signatures at the Council Meeting . ~f lteo~iouStI 1 .m. p~C~,sS,,~ieming Gra~t, mu ~nt~ street,=~ *~e nr°Pertl' o~ ~'~ m (acto~ on ~ ~ .... industrxsl c°~a euvirou~- -'s -r°pe~ is 5e~ ~ill seriouSl)' imp will OC~ - any Other ~9m street °t~:.s ~'c/es will be su~ ~ boursl~a~'.' - - dus~rial ~e~; . or. RoselaUu' . ~,,~t uollu~ou' contribute ~u o = ' e slloW~ to b~rn . . % ' .--o scrub ~ays, . BY all°~ng a one th~ p 9 ' fez ~D~SS 18 City 0£ Sebastian ]22s MAIN STRE [] SEBASTIAN, FLORIDA 32958 TELEPHONE I $1)S89-5 37 [] FAX (S$I] $89-25 6 August 1, 2000 Stan Boling, AICP Planning Director Indian River County 1840 25m Street Veto Beach, Florida 32960 Reference: City of Sebastian Proposed Plan Amendment DCA Ref. #00-1 Dear Mr. Boling: As was discussed during our joint meeting on 18 July 2000, the City of Sebastian is in the process of identifying alternative access routes for the property under review for the Plan Amendment. As stated in Robert Keating's letter to the DCA on March 28, 2000, item number two identified the only access from the subject property to the thoroughfare system as being through a residential subdivision (located in the unincorporated county). This ac_cess is not appropriate for industrial type traffic being that Dale Street is an unpaved residential street. Access was originally anticipated to be via 129th (Dale) Street. However, due to concerns as outlined by the County staff and neighboring residents, the City is prepared to offer an alternative access plan. The City now wishes to grant access via 130t~ (Gibson) Street, which currently serves as an industrial thoroughfare. However, to access lot 16 via Gibson Street, the applicant ~vill need access rights across the North end of lots 15 and 19 (owned by Indian River County for the Flabitat Conservation Plan). Mr. Fred Mensing, owner of lot 15, is prepared to grant access rights via the North end of lot t5. As you well know, the Gibson Street (130th) terminus is adjacent to the North end of Lot 19. Therefore, the City is requesting approval from the County to =*rant an access easement along the North end of lot 19. At this time the exact dimensions are not kno~vn, but 50 to 60 feet seems to be adequate for access purposes. Please see the attached location map for further clarification. Land Use Amendment Ordinance No. 0-00-05 20 Another concern as outlined by Mr. Kearing was the property being adjacent to environmentally sensitive land (the North Sebastian Conservation Area) and that any type of permit-ted industrial use could be established on the subject property, some of which may have a negative, impact on adjacent environmentally sensitive lands. We appreciate the County's concern about potentially threatening activities. Policy 1-2.3.1 of the City of Sebastian Comprehensive Plan establishes the: Industrial uses include: manufacturing, assembling and distribution activities; warehousing and storage activities; general commercial activities: and other similar land uses which shall be regulated through appropriate zoning procedures. Heavy metal fabrication, batch plants, salvage yards, chemical or petroleum manufacturing or refining, rubber or plastics manufacturing, or other uses generating potentially harmful environmental or nuisance impacts shall be prohibited. We feel this policy incorporates the necessary provisions to prevent potentially harmful development and insure you that it is not the intent of the City to allow heavy industry within the corporate boundaries of the City of Sebastian. We certainly look forward to resolving these issues and wish to work with the County staff in ultimately devising a mutually acceptable access plan for lot 16. Please review this proposal and advise as to its suitability. If you have any questions or comments regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to call me at (56i) 589-5537. Sincerely, Tracy E. Hess Director of Growth Management Enclosure cc: Michael Busha, AICP, Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council Charles Gauthier, AICP, Department of Community Affairs Land Use Amendment Ordinance No. O-00-05 21 October 9, 2000 BO~ D OF COUNTY COMMISSIC ERS ' .o40 25th Street, Veto Beach, Florida 329~. ' 0CT ? RSGIONAL ';LANN!NG COtJNCI~ Tracy E. Hass City of Sebastian 1 _'25 Main Street Sebastian, FL 32958 RE: City of Sebastian Proposed Plan Amendment and Access to Sembler Site Dear Mr. Hass: On September 6, 2000, staff received your letter dated August 1, 2000 and, since then, has researched the issues raised by your letter. That letter contains a proposal to address traffic concerns relating to a recently proposed City of Sebastian comprehensive plan amendment (DCA Ref# 00-1). In reviewing that proposed amendment, county staff had commented that the land use change would result in industrial traffic traveking through residential local roads in Roseland. According to your letter, the Cits., proPOses to resolve those traffic problems by creating access to the Sembler s'ite via 130'~ Street. a collector road that currently serves residential and industrial uses. Although access to an additional, new industrial site via 130~' Street is preferable to accessing such a new industrial site through purely residential roads, staff has the following concerns with the new access proposed in your letter: The proposed access would traverse conservation properly acquired by the county with Florida Con~"numties Trust (FCT) funds. Because of that joint acquisition, any allowance for such access would require county and FCT approval. Allowing industrial access across conservation land would require rrdtigation for the loss of conservation land use to roadway use. At a previous meeting with staff, there was discussion of a potential "swap" of the requested county/FCT road right-of-way area in return for privately owned '.'gaps" or sti-ips within the envelope of the ex/sting overall conservation area. It is county, staff's understanding that any such "gap" areas that may exist were acquired by quit-claim deeds. Consequently, any proposal for a swap would require submittal of title work and a title opinion that substantiate private claims to these "gaps". Thus, your request does not yet include documented and specific mitigation for the proposed loss of conservation land. Such information will be necessaO' to move the request forward. Also, it is unknown at this time whether the proposed access would impact wetlands on the conservation property. The developer of the project would be responsible to mitigate any wetland impacts (and to obtain jurisdictional agency permits). letter 22 Page I of 3 An industrial project driveway across Lot 15, which is zoned agricultural (A-l), would not be allowed under the county land development regulations (LDRs). The county's LDR.s, however, would allow a 60' wide planed road right-of-way across the agriculturally zoned Lot 15. Creation of a new right-of-way may also require changes to locations of existing structures to meet county setbacks from the new right-of-way. Any platting, road construction, wetland mitigation (if needed), and setback remedies (if needed) would be the responsibility of the applicant. The proposed connection to 130° Street would abut a 35' wide potential furore residential access point to 130'h Street. Such abutting access points are so close together that they may not meet the normal standard driveway/roadway separation distance criteria 70' to 150' measured cemerline to centerline). Thus, any design of a new connection to 130'~ Street will need to adequately address this access separation issue. The proposed industrial access would abut residential properties and, under county LDRs, would require a "double frontage" buffer at a minimum. Such buffering would be the responsibility of the applicant. To move the proposal forward, the following needs to occur: Subrrfitat of a formal request to the Boa.rd of County Commissioners to release 60' of county conservation property for a road right-of-way, and Submital of a survey for the area of which you are requesting a release, including setback information for adjacent structures and any setback remedies (if needed), and Submital of a proposal of how the conservation area lost to road right-of-way will be replaced and submit title work and a title opinion of any "replacement" property intended to mitigate the conservation area loss, and Subrmtal of a road and right-of-way design, and corresponding preliminary and £mal plat applications, acceptable to county Public Works and Traffic Engineering, that proxides for the previously referenced double frontage buffer, and Acknowledgment that all costs associated with application submittal, road consnmction, mitigation work (if needed), setback remedies (if needed), and buffeting will be borne by the developer of the project. In regard to introducing new industrial uses adjacent to the conservation area, county staff appreciates your explanation that "heavy" industrial uses will not be allowed and that any allowed uses will be regulated through city zoning procedures. County staff looks forward to the opporturJty to provide comments on any specific industrial use site plan if and when any such development proposed for the property' occurs in the future. 23 If you should have any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact me at 567- 8000, ext. 1253. Sincerely, Stun Bolin~, AI~4~ Planning Director Attachment: Letter and Map from Tracy Hass CC: Robert M. Keating, AICP Roland DeBlois, AICP Jim Davis, P.E. Ch_ds Mora, P.E. Jeanne Bresett Will Collins Mike Busha (TCRPC) Charles Gauthier (DCA) Dori Roy (TM# 2000.0480) DATE: TO: COPIES: FROM: RE: '16 May 02 Terrence Moore, City Manager Paul Wagner, General Services Mark Mason, Finance Director Terry Hill, Public Works Director Dave Fisher, City Engineer Water Well Level Monitoring Program -STATUS Our research on this issue leads us to the following course of action: · To monitor the levels of existing wells in selected locations where the homeowners have switched over to County Utilities water. This requires: 1. Identification of such locations; 2. Permission of the homeowners at those locations; 3. Installing a cap / fitting on the selected wells for monitoring access; and 4. Acquisition of the monitoring equipment / device. Attached is a copy of the purchase requistion forthe recommended device, a "Watermark Water Level Meter and Case", for the amount of $692. Shipment is next day following placement of purchase order. If approved soon, we could have the device in hand ready for monitoring by the end of next week (May 24). For your information, Ginny Sieferd provided key research and recommendations in this matter. 29 April 02/DWF Page ? of I HOME OF PELICAN ISLAND THE CITY OF SEBASTIAN WILL HOLD A STAFF WORKSHOP ON TUESDAY, MAY 28, 2002 AT 1:00 P.M. IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS FOR THE BENEFIT OF RESIDENTS ON PONOKA STREET TO DISCUSS REAR DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS. THE PROPOSED WORK WILL OCCUR IN CITY OWNED PROPERTY KNOWN AS TRACT "Y" WHICH CONNECTS TO COLLIER CREEK. ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS REGARDING THIS IMPROVEMENT SHOULD BE DISCUSSED DURING THE WORKSHOP.