Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-04-2011 PZ MinutesCITY OF SEBASTIAN PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 4, 2011 Chairman Dodd called the meeting to order at 7:00 P.M. The pledge of allegiance was said by all. ROLL CALL: PRESENT: Mr. Roth Mr. Dodd Ms. Hennessey (a) Mr. Carter Mr. Reyes ALSO PRESENT: ANNOUNCEMENTS: Mr. Kayser (a) Mr. Qizilbash Mr. Durr Mr. Hepler Joe Griffin, Community Development Director Al Minner, City Manager Robert Ginsburg, City Attorney Dorri Bosworth, Planner Linda Lohsl, Business Tax Specialist Ken Killgore, Finance Director Debra Krueger, Administrative Services Director Chmn. Dodd stated Mr. Kayser would be voting in place of Mr. Hepler. Mr. Hepler then arrived at 7:03 pm. Mr. Minner reviewed recent organizational changes with staff and various departments. He introduced Mr. Joe Griffin as the new Community Development Director, noting the new name change for the Growth Management Department, reviewed Mr. Griffin's credentials, and explained the new divisions within the department: Planning and Zoning, Building, Airport, and Economic Development. APPROVAL OF MINUTES: MOTION by Roth /Durr to approve the minutes of the June 16, 2011 Regular Meeting as submitted. Motion was approved unanimously by voice vote. OLD BUSINESS: A. QUASI - JUDICIAL PUBLIC HEARING — SITE PLAN — CLAMS R' US — 1624 INDIAN RIVER DRIVE — MIXED USE: AQUACULTURE FACILITY AND SINGLE - FAMILY RESIDENCE — CWR (COMMERCIAL WATERFRONT RESIDENTIAL) ZONING DISTRICT Chmn. Dodd opened the hearing, the City Attorney read the agenda item title, and Chmn. Dodd disclosed that this was a second review of a site plan that was deferred from the March 17th, 2011 meeting with changes submitted by the applicant in response to the Commission's comments and concerns. The Commissioners were asked if they had any exparte communication to disclose. There was none. Mr. Ginsburg swore in anyone that was going to offer testimony. Mr. Doug Vitunac, Esq., from Collins, Brown, Caldwell, Barkett & Garavaglia, Chartered, 756 Beachland Boulevard, Vero Beach, represented the applicant, Mr. Joseph Weissmann, who was PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2011 present along with the civil engineer, Mr. David Knight, P.E., and the architect, Ms. Amy Banov, AIA. He reviewed some of the issues from the 3/17/11 meeting, noted three Commissioners were new and not present at that meeting, and stated the application meets or exceeds the code requirements. He requested that the record of the 3/17/11 meeting be included as a part of the record for the current hearing, and verified with Ms. Bosworth that she reviewed the plan and that as stated in her staff report the application met the code. Mr. Vitunac also discussed some legal aspects of site plan decisions, e.g the quasi-judicial nature and factual determination of a review. He stated the applicant carried the initial burden of showing the proposed project met all codes, and that the burden shifted to the Commission to demonstrate by substantial competent evidence that the application did not. Mr. Knight, P.E., with Knight, McGuire, and Associates of Vero Beach, displayed an aerial of the property, discussed the nature of the site, reviewed the previously requested landscape waiver, noted the wetland area and all perimeter areas were now being considered for landscaping calculations, and stated all the state jurisdictional permits have been issued. He confirmed that the new landscape plan met all requirements including the Riverfront Overlay District's. Ms. Amy Banov, with Banov Architecture and Construction, Inc. of Vero Beach, displayed a colored rendering of the new proposed building elevations and noted the revisions were also reflected on the last sheet in the site plan set. She stated the building met all required codes for building coverage, open space, height, and setbacks. The landscaping shown on the colored pages was an artistic rendering, did not depict the actual landscaping that will be planted, but was at the correct scale. She explained that the structure was designed to comply with the required Old Fishing Village character by using the rural cracker and Caribbean vernacular styles and those elements of two stories, a pitched metal roof, extensive use of porches and railings [primarily on the riverside], vertical window arrangements with muttons in the glass, shutters, garage doors with traditional styling, and an entry porch was incorporated into the elevations. Mr. Carter stated his concern that the building was still the same size. Mr. Durr stated that because 50% of the property was wetland it would be hard to successfully landscape using the proposed plan. He questioned the building coverage being increased by 150 SF from the last site plan and that now a waiver was not being requested. Mr. Knight stated originally there were two porches in the rear with one being covered. Only one was included in the building coverage figure. He stated both porches were now being included in that figure but that the footprint had not changed. Mr. Durr felt that the landscape numbers were added to meet code but that the actual plan would not work, especially in the area around the liftstation, water meter, and utility lines, and the area by the handicapped parking between the asphalt and retaining wall. He asked questions about the trench in between the driveways, the mitered end detail, crosswalk and handicap parking final grades that Mr. Knight answered. Mr. Durr again reiterated his concern that the landscape plan would not work, felt that some parts of the landscape code were not met, and that the amount of landscaping, including calculations for the wetland area that staff stated they added, could not realistically survive on 50% of the property. Staff stated the applicant had asked if they could plant in the wetland area. The decision was deferred to DEP since the wetlands were in their jurisdiction. They stated they did not want any new or additional planting in that area. Regarding a question from Mr. Dodd, staff clarified that the retaining wall was the actual delineation line between the uplands and wetlands. Mr. Durr asked if the landscape plan was designed by a certified landscape designer. Mr. Knight stated yes, but that he had signed the plan since he put the details on the sheet. Mr. Durr also asked questions regarding requirements for an irrigation plan, and phasing sheets. Mr. Kayser asked about the timing for each phase. He also stated his concerns for the size of the project. 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2011 Ms. Hennessey had questions on the location of the utility easement mentioned in the staff report. Ms. Bosworth stated the easement was dedicated from a very old subdivision plat and was located near Indian River Drive. Asphalt from the drive aisle was being proposed to be placed in the easement, and because it was not a structure, the easement did not have to be formally abandoned. Mr. Qizilbash questioned how many employees were expected. Mr. Weissmann stated none at this time. Mr. Qizilbash also voiced his concern with the lack of space for the planting of trees by the parking spaces between the retaining wall. Mr. Roth stated he was one of the commissioners that could not attend the March 17th meeting. He asked what type of vehicles would be on -site noting that there was no parking designed for large vehicles. Mr. Weissmann stated the vehicles would be normal size pick -up trucks as this was not going to be a packing plant. Ms. Bosworth stated the code required one loading zone /area which was shown on the site plan in front of the garage. Mr. Roth stated he agreed with Mr. Durr in that there was a lot of landscaping proposed for the site and that he probably would have voted in favor for the landscape waiver if he had been present at the March meeting. Ms. Hennessey questioned if the aquaculture facility was for scientific research or wholesale. Mr. Weissmann stated the clams would be loaded from the river and then brought to a packing plant. Mr. Reyes asked if there would be a fence or barrier on top of the retaining wall to keep vehicles from going over the 5 -foot drop. He suggested bollards or some safety device be added to the details. Mr. Knight stated the site would not be open to the public. Mr. Reyes also asked if the 2004 Environmental Site Summary had been updated since then with new studies, specifically sea grass reviews. Mr. Knight replied that a new sea grass study had been done July 2010. Mr. Weismann verified that three studies had been done over the last 10 years for the state agencies and there were no problems found. Public Input was opened. Mr. Chris Pinson, 9266 106th Avenue, who has financial interest in a parcel along the Indian River Lagoon, stated he was in favor of the project because he felt the applicant met what was expected for development in the riverfront, it is a project preserving the commercial fishing heritage which has been the intent of many political statements, and it is on the same path as the working waterfront project at Hurricane Harbor. He felt it was a project that was definitely improving a dilapidated property that previously had a dock. No one spoke against the project. Mr. Vitunac asked the Commission not to turn the project down because of the landscaping, or trees, in consideration of the time already spent and the amount of State agency permits the applicant has had to get in order to get his project started. He stated speculation can not tell if the trees will survive or not, and that the plan was designed by a certified landscape architect who said it will work. He reviewed that at the March meeting the Commission discussed their displeasure with the request for a landscape waiver, even though they granted the same waiver for the Fisherman's Landing project. He asked that this project be treated the same, and that because all codes were being met, approval be granted. Ms. Bosworth reviewed the phasing schedule pointing out that the structure was not proposed to be built until 2013, that staff also felt there was a lot of landscaping and wished that the waiver was granted but that the [landscape] plan now met the code, and recommended approval. Mr. Dodd stated that his opinion of the March 17th meeting was that the Commission did not ask the applicant to fix their landscaping, which the motion reflects, but to reduce the size of the structure. He read from the Land Development Code that the site plan review intent is "to 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2011 determine if the development is compatible and coordinated with the existing and anticipated development within the immediate area ". He stated he is not too concerned with the landscaping but that there are no other single - family residences in this area from Main Street to Jackson Street, and because the city has invested a lot of money for development in that area, he did not like the large single - family structure with the very small commercial use. He felt this area should be tourist - related businesses only, changes should be made to the LDC, and the site plan should be denied because it was not consistent with anticipated development. Mr. Reyes stated his concerns were also not landscape related, but public safety and environmental. Mr. Roth asked specifically what uses are allowed in the [CWR] zoning district. Staff read verbatim the permitted uses from the LDC. Mr. Roth asked if this was one of the zoning districts the Commission had reviewed during a previous meeting for proposed changes to the district, one which was removing residential uses, and had those changes been approved. Ms. Bosworth stated the meeting had been a discussion item only, and that the proposed changes had not been through public hearings or approved. Mr. Dodd reiterated his concern for the single - family use in this area, and felt the site plan did not meet what the anticipated development should be. He stated that if this was a commercial clam operation with an ancillary residence he would have a lot less issues with the proposal. Ms. Hennessey asked for some clarification on the clamming operation, if it was considered commercial. Mr. Weissmann explained what his permit from the Dept. of Agriculture would allow him to do. Mr. Vitunac also responded stating that the code did not require the site to have any commercial uses on it as single - family residences were a permitted use in the district. MOTION by Durr /Roth to deny the application for the site plan for Clams R Us at 1624 Indian River Drive, mixed use - aquaculture facility and single - family residence. Mr. Ginsburg directed the Commission that the motion would need to be specific on why the application was being denied. MOTION by Durr /Roth to deny the site plan for Clam R Us at 1624 Indian River Drive in relation to Section 54 -4 -18.1, item #3. Mr. Hepler stated his dilemma of not wanting to deny the applicant his property rights, but understood Mr. Durr's landscaping concerns. However, he felt the project met all the required codes and did not see how the Commission could deny the project because it was not tourist - related. He stated the city needed working waterfront projects to be a fishing village. Mr. Reyes agreed with Mr. Hepler, but would like to see an approval with conditions. He stated the application was submitted before the discussions held by the Commission to revise the zoning districts uses. Mr. Carter also agreed with Mr. Hepler, but was disappointed that the applicant did not reduce the size of the structure. Ms. Hennessey stated there has been a lot of talk about Sebastian's working waterfront, but in fact there is very little harvested from our area. She felt the project was getting something moving in an industry that was suffering and struggling. Mr. Roth stated he came to the meeting with intentions of denying the project because the minutes of the March 17th meeting noted the Commission had ask the applicant to reduce the size of the structure, and it was not. But based on comments he has heard, he withdrew his second. 4 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2011 MOTION died for lack of a second. MOTION by Reyes /Qizilbash to approve with a condition of adding barriers to the retaining wall in front of the parking area. Mr. Roth stated he could vote to approve if a condition on the size of the structure was also added. After discussion, no condition was added. ROLL CALL: Mr. Durr no Mr. Hepler yes Mr. Qizilbash yes Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Roth no Mr. Carter yes Mr. Dodd no The vote was 4 -3. Motion passed. NEW BUSINESS: B. RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL — REVIEW OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM AND CAPITAL OUTLAY ITEMS GREATER THAN $50,000 — 6 YEAR SCHEDULE FY 2011/2012 THRU 2016/2017 Mr. Minner reviewed with the Commission the history, process, and requirements of bringing the Capital Improvement Program (CIP) to them for their recommendation to City Council. He stated that the Budget Advisory Committee had worked on General Fund items, City Council has had discussions and given direction on projects in the CRA, and the Parks & Recreation Committee has had meetings on recreational projects that appear in the proposed CIP. Mr. Minner began his Power Point presentation (see attached) and stated he would give an overview of CIP funds, review re- occurring CIP'S that have debt, introduce new CIP's, and answer questions. He reviewed the CIP funds which were Special Revenues from Discretionary Sales Tax fund, Local Option Gas Tax, Stormwater Utility Fee, Recreation Impact Fee from new development, and Tax Increment Fund monies from the CRA. He then discussed specific projects planned with monies from each of the funds. Mr. Roth pointed out that Mr. Minner's information was difficult to follow with the CIP information they were using from their packets. The Commission discussed different hand -outs they had received, draft or final, depending when they had picked up their packets or what had been emailed to them. Chmn. Dodd called a recess at approx. 9:00 pm. The meeting was called back to order at 9:07 pm. All members were present. Mr. Minner apologized for the confusion with the packet information and continued with his presentation using Page 2 of the CIP packet, which all members had, for further explanation and discussion of the proposed programs. Mr. Hepler had questions on where the Local Gas and Sales Tax comes from, specifically if the tax from the gas stations in Sebastian stays local. Mr. Killgore explained that tax from all the gas stations in Indian River County are sent to the state, who then returns a percentage of the funds based on the number of distributors in the county. Mr. Minner continued with discussions regarding the Enterprise Fund projects (Cemetery, Golf Course, and Airport), stormwater projects, recreational, and CRA projects. 5 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING OF AUGUST 4, 2011 Mr. Roth had a question on the Go -Line bus contribution and Mr. Reyes asked about grants and a staff position for grant writing. Mr. Minner discussed the grants that the City had already received, noting that existing staff has been diligent in searching and applying for grant monies, and because of the economy, are drying up fast. There was a short discussion regarding sewer grants and the changes to Sebastian that would need to happen coming from a septic sanitary system. Mr. Hepler voiced his dissatisfaction with the information given to them, specifically where the figures came from and how they were backed up. He felt some of the figures were high and hadn't gone to bid, i.e. $75,000 for painting city hall buildings and new police vehicles. He stated the street paving information did not have specific roads identified and that info in the power point presentation was not given to the Commissioners. Mr. Minner clarified that there was no new street paving proposed for the next budget year and that the CIP was a general 5 -year plan with the more specific details to be reviewed at initial stages. Mr. Dodd verified that the CIP was not an authorization to expend funds but a framework for the funds. Mr. Hepler also asked questions regarding the quarter -round project and if monies collected from the parking -in -lieu program were accounted for the in the CIP. MOTION by Dodd /Durr to recommend to City Council to approve the Capital Improvement Budget FY 2012 to FY 2017. Mr. Minner answered the quarter -round questions and stated the parking -in -lieu funds are being held in a special revenue account until the amount is increased to use for a project over $50,000. ROLL CALL: Mr. Reyes yes Mr. Dodd yes Mr. Roth yes Mr. Durr yes Mr. Hepler yes Mr. Carter yes Mr. Qizilbash yes The vote was 7 -0. Motion passed. CHAIRMAN MATTERS: Mr. Dodd questioned the amount of flags being used at the used car lot on US #1 across from the park. Staff explained flags are exempt as long as they are used for non - commercial purposes. He stated he wished these flags had also been reviewed with the new sign ordinance. MEMBERS MATTERS: Mr. Carter stated he had attended an event at the new Fisherman's Landing and he was very impressed with the project and especially enjoyed the observation tower. DIRECTOR MATTERS: ATTORNEY MATTERS: None None Chairman Dodd adjourned the meeting at 10:06 p.m. (8/8/11 db) 6 CIP Funds P21.1 CII) .• CJ Cu O CD g A A > Introduce New CIPS P4 0 •- CJ CU Cl CLi H au et c4 et: 0 ...I au r A N M 4 ➢ CIP Funds are Motor Fuels Tax (Local Option Gas) Stormwater Utility Fee Impact Fees — Recreation Incremental Property Taxes (CRA) -'5 °4 5 0 clo :8 A 1 7: ct■'-' x '41 At' c:1 , , e■ N cA 14 P4 -4a) E V.ii-N C% O � O � O p4 kr) GC ii4 /1 CZ EA- C.) V O Po Paint DST Debt Financed "ma\ 0 0 0 n t N US' CA •may • will • - V Ct Wmi Police Station n V 1 5O • it) 7:7-1 coo 1) Fol4 v 1 Corridor F1nhancements DST Balance Sheet W O 1, W O • m N W m O - f W 'YIN 0 ill 07 0 W 7 rr- OOO W'. Z (0 • 1- LL w0 Xzcv H JIO • N WMN J ol LL tl1Fw 0>" 00X0) LL - aLL' w o N 3 m OOOOOOWOODWo O CO 0 WOO YI O O O O o 82 2 W. 2 co W YIDA O W OalG NN CO NY N CO M CO 0 CD 0 tea' lNge , ^ W CP Lii /oft. O A—) O O I M wime CA N cii) \a.m./ : •Pm* Cit la •iml 44 0 O © © mr:, 1-1 g5 \..../ Po 61 7111 ;.• 44 cu C. cz -,..) ;.• CI i.i siN 0 0 0 LS. • p •- .45 O Co) VI • m4 114 Cou CO, m n m LO j N CO 0 CO (0 10 LO n m N fv m ry L° 01 CO OD LO tD 0 CD LO N LO CO 10 bi IT 0) 00 8n88Ln 0 LQmm 8 88m p CO LO n C9 LIL CO LID tO O N N LO LO mm•- N N O LO m n vLAIR co co 0 m ID 0,, i m . m L J _ 0 J... C C 021 ,m X N z, m c F m u_ -'m a CILL EEL,. ° a 0 c m.s 0 t o D .. = 0 U (7 v Q 0_ U' m 0 O o m rnI '04- 'oa i,m U' m haw (9 amy^.m a. O m> m O m a O J c m m 1- a `: c _.ham -. a cr m, F- I. O 2 rWj F- a m � m J L _ . _E J hO OLL' !- o u_ cn (b F 8 O� a F- Gb O 8,5"a I ? O O O n N 44 CC: •,mq CA CI 44 P4 CI O O V O n CI O t I ime W e e O V ci) = V Ct .4..) cz = W cA V tu 44 Cl w = ‘i •'.• wic;)4 Lz ;..4A V 1:3 az V VI . w � =1 ct a= V/ ,---, cl © O O I c; t 04 5 Rtz o W c, := w, cA +wi O 44 rail 4 CA V rI 44 0: *4 Imo CA pl 4W 40 4 Cit PP 41 U i."1 cit 1 c%, E ct P4 © 1.4 cit O = Ro g:I. czt v .. Jo cit Recreational Impact Fee Balance Sheet 45 } LL 10 0) n m n'm ▪ U1..; N 0 IN 0 O IN 0 rRi 0 co. co 00 • SO I: (D -: 4) O 1 0) 0) 4) 4); N', [D 0: 0 0 N O 0 : 0O'. 0 471 0 CO : (NI 4) 0, } LL csc } LL O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4)N0004) 69 0'0 n (OD' O (DI CO '. 4) CO '. N 00 69 pN 141i CO n CO N m 888888E (nao000 0701 0H74i 0 r ID 40 Nn O ID O co (0D 0 } LL 0 ID (.O :0(00 CO ' 0) (00).- O NNN 0�7(..O CO 4(07 0 0 0.N W N -'4) CO .- 41 ':n CNlr Cr) [V,.. ■ W CC W (4- 0) a) Q (5 _ 1 I, Cr a W 0 M (' Iz O+ W, g co u 0- 5 • Y m 121 I J. O CO W • ID I ti ICI �11� WW Z. - LL 2 LL LLj LL [Z c W (',.' J J Jj J zJ JZ' -0 1- d F F€ 1-; 0 H Q O c'60 N O 0 ! 0 W OpO Z. C N o m m 0) (L c 0 m v E -D • G E D a m > z X r o o 0. 8 U Cc o5 a, M = d W m a LL d W u 'u Q 7] n 3 0, y m m C (Va u E w m fl- -y t m d N m 8} a 0 m W up le U tL m Y ,_ m, `e m rn m m a m m = .Cr) a m'.r v cmm r W `5, c ;v 92 0 IY dY}'y maa aka} m_.°)m m ma p C C m m mY m �) m -LL > „ a1 .2: LL c'Y""a D_LL as E m 2 CA CA a a a ■m it- [l (A C() $ $. m a c c >,CA CA m m N-s d: a) 0) w ami a `m o Q a`i AZ d m Q .` 3 d `m may-. `-� Q U a,.0 s -:a m m a Y a) E 1,7 t rn w m 3 h o a) �� m i- a' =c IAm m(YA(n=mw2Q°mwEEmEaaQMmmm6mi- 0) ID' 0 (■ to IOD 0 N 69, 0) V O] h9 N 07' O) in 69 0 O m 69' CO co 0))' (O 4) 69' 01 CO N 07' ID' 01 69, 0 01 O' Operations — ($53,954) i ct C. cu ct ciJ P•; o =o Cto N 01? E0 GA CA n ct ci czt P.. CW CA V Ct 1 RIVERFRONT CRA FUND PROJECTED BALANCES FISCAL YEARS 2012 -2017 FY 09 -10 FY 10 -11 FY 11 -12 ('fin :'1'3 FY 13-14 FY 14-15 I FY 15-16 FY 16 -17 TOTALS Tax Increment from City ax Increment from County 5 223,426 $ :153,900 $ 137,279 a y'i ' 5 130,415 5 I $ 138,357 $ 142,508 $ 1,048,119 my 206 304 143,720 128,198 '2 121,788 125,442 , 129,205 133,081 976,446 "Rents 3,781 - mi - 3,781 :Investment Income 3,055 4,650 4,650 3,740 3,740 I 3,852 3,968 27,624 SW PROJECTED REVENUE 436 ,566 302,270 270,127 255,943 263,509 t 271,414 279,557 2,055,970 r tt iOperating Expenditures 40,586 y I Kioskl 4,024 F6585eSi n Improvement Program 15,370 �" '.`s'a' g R or Uniform SIgnage 15,600 Special Events 34,395 k • x 1 Design of Gateway Concept 2,000 , u CRA Master Plan 6,433 ;tr Design of CavCorp 11,716 _... .4, r Flag Pale 2,377 Aw Yacht Club Finger Piers 7,452 i I Transfer to General Fund for Quality Maintenance 60,000 ,,,57-!II ,,r,,,;• Match on Waterfront Grant 535,119 'Renovations on Waterfront Properties 3,541 . 'TOTAL RERFRONT CRA FY10 738,613 x N I Operating penditures 52,954 P r� Ex '',. FayatlelSlgn Improvement Program 30,000 15086181 Events 36,468 &, :,q.k ■ TTransfer is General Fund for Quality Maintenance 60,000 (' IBIS Boards 15,000' 1Parking Study 27,405 29E4510 j. 065198 of Enhancements to Presidential Streets : 13,500 if, !Waterfront Renovations 250,000 'I ;TOTAL RIVERFRONT CRA FY11 - 485,327 ,(l 1,10i iii* :Operating Expenditures 53,954 I , :FayadelSlgn Improvement Program 20,000 _ ,Special Events 36,468 l Gateway Enhancements 25,000u; iy1 i.. Parking Improvement Engineering 75,000 'l a1 Transfer to General Fund for Quality Maintenance 60,000 '1 TOTAL RIVERFRONT CRA FY12 270,422 ° � , II I s a{ _ ` . 7 2 ua s 2a ,. tom:' ., , !.dt. r , - �.:-`., 7,- wad s Operating Expenditures 53,954 Facade /Sign Improvement Program 30,000 - I ,,Spec) al Events ! 36,468 Transfer to General Fund for Quality Maintenance 60,000 ;TOTAL RIVERFRONT CRA FY14 1 180,422 ;Operating Expenditures _. _.. i 53,954 !Facade /Sign Improvement Program - 30,000 ;Special Events 1 36,468 !Transfer to General Fund for Quality Maintenance 60,000 TOTAL RIVERFRONT CRA FY15 180,422 I ;Operating Expenditures j 53,954 Facade /Sign Improvement Program 30,000 '.. .... Special Events 36,468 :Transfer to General Fund for Quality Maintenance I I 60,000 1TOTAL RIVERFRONT CRA FY16 180,422 , Operating Expenditures 53,954 FayadelSlgn Improvement Program - ( 30,000 Special Events I 36,468 .Transfer to General Fund for Quality Maintenance 60,000 TOTAL RIVERFRONT CRA FY17 , 180,422 I BEGINNING FUND BALANCE $ 984,638 $ 682,591 $ 499,534 $ 499,239 $ 334,957 $ 410,478 $ 493,565 $ 584,558 $ 984,638 ;ANNUAL REVENUES 436,566 302,270 270,127 256,140 255,943 263,509 ` 271,414 279,557 2,335,527 ANNUAL EXPENDITURES 738,613 485,327 270,422 I 420,422 180,422 180,422 180,422 180,422 2,636,472 `ENDING FUND BALANCE $ 682,591 5 499,534 $ 499,239 5 334,957 5 410,478 5 493,565 , $ 584,558 $ 683,693 5 683,693 Stormwater cu O-I N M O 0 O N N vs CW 114 y 04 p4 tei M GW E in x5' c't en Pi 71- +4 u4 ,rm ......, A Twin Ditch Collier Creek O O O O O in U4 w ;•4 cv a? C... O .1—) cu 1-1 ct Emo Stormwater Balance Sheet ($60,000) m Nlm C71 n N N Q M N m:n CO Is mme (In 0 0 m 0 rn rn' rn .0 m -m M Qlm M �'m o m N n mLm m v> m N 0 rni 0 m DOOM O N 0 N N 010 OS o m mom e N 0 N 0 n 0 0 0 N 0 m 0 0 co on o 00(000 m O N e- e N e- e 0 O CO 0 m m N 0 N m m c o m m 0 c m m c c m IV m N m o fn o to 7r c,,,: 0 0N dam* a vsz m �LL m • y LL H ti .T.,. 'd .▪ °_:mid .�.wma .�'mm et y m m y m m m 0 W N m 0 160 O: C 0d 160 m6 ONp mm Vl ON~N Tomo} a4 wmm4 c m (0 F _ c F .0} -0000. °TWO a � n h- w m0 f 0 - 0 1 - 1 - W to w H W;o J;0 z7Z LU Zzz$ DZZZl 00:10440 '..