Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10/23/1985Wednesday, October 23, 1985 The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, met in Regular Session at the County Commission Chambers, 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 23, 1985, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman; Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Vice Chairman; Richard N. Bird; Margaret C. Bowman; and William C. Wodtke, Jr. Also present were Michael J. Wright, County Administrator; Charles P. Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners; and Virginia Hargreaves, Deputy Clerk. The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner Wodtke led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag. ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA Commissioner Scurlock Jnformed the Board that he would be giving a Transportation Planning Committee Report under Committee Reports. Attorney Vitunac requested the addition to the agenda of three resolutions all having to do with the sale of the Re- financing Bonds, and Administrator Wright suggested these be included as Item 11 B. under Item 11 - Award of the Refinancing Bonds. Administrator Wright then requested that the 9:05 A.M. item, having to do with rezoning and Comprehensive Plan Amendments for Grand Harbor be moved to 10:30 A.M. in conjunction with the hearing on the Grand Harbor DRI and the items where we have a large number of people present be moved up and heard earlier. Commissioner Scurlock noted that, in other words, Items 11 A and B under the Administrator's matters would be considered at 9:05 A.M. OCT 2 3 1985 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added and moved items as requested and as described above. CONSENT AGENDA 6 2 Administrator Wright wished to remove Item E for discussion. A. Annual Reports 1985 Annual Reports for the following were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: David C. Nolte, Property Appraiser Freda Wright, Clerk of Circuit Court Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector R. T. "Tim" Dobeck, Sheriff B. Reports The following Reports were received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk: Traffic Violation Bureau, Special Trust Fund, Month of September, 1985 - $43,426.71 Traffic Violation Fines by Name, September, 1985 C. Payment of Impact Fee on Installment Plan - Alexander The Board reviewed memo of Assistant Utilities Director Joseph Baird, as follows: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: COUNTY COMMISSIONE THRU: TERRANCE G. PIN SUBJECT: FROM: JOFPH A.BAIRD DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS OCTOBER 15, 1985 LONNIE ALEXANDER PAYING IMPACT FEES ON AN INSTALL- MENT PLAN Mr. Lonnie Alexander of 3956 Old U.S. Highway #1 is requesting permission from the Honorable Board of County Commissioners to pay water impact fees on an installment plan. The cost for Mr. Alexander to receive County water will be: Impact Fee $1,140.00 Meter Installation $ 115.00 Deposit $ 40.00 Total $1,295.00 2 If the Honorable Board of County Commissioners deems that an installment plan is appropriate -then the Utility Department would like to propose the following terms: The impact fee of $1,140.00 be paid over a sixty month installment period at an interest rate of 10-1/20. The monthly payment will be $24.51 and the first payment is due immediately. The customer's initial cash outlay will be as follows: Meter Installation $ 115.00 Deposit $ 40.00 First Installment $ 24.51 Total $ 179.51 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Honorable Board of County Commissioners approve Mr. Alexander's request to pay impact fees in the sixty month installment plan as indicated above. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the installment payment of Impact Fees by Lonnie Alexander over a sixty month period as set out in the above memo. D. Resolution Authorizing Account for Transmittal of County Funds to State Investment Pool ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-122, authorizing the Finance Director to transmit funds to the State Board of Administra- tion's investment pool. 3 BOOK OCT 23 1985 62 PAGE OCT 213 1985 RESOLUTION NO. 85-122 A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DEPART- MENT TO OPEN AN ACCOUNT WITH THE STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION AND TO TRANSMIT COUNTY FUNDS TO THE STATE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION'S INVESTMENT POOL. .62 mt 5J" WHEREAS, Indian River County from time to time has funds on hand in excess of current needs; and ?!-"': "• WHEREAS, it is in the best interest of the citizens of Indian River County that funds be invested in such a manner as to yield the" highest return possible consistent with proper safeguards for the handling of government.funds, s„•'1. r NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: 1. The Finance Director of Indian River County, Edwin M. Fry, Jr., is hereby authorized to transmit such funds to the State Board of Administration to be invested according to applicable laws of the State of Florida consistent with the needs of Indian River County. Furthermore, the Finance Director is authorized to withdraw funds from the State Board of Administration in the name of Indian River County by giving timely notice together with confirmation by letter executed by the Finance Director and County Administrator, Michael Wright. 2: That this authorization shall be continuing in nature until revoked by the Indian River County Board of County Commissioners. The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, being put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Vice Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Commissioner Richard N. Bird Commissioner William C. Wodtke Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed and adopted this 23rd day of October, 1985. - -- BOARD UNTY COMMISSIONERS INDIA RIV COUNTY, FLORIDA Attest: B64a �, / tric B. y ns, C-yi� �t Chairman Freda �WriBht erk 4 � r � E. Appointments to Environmental Control Board The Board reviewed the following recommendations: TO: DATE: FILE: Board of County Commissioners October 9, 1985 J.B ✓ ucker, M FROM: Director Michael Wri h County Admin i for SUBJECT: Environmental Control Board REFERENCES: We have received recommendations from the Medical Society and Bar Association toward appointment of a Medical Doctor and Attorney to the Environmental Control Board and would like to recommend the BCC affirm these appointments. The special act creating the board requires three additional appointments, 1 Registered Engineer and 2 citizens of Indian River County. We would like to proceed with these appoint- ments and request the BCC solicit/advertize for interested and qualified individuals to fill these slots. The special act requires the" appointment of an Environmental Control Officer with special skills in the area of environmen- tal control. For this appointment, the recommendation of the County Health Director is to be considered. Toward that end we recommend Mr. Michael J. Galanis, M.P.H. be considered for that position with the understanding that both the County Administrator and County Health Director will exercise administrative control (including review and approval of cases brought to the hearing board) and supervision over his function. Mr. Galanis has 14 years experience in Environmental Health, 5 years_ experience in working with the Palm Beach County Environmental Control Board. He currently functions as the Director of Environmental Health for the Indian River County Health Department. Mr. Vitunac has agreed to provide legal support to the Environmental Control Officer, especially in the area of presenting cases. We would like BCC authorization for this service to the hearing board. Once the appointments of the Hearing Board and Environmental Control Officer are completed, we will proceed toward or- ganization and .implementation of those requirements of the special act. ®C BOOK 62 WE 4 OCT 2 31995 455 LAW OFFICES OF GOULD, COOKSEY, FENNELL, APPLEBY, BARKETT & O'NEILL PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATION 979 BEACHLAND BOULEVARD YERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32963 Mr. Michael Wright September 12, 1985 County Administrator County Administration Building 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, FL 32960 Dear Mr. Wright: In response to your letter of July 15, 1985, and our tele- phone conversation subsequent to that date, please be advised that I as President of the Indian River County Bar Association hereby nominate Mr. Alan S. Polackwich, Sr. as the Bar Asso- ciation's representative to the Indian River County Environmental Control Hearing Board. Mr. Polackwich is a respected member of our Bar Association and in my opinion would make an excellent member of the Board. Mr. Polackwich's professional address is 2205 14th Avenue, Vero Beach, FL 32960 and his telephone number is 567-4351. If further information is desired, please advise me. Sincerely yours,., W Lawrence A. Barkett INDIAN RIVER COUNTY MEDICAL SOCIETY P.O. BOX 573 VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32961 (305) 562-0123 September 24, 1985 Mr. Michael Wright, County Administrator County Administration Building 1840 -25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Dear Mr. Wright: Re: Environmental Control Hearing Board The Indian River County Medical Society would like to recommend Dr. Rodger Zwemer, 99 Royal Palm Boulevard, Vero Beach, Florida 32960, 567-8333, to serve on the Environmental Control Hearing Board. Dr. Zwemer is a graduate of Wayne University College of Medicine, completed an internship at the Fitzsimons Army Hospital,, a Residency in Pediatrics at Children's Hospital of Michigan, and a Fellowship in Allergy at the University of Louisville Affiliated Hospitals. Dr. Zwemer has been a member of this community since 1973 and is very interested in serving on this Board. Sincerely, Cynthia Peterson Executive Director 6 L- Commissioner Scurlock wished to have it clarified just how this will operate - he assumed that Mr. Galanis and his department would cite an individual, and at that point that case would be brought to Dr. Tucker and the Administrator; then the Administrator would approve whether it would proceed to the next step which would be the Enforcement Board. If a determination was made jointly not to proceed with the next step, he assumed the procedure would stop at that point, but he wished to know what the appeal procedure would be if there were a split decision. Chairman Lyons felt if either Dr. Tucker or the Administra- tor wants to continue, it should continue. Attorney Vitunac noted that this is an alternative method of enforcing these laws, and the Health Department still can go to Circuit Court. Commissioner Scurlock asked about having the appeal go directly to the Commission. Administrator Wright was not sure that the Board would want to get into that, but Chairman Lyons felt the Commission might want to. Commissioner Scurlock suggested a Motion to table, but Commissioner Bowman desired further discussion. Commissioner Bowman noted that there still are two appointments or more to be made and asked if the Board members were in receipt of a resume from Dr. John Orcutt. Commissioner Wodtke reported that he had several names to submit also. Commissioner Scurlock continued to discuss procedure and where we go other than Circuit Court. He.did not want the Administrator to have to go to Circuit Court every time there is a problem. Commissioner Bird suggested that we go ahead and set up the Board and then work out the details of the procedure to be followed. 7 BOOK ...62 PAGE 456 Boa 2 PuA'7 Administrator Wright did believe the recommended procedure will work and if it doesn't, the Board always can junk it, appoint a new Environmental Control Officer, and go from there. Commissioner Scurlock continued to recommend that the appeal procedure be directly to the Board, and Attorney Vitunac clarified that this appeal would be just whether to bring the case or not. The Board members agreed, and the Administrator stated he would not have a problem with this. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to approve the Environmental Control Board procedure with the modification as stated by the Attorney, and approve the appointments recommended by the Medical Society, the Bar Associa- tion and staff. Chairman Lyons clarified that we now are approving the procedure and the appointments of Michael Galanis, Alan Polackwich, Sr., and Dr. Rodger Zwemer, and there are still two appointments remaining to be made. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. F. Release of Easements, Tropic Colony (Garrison) The Board reviewed memo of Code Enforcement Officer Charles Heath: 8 TO: The Honorable Members DATE:October 3, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: RELEASE OF EASEMENTS REQUESTED BY RAYMOND H. & SUBJECT: ANGELA M. GARRISON Rober M. Keats , P Plaing & ev lopment Director FROM: ar es eath REFERENCES: R&A Garrison Code Enforcement Office DIS:REMS It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: The County has been petitioned by Raymond H. & Angela M. Garrison, owners of subject property, for release of the 3 foot easements on the common side lot lines of Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Tropic Colony, Unit #3. Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Tropic Colonly, Unit #3 are found in Plat Book 4, Page 38, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. These lots have dimensions as follows: Lot 17 - 75 feet x 131 feet Lot 18 - 50.37 feet x 131 feet x 101.98 feet x 139.86 feet It is the Garrisons' intention to construct an attached garage to their single family residence, on these lots. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: The request has been reviewed by Southern Bell, Vero Beach Power Company, Florida Cablevision, the County Utility Department, and the County Right -of -Way Department. None of the agencies had objections to the release of easements. The zoning staff analysis, which included a site visit, showed the drainage would be adequately handled by the existing front and rear swales. It is the Staff's opinion that to release the side lot 3 foot utility and drainage easements, being the southerly 3 feet of Lot 18, and the northerly 3 feet of Lot 17, Tropic Colony Subdivision, Unit #3, would have no adverse effect. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends to the Board, through adoption of a resolution, the release of the side lot 3 foot utility and drainage easement being the southerly 3 feet of Lot 18, and the northerly 3 feet of Lot 17, Block 11, Tropic Colony Subdivision, Unit #3, Plat Book 4, Page 38 of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. 9 BOOK 62 PAGE 45 Fr- ' OCT 2 3 1985 '800K 62 FAGS 459 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-123 approving the release of the common side lot 3' easements of Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Tropic Colony Subdivision, Unit #3, as requested by Raymond 8 Angela Garrison. RESOLUTION NO. 85-123 WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, have been requested to release the common side lot 3 foot easements of Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Tropic Colony Inc. Subdivision, Unit #3, being the northerly 3 feet of Lot 17, and the southerly 3 feet of Lot 18 , according to the Plat thereof as recorded in Plat Book 4, Page 38, of the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. WHEREAS, said lot line easements were dedicated on the Plat of Tropic Colony Inc. Subdivision, Unit #3 for public utility purposes, and WHEREAS, the request for such release of easements have been submitted in proper form; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the following lot line easements in Tropic Colony Inc. Subdivision, Unit #3 shall be released, abandoned and vacated as follows: The common side lot 3 foot easements of Lots 17 and 18, Block 11, Tropic Colony Inc. Subdivision, Unit #3, being the northerly 3 feet of Lot 17, and the southerly 3 feet of Lot 18, according to the plat thereof as recorded in Official Record Book 4, Page 38 of the Public Records of Indian River County. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners and the Clerk of the Circuit Court be and they hereby are authorized and directed to execute a release of said lot line easements hereinabove referred to in form proper for recording and placing in the Public Records of Indian River County, Florida. This 23rd day of October , 1985. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IN RIVER COUNTY, FLO DA B . atrick Chairman 10 G._DER/Army Corps/DNR Permit Application (Moorings _ Little Starvation Cove) The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 11, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: D.E.R., ARMY CORPS & SUBJECT: D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS Robert M. Keating�IC Planning & Developm t ctor FROM: Roland M. DeBlois REFERENCES: Moorings DER Staff Planner X0 DIS:ROLAND It is requestedthat the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on October 23, 1985. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO. 31-110330-4 APPLICANT: Moorings Development Company 2125 Windward Way Vero Beach, Florida 32963 WATERWAY & LOCATION; The project is located in the Indian River in Little Starvation Cove, Section 21, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland property associated with the project is located at 400 Harbor Drive, Vero Beach, Florida. WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct an 18 slip docking facility. The proposed work involves the construction of a 667 -foot by 9 -foot pier extending waterward of the adjacent river bank in four jointed sections, forming an artificial breakwater on the north side of Little Starvation Cove. Extending south from the main pier, 9 finger piers will be constructed, varying in length from 30 feet to 42 feet. The .proposed piers are to consist of a floating -type construction of concrete and held in place using treated wood pilings. No dredging or filling will be performed. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. The purpose of the fapility is to provide private boat docking facilities for The -Moorings Club. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: Little Starvation Cove has previously been dredged to a uniform depth of 13 feet mean water. In that respect, the project is proposed for an area already impacted due to previous dredging activities. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits 11 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK �2 FACE4 0`0 OCT 2 3 1995 BOOK 6� PAGE 461 comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management Element of the Indian River Comprehensive Plan Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Objectives & Policies for the Treasure Coast Region The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Staff finds that the application does not conflict with the planning objectives contained in the above documents and offers no objections. Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this time, there may be cumulative impacts of this and other multiple dockage projects proposed to be constructed along the Indian River upon the Florida manatee. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding this project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation: 1) Indian River County has no objection to the proposed project; 2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumulative impacts of marina projects upon the Florida manatee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author- ized staff to forward a letter of no objection to the DER and to recommend that the DER and other agencies consider the potential cumulative impacts of marina projects upon the Florida manatee. H__DER/Army Corps/DNR_Permit Application (Moorings - The Pointes) The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows: 12 s � r TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 11, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: Robert M. KeatirVIAICP Planning'& Develop��ent Uector D.E.R., ARMY CORPS & D.N.R. PERMIT APPLICATIONS FROM: StaffdPlannerl9Mp REFERENCES: It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting on October 23, 1985. DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL REGULATION APPLICATION FILE NO. - 31 -110329-4 APPLICANT: Moorings Development Co. 2125 Windward Way Vero Beach, Florida 32963 WATERWAY & LOCATION: The project is located in the Indian - River adjacent to Mooringline Drive in Section 28, Township 33 South, Range 40 East, Indian River County, Florida. The upland property associated with the project is located at 1895 Mooringline Drive, Vero Beach, Florida. WORK & PURPOSE: The applicant proposes to construct a 31 slip docking facility. The proposed work involves the construction of four separate docks extending waterward of the adjacent river bank at various lengths: two docks extending 100 feet waterward; the third dock extending 75 feet waterward; and the fourth extending 25 feet waterward. The four main docks will have a combined total of 15 "finger docks" extending parallel to the shore, varying in length from 50 feet to 25 feet. No dredging or filling will be performed. No sewage pump -out or fueling facilities are proposed. The purpose of the project is to provide docking facilities for "The Pointes" condominium complex, a private residential development. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS: The project site is located entirely on privately owned bottomlands, adjacent to existing docks in Moorings Bay; the bottomlands have already been impacted due to previous dredging operations. The approved site plan (NO. #IRC -8I -SP -110) for "The Pointes" condominium complex depicts a marina facility consisting of 56 boat slips, distributed among 5 separate main docks. The proposed 31 slip docking facility is a substantial reduction in the number of boat slips approved on the site plan. ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS: The Planning and Development Division reviews and submits comments on dredge and fill applications to the permitting agencies based upon the following: The Conservation & Coastal Zone Management the Indian River Comprehensive Plan Coastal Zone Management, Interim Goals, Ob Policies for the Treasure Coast Region 13 OCT 2 3 905 BOOK Element of ectives & 62 ���� OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK -- 62 PAGE 483 - The Hutchinson Island Planning & Management Plan - The Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances Staff finds that the application does not conflict with the planning objectives contained in the above documents, with the exception of the proposed project's inconsistency with the approved site plan IRC -8I -SP -110. Section 23.1(1)(2), Appendix A, Zoning, of the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances requires that minor variations in the approved site plan are permitted upon planning department approval. As per the Indian River County Code of Laws and Ordinances, it is required that the applicant submit revised site plans for planning department approval concerning the proposed docking facility. Although the extent of any impacts are not fully known at this time, there may be cumulative impacts 'of this and other multiple dockage projects proposed to be constructed along the Indian River upon the Florida manatee. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners authorize staff to forward the following comments regarding this project to the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation: 1) Indian River County has no objection to the proprosed project; 2) The Department of Environmental Regulation and other appropriate agencies should consider the potential cumulative impacts of marina projects upon the Florida manatee. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously author- ized staff to forward a letter of no objection to the DER and to recommend that the DER and other agencies consider the potential cumulative impacts of marina projects upon the Florida manatee. 1_ Budget Amendment, 4$ Salary Increase, Sheriff's Office The Board reviewed memo of former OMB Director Barton, as follows: 14 TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: October 11, 1985 FILE: a FROM: Jeffrey K. arton, OMB Director SUBJECT: 4% Salary Increase, Sheriff's Office REFERENCES: The Sheriff's budget for the 4% salary increase was not adjusted at the last public hearing on the budget. Please approve,the following transfer from the Raise Contingency Account: Account Number Account Name Increase -Decrease 001-600-521-12.14 Workman's Compensation $ 6,530 001-600-586-99.04 Budget Trans -Sheriff 107,661 001-199-513-99.91 Contingency -Raises $114,191 ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the above budget transfer for the 4% salary increase for the Sheriff's Office. J. Final Assessment Roller Apple Way South of 12th St_ The Board reviewed memo of Michelle Terry, Chief,•Road Design Section, as follows: 15 OCT 2 3 1985 1 OOK 62- PAGE 484 OCT 2 3 195 saoK 62 FACLE 485 TO: DATE: FILE: THE HONORABLE DEERS OF THE October 7, 1985 BOARD OF COUNTY CC M+IISSIONERS THROUGH: FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLL - Michael Wright, SUBJECT: APPLE WAY 1125 LF SOUTH OF 12 ST. County Administrator James W. Davis, P.E l' Public W�orrkss� Director FROM • . r�' d Michelle A. Terry, REFERENCES: Chief, Road Design Section DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The paving of Apple Way, 1125 L.F. South of 12th Street is complete. The final cost and preliminary estimate for the Work was: Final Cost/PO Prelim. Cost/PO Final Cost Prelim. Estimate Apple Way $ 2412.86 $ 2,462.03 $19,302.91 $19,696.25 The construction costs are under the original estimates. The Final Assessment - Roll has been prepared and is ready to be delivered to the Clerk to the Board. Assessments are to be paid within 90 days or in two equal installments, the first to be made twelve months from the due date and the second to be made twenty-four months from the due date at an interest rate of to over the Prime Rate established by the Board of County Commissioners. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS Since the final assessment to the benefited owners will be less than.ccnputed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative presented is to approve the final assessment rolls. RECCbSENDATION AND FUNDING It is recommended that the Final Assessment Roll for the paving of Apple Way be approved by the Board of County Commissioners and that they be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously approved the Final Assessment Roll for the paving of Apple way south of 12th St, at a final cost of $19,302.91 and at an interest rate of 1% over Prime, or 101%, and directed that the Roll be transmitted to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection. 16 K__Resolution __ Clarifying Advisory Role of Certain Committees & Boards Created by the County Commission ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-124, clarifying the advisory role of certain committees and boards created by the County Commission. RESOLUTION NO. 85- 124 A RESOLUTION TO CLARIFY THE ADVISORY ROLE OF CERTAIN COMMITTEES AND BOARDS CREATED BY THE INDIAN RIVER COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS. WHEREAS, in accordance with Chapter 112, Florida Statutes, certain local board or committee members are required to file financial disclosure; WHEREAS, an "Advisory Body" is exempt from the disclosure law if its total budget, appropriations, or authorized expenditures constitutes less than one percent of the budget of the agency it serves or $100,000.00, whichever is less, and its powers, jurisdiction, and authority are solely advisory and do not include the final determination or a judication of any personal or property rights, duties, or obligations; WHEREAS certalli committees or boards created by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County Commissioners of Indian River County constitute "advisory bodies" within the meaning of the law in function and in practice, but not in the specific wording of their enabling motion or resolution; and WHEREAS according to the State of Florida Commission on Ethics it is desirable to pare down listed persons required to file financial disclosure by clarifying the function of advisory bodies; BE IT THEREFORE RESOLVED THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA DOES HEREBY DECLARE AND CLARIFY that the following Indian River County boards, bodies, or committees are in function and in practice "advisory bodies" exempt from the disclosure law: Beach Preservation and Restoration Committee Marine Island Advisory Commission Occupational License Study Committee Parks and Recreation Committee Sea Grass Preservation Committee Scenic Roads and Trails Committee 1� 5 17 OCT BOOK 62 PAGE 4 ar-1 6 OCT 2 3 195 • Bou 62 PAa 467 The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner Scurlock who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by Commissioner Wodtke and, upon being'put to a vote, the vote was as follows: Chairman Patrick B. Lyons Aye Vice -Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye Commissioner Margaret C. Bowman Aye Commissioner William C. Wodtke, Jr. Aye 85-124 The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No._ duly passed.,and adopted this 23rd day of October , 1985. Attest:-�1�=.dC T �c FREDA WRIGHT Clerk BOARD OUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF I IAN IVER COUNTY, FLORIDA /-4513/ 6 CR B. LY o airman AWARD OF REFINANCING BONDS, COURTHOUSE, ADMINISTRATION BUILDING Assistant Utilities Director Barton informed the Board that we have finally arrived at the date of refunding the bond issue that did this building and the Courthouse, and this includes some new projects in addition to paying off the old: The fourth courtroom; The State's Attorney's building purchase; Shortfall for the Jail from the 1� sales tax; The minimum security building next to the Jail; and The Sheriff's complex. Director Barton then reviewed the following memo re interest rates: TO: THE HONORABLE BOARD OF DATE: OCTOBER 22, 1985 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS THRU: MICHAEL WRIGHT, COUNTY SUBJECT: REFUNDING BOND ISSUE ADMINISTRATOR v ~ FROM: JEFFREY K. BARTON� DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS The attached sales price by maturity and the equivalent yield listing is from M.G. Lewis and represents the gross proceeds from the purchase of the refunding bonds from Indian River County. The average coupon rate for the first year is 8.5078%. 18 M.G. Lewis also proposed to use the discount factor of 2.34% for under- writing, expenses and discount on this transaction. The 2.34% factor is more favorable than we obtained when we issued the original bonds in 1980. (At that time the issue was 2.48%.) RECOMMENDATION It is my recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners accept the purchase offer of M.G. Lewis. $9,830,000* INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA REFUNDING AND IMPROVEMENT REVENUE BONDS SERIES 1985 Dated: November 1, 1985 Due: September 1, as shown below PRINCIPAL INTEREST EQUIVALENT - DUE AMOUNT* RATE PRICE YIELD 1986 $ 200,000 5.50% 100% 5.50% 1987 235,000 6.00 100 6.00 1988 250,000 6.375 100 6.375 1989 265,000 6.875 100 6.875 1990- 285,000 7.20 100 7;20 1991 305,000 7.40 100 7.40 1992 330,000 7.625 100 7.625 - 1993 350,000 7..875 100 7;875 1994 385,000 8.125 100 8:125 1995 410,000 8.375 100 8.375 1996 450,000 8.625 100 8.625 1997 485,000 8.75 100 8.75 2000 1,735,000 9.00 99 9.121 2002 1,440,000 9.125 99h 9.181 2005 2,705,000 9.125 98h 9.289 *Preliminary, subject to final numbers. Al a 19 Boos 62 ME 488 0 CT 2 3 1985 Boa 6.2 - PAGE 469 Director Barton announced that he would now turn this matter over to the Underwriters and their attorneys for their formal proposal and presentation of a good faith check. Commissioner Scurlock noted that because of the timing, the Finance Advisory Committee was not involved in these'negotia- tions, but he, Director Barton and Administrator Wright were involved, and he has no problems with the recommendations presented today. Art Diamond of the Firm of M. G. Lewis came before the Board and gave a brief review of the premarketing sale that took place Monday. He reported that they went into the market early Monday primarily because we are getting into the part of the year where you get a large influx of municipal paper. The market was very receptive to the bond issue, which is MBIA insured, and has a triple A rating. The subsequent interest rate as charged and accepted by the marketplace averaged out on a blended yield basis at 8.98% and the long coupons are equivalent to 9.280; the closer in coupons are much lower. Mr. Diamond advised that Mr. Lang has the bond purchase agreement. Discussion ensued re the interest rate, and Director Barton confirmed that on the original issue we had a percentage of 2.48, but now we are below that. He continued to discuss interest rates, explaining that T.I.C. is true interest cost where you work it out over the years, and the T.I.C. on the original issue ended up at 9-1/8; on the new issue it would be about 9.5. County Attorney Charles Vitunac then read the title of the first of the three Resolutions which the Board needs to approve, as follows: A Resolution amending Resolution No. 85-75 adopted on July 10, 1985, and entitled: "A Resolution of Indian River County, FLorida, authorizing the refunding of presently outstanding capital improvement revenue bonds, Series 1980 and 1981 of the county; authorizing the 20 construction, reconstruction, furnishing and equipping of certain capital facilities; providing for the issuance of not exceeding $25,000,000 refunding and improvement revenue bonds, Series 1985, of the county to be applied to refund the principal and interest of such presently outstanding obligations and to pay the cost of the project; providing for the payment of said bonds from the sales tax received by the county; making certain covenants and agreements in connection therewith; pro- viding an effective date"; providing an effective date. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to adopt Resolution 85-125 amending Resolution 85-75, as described by'Attorney Vitunac. Chairman Lyons commented that the only fund mentioned is the Sales Tax and asked if other funds aren't involved. Director Barton stated that the pledge is the Sales Tax, and Mr. Lang explained that the Racetrack funds will be released and the only thing committed is the Sales Tax. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. Attorney Vitunac then read the title of the second proposed Resolution: "A Resolution authorizing the execution of a bond purchase agreement for the sale and award of $9,855,000 refunding and improvement revenue bonds, Series 1985, of the county of Indian River, Florida, at negotiated sale to the pur- chaser thereof; fixing the date, maturities, interest rates, redemption provisions and other details of said bonds; authorizing the use of an official statement in 21 CT 2 3 1985 Bau 62 fn.t 470 DOT 2 31995 Box 62 nu 471 connection with the marketing of such bonds; authorizing other actions in connection with the delivery of such bonds; designating the paying agent and bond registrar for such bonds; naming an escrow holder and authorizing execution of an escrow deposit agreement; providing an effective date." Attorney Vitunac advised that the Resolution contains two exhibits which were not passed out because they are voluminous; copies are available. Director Barton referred to the EscrowL_Deposit Agreement being with North Carolina National Bank through their Tampa office, a Florida institution. He advised that proposals were put out to eleven banks throughout Florida for an up -front, one- time fee to handle escrow of the whole bond issue and its payoff as it came due, but the North Carolina bank was the lowest fee. The old bonds go to the year 2010. They are not to the call date; so, it is necessary to deposit money with an escrow agent to defease the bonds. Mr. Lang clarified that the 1981 bonds will be called on their first call date, 1991, and this North Carolina bank will be handling the bonds for whatever period of time it takes to pay them off. He then asked Mr. Diamond to present the Board with a copy of the purchase agreement and a good faith check. Mr. Diamond presented the agreement and check in the amount of $95,965.43, explaining that the check is not to be cashed unless they do not perform according to the purchase contract. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commis- sioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-126, authorizing the execution of a bond purchase agreement for the sale and award of $9,855,000 refunding and improvement revenue bonds, Series 1985, as described by Attorney Vitunac. 22 Attorney Vitunac then read the title of the third Resolution necessary to complete the Bond award, as follows: "A Resolution of Indian River County, Florida, providing for the redemption on October 1, 1991, of the capital improvement revenue bonds, Series 1981, dated October 1, 1981, maturing on and after October 1, 1992; providing an effective date." ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Resolution 85-127, providing for the redemption of the capital improvement revenue bonds, Series 1981, as set out above. (RESOLUTIONS #85-125, #85,126, AND #85-127 ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK IN THEIR ENTIRETY.) DISCUSSION OF JAIL CONSTRUCTION PROBLEMS Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board that approximately a week ago, it came to his attention that there appear to be some problems out at the jail construction site that were not conveyed to our staff or the Commission. He wanted to make sure this was brought to the Commission's attention so we can be absolutely clear on where we are going from this point, especially since Tom Stough, whom we jointly hired to work directly for Frizzell, no longer works in that capacity, and we will have to decide on a replacement. Commissioner Scurlock reported that one of the problems is that the p.s.i. (pounds per sq. inch) strength of the concrete may be less than the specs called for. He felt strongly that our communications should be improved and stressed the extreme importance in a project of this magnitude for the Commission to be made aware of any problem immediately. He pointed out that 23 OCT 2 3 1985 - BOOK 62 PACE 474 1985 BOOK �� F1�E 473 absolutely no change orders have been approved by the Board of County Commissioners up to this point, and while staff may have some discretion in minor matters, he would assume those matters would be brought to the Commission for retroactive approval. Commissioner Scurlock emphasized that he is not•accusing the contractor of willfully ordering concrete less than spec, and actually he has identified only five yards of something other than 5,000 p.s.i. being delivered to the site, but he did feel we need a written response as to whether we should tear anything down or whether the walls test out correctly. Commissioner Scurlock did not know how the miscommunication has taken place, but stressed that he wanted to go on public record as identifying this as a problem that needs to be corrected. He also felt this is only fair to other contractors who bid the job as there was a substantial difference between the high bid and low bid. George Bail of Frizzell Architects agreed that problems of this nature are usually a matter of communication. He did appreciate the Commission's concern and stated he was present to answer anything they wished answered and also to make recommenda- tions as to how to prevent this type of communication gap in the future. Chairman Lyons wished to know why 3,000 p.s.i. concrete was used if 5,000 p.s.i. was specified, and what the effects of such use are. Mr. Bail introduced their chief structural engineer, Mike Lastovica, who explained to the Board that the use of 5,000 p.s.i. concrete is standard among off-site precasters because they can achieve the strip strength of 3500 p.s.i. overnight. When RS&H did it on site, they did not need the rapid overnight strength; so, they used a lower strength concrete. Mr. Lastovica assured the Board that this has absolutely no detrimental effect on the structure. Chairman Lyons wished to know if that is so, why we can't take the 5,000 p.s.i. off the books. He did not understand PXq someone being able to change the things that are specified willy-nilly. Mr. Lastovica explained that it was first envisioned that the windows would have been precast off site by someone like Florida Prestress and that spec would have applied towards them. Mr. Lastovica agreed that there probably should have been some discussion before the windows were actually cast on site as to what the actual concrete strength was. Commissioner Scurlock asked about the columns, and Engineer Lastovica stated that was a mistake. They were to have been poured with 4,000 p.s.i. concrete; however, the mix design they did use came up to an average tolerance of 3600 p.s.i, which is acceptable; that was at 28 days and as the concrete continues to cure they will increase in strength. Commissioner Bird inquired about the difference in cost between 3,000 p.s.i. concrete and 5,000 p.s.i. and was informed it is about $1.75 a cubic yard. Commissioner Bird noted that could make a substantial difference in the overall cost, and Engineer Lastovica agreed it would if it were used throughout, but he believed only about 5 yards have been poured. Commissioner Bird asked if 5,000 p.s.i. was specified throughout, and Engineer Lastovica advised that it was only specified for the windows. Commissioner Scurlock next inquired about the necessity for tying rebars as he felt this had not been done, and the Engineer advised that the type of masonry construction being used is considered "low -lift" grouting, and with that method there isn't a critical need for tying the rebar. When you get into "high -lift" grouting, about 121, you can't control the placement of the bar. Commissioner Scurlock next asked about using lesser specified rebars, and Engineer Lastovica stated that was a mistake in his drawings; unfortunately he called fora #5 bar 25 OCT d �� BOOK 62 FACE 474 C T 3 62 PArE 475 when he should have called for a #4 bar. He caught this on the shop drawings, however, and it has been corrected. The Chairman asked if there were any further questions about structure; he emphasized his concern was that if a certain strength concrete is called for, we should be sure we get it. Mr. Bail noted that although it appears we didn't get what was specified on particular columns, he felt the question is whether it is worthwhile to delay the job and tear the columns down if the concrete comes up to the required strength anyway. He assured the Board that this is being tested now. Commissioner Scurlock continued to express concern about the possibility of the other contractors threatening legal action since based on a lower p.s.i., their bids might have been significantly different. He then wished to know about the imbedders, which it appears may not have been placed in this structure with the result that we now are going to have to anchor all the fixtures, hand rails, etc., we are going to attach. this. Engineer Lastovica stated that is the first he has heard of Commissioner Wodtke believed that there is a bottom line issue which causes great concern, and that is an individual representing the County who was to be employed by the architect, which is a different route than we went when we renovated the ---- Courthouse and the Administration Building. He wanted to be very sure that we do have a representative on the job who will be representing the County and can keep us well informed, and it now seems that the person who was supposed to be representing the county is no longer on the job. Mr. Bail agreed that whoever they hire must work for the county, and he suggested that the Board appoint one of their members to meet with them on the site every two weeks or so. Further discussion ensued as to the necessity of the Board being advised of any problems immediately since anything not according to specs requires action by this Board, and 26 Commissioner Scurlock noted that the individual who reported these problems to him was told not to talk to anybody, but he did tell him and he got fired. Commissioner Bird inquired how our representative on the job is paid, and Commissioner Scurlock stated that we put -in $38,000 as part of the architect's contract; the architect pays him directly, and he works for and reports to them. Administrator Wright confirmed that he does not work for us, but we select him jointly. Commissioner Scurlock believed we pursued this arrangement because of legal ramifications pointed out to us by former County Attorney Gary Brandenburg. Commissioner Wodtke continued to discuss the importance of proper documentation, especially if our staff authorizes anything, and Administrator Wright stated that the only things staff would authorize would be very minor items, such as running extra conduit, painting or not painting the floor, and things of like nature, and all these items will be brought back to the Board in a cumulative Change Order. Commissioner Scurlock believed there have been some design changes recommended to the architect that they are pursuing in regard to expanding the visitation area, and he did not believe the Commission knows anything about it. Administrator Wright stated that staff is bringing that to the Board, which is normal procedure, and this will not be done until the Board agrees to it. Mr. Bail suggested that there be a meeting after the Board meeting is adjourned in regard to having a Board member meet with them either monthly or bi-monthly to review all the details. Commissioner Bird inquired what is taking place with regard to replacing Mr. Stough, our project representative, and Mr. Bail answered that they are in the process of checking out a man. Administrator Wright again emphasized that this man must have joint approval, the Board's and the architect's. He 27 BOOK Uc, .FAGG 476 OCT 2 2 1995 BooK 62 PAGE 477 believed we want to continue the exact same relationship, but stated he would like to put Chief Jailer Baird out on the site also. While he does not have construction expertise, he has the operation expertise and also common sense, as well as a college education and the ability to ask questions. He would be our line of communication. Chairman Lyons felt we should give this a try, but Commissioner Scurlock believed the Chief Jailer already has been out there. Administrator Wright confirmed that he has been, but only on a limited basis because it interferes with his other work. In order to get him there on a more extensive basis, he would need more help at the jail, and the Administrator felt the Chief Jailer should be out there on a full time basis. Discussion followed at length regarding the fact that the Board members did not feel that Chief Jailer Baird has the required expertise or adequate knowledge of construction to really know what is occurring, and Commissioner Bird felt he probably is needed at the jail more. Administrator Wright argued that any man with common sense could observe and raise questions which then would be brought back to the Administrator and staff to deal with the architect. He noted that the other alternative is to hire a construction expert to watch the architect. Commissioner Bird agreed that Mr. Baird is valuable on site as related to the functional aspect and that he should be there on a part time basis, but he did not feel he should be there 8 hours a day. Administrator Wright continued to stress the many varied activities the Chief Jailer is trying to handle, and Commissioner Scurlock felt if the Administrator needs additional personnel at the Jail, he should just ask for it. Commissioner Wodtke asked if we still have the option to make a change in this particular position and not make the money 28 available to the architect but hire a person and pay him ourselves instead. Commissioner Scurlock noted that we would have to leave it out of the architect's contract if this were agreeable to them. Mr. Bail stated that they would be agreeable to back this out of the contract, but he really did think it is much smoother if it is all under one responsibility. Commissioner Wodtke noted that if it worked, we wouldn't be here today. We need documentation to protect the county, and if it can work under the architect's supervision, fine, but if it doesn't, he would propose we change the procedure and hire the person ourselves. After further discussion, Commissioner Scurlock believed the indication is we will continue with the present procedure and identify someone from the Commission to go out to the site on a periodic basis to analyze the situation; there will be weekly reports back to the Commission from the architect; and any future changes either by staff or architects will come through in a Change Order form on a timely basis. Board members agreed, and Commissioner Wodtke was willing to continue the way we have been for at least thirty days. Chairman Lyons felt that if the Administrator believes he should relieve Mr. Baird for more time at the new jail, then he should get more personnel for the jail as we will need it at the new jail anyway. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he does not mind the additional personnel, but he did not want to indicate that Mr. Baird should be on the site for the purpose of monitoring construction. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved continuing on with the present procedure for County representation on the Jail site for at least 30 days; 29 OCT2 3 �9 BOOK '62 PAGE 478 BOOK 62 FAGE 479 concurred with the architect's recommendation to have weekly reports and have someone from the Commission work with them and review details weekly or bi-monthly; all future changes by staff or architects to come through on a timely basis; and the Administrator to come back with a budget amendment for additional Jail personnel. APPEAL OF SITE PLAN CONDITIONS (BILL LAW) Attorney Sam Block came before the Board representing Bill Law per the following letter: BLOCK & MANN, P.A. ATTORNEYS AT LAw 2127 TENTH AVENUE VERO BEACH, FLORIDA 32960 SAMUEL A. BLOCK MARGARET E. MANN October 8, 1985 Patrick Lyons, Chairman Board of County Commissioners 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Appeal of Site Plan Denial File #SP -MA -84-06-58 Dear Mr. Lyons: TELEPHONE (305) 562-1600 At the Commission meeting on September 18, 1985, the above site plan denial was appealed to the Commission by Mr. Bill Law. At that meeting, the Commission unanimously granted the appeal; -however, the Commission stated that there should be. further discussion concerning the access right-of-way to the property. The Commission directed the Planning Department and the applicant to work out some suitable arrangement concerning this access. I am enclosing a copy of a letter which Mr. Law received from Karen M. Carver, a Staff Planner, stating the requirements for a marginal access easement over the property. This alternative is unacceptable to the applicant. It appears that this issue has come to an impasse between the applicant and the Planning Department; therefore, I would request, on behalf of the applicant, Bill Law, to be placed on the agenda at the Commission's earliest convenience so this matter could be once again aired at a Commission meeting so that it can be resolved. For the Commission's information, there were other 30 alternatives that were suggested by both the applicant and the Planning Department; however, the alternative which was sug- gested in Ms. Craver's letter of September 26, 1985, was the one that was settled upon by the Planning Department. We would appreciate your attention to this matter. Ver truly yo/urs, amuel A. Block SAB: J 1 Enclosure C `f`�'� t Attorney Block did feel there is a impasse; it was their suggestion that the access be 40' and on the south side of the property, which is undeveloped, but the Planning Department wants one all the way across the property. His client prefers the other alternative because it does not interfere with the site plan. Mr. Block further noted that there are existing buildings to the north that would interfere with the 40' access easement. Director Keating stated that while Mr. Block is technically correct about no place to connect to the north in that we do not have a recorded marginal access easement, we do, however, have White Aluminum there, and its parking lot is structured with an access drive which would fit right into a marginal access system. If they ever came in for any modification, we would require them to dedicate a marginal access easement through their parking lot and then the system would work. The property to the south is undeveloped for a significant distance, and although it will require modification of the Law site plan, staff is looking at this as the perfect opportunity to get the marginal access easement since nothing has been built on the property. Attorney Block pointed out that there are four buildings to the north of White Aluminum that will sit on the easement; Also, White would have to come in for an approval. Mr. Law already has a site plan, and if the easement could be taken to the south which needs to be developed, then he could use that site plan. Commissioner Scurlock noted that one of the goals of the Commission in our planning on U.S.I is to have marginal access. We realize there are situations where there are existing 31 CT 2 3 1985BOCK 62 PAGE 480 OCT 2 3 1985 Boa 62 Fnj 4.81 buildings, but the only vehicle we have to acquire this marginal access is when someone initiates some site plan activity with the County. If we don't pursue this and continue to allow excep- tions, we will never reach our goal. Commissioner Scurlock believed that even though it may take us 10 to 20 years to accomplish our goal, we must work at it consistently. Commissioner Wodtke stressed that he would like Mr. Law at least to shift the building so in the future we would not have to buy a building in order to get an access road. Director Keating noted that is exactly what staff is asking. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, to uphold staff's recommenda- tion to acquire the marginal access and work with the developer to move the building so it is not sitting in that marginal access. Engineer Darrell McQueen stated that the only problem they have with moving the building back is that one of the uses anticipated would be a tractor -trailer truck that could back up to the west side of the building, and if the building is moved back, it would preclude that possibility. Chairman Lyons felt, in that case, the piece of land is not suitable for that activity. Mr. McQueen pointed out that the property is fairly small, and when a big portion of it is taken for right-of-way, the remainder of it may not be suitable. Commissioner Scurlock noted that while legally it is said this property is a separate entity, he believed the fact is that there has been some manipulation of the property, and possibly Mr. Law made it too small as a result. Maybe he can convey back some property to himself to remedy this. Mr. McQueen continued to argue that they did have a working solution and it was changed. 32 r Discussion then ensued regarding access off Old Dixie, and Commissioner Scurlock again stressed his belief that we need to work toward marginal access off U.S.I however we accomplish it. It was noted that this will be discussed at a Special Meeting next week. Commissioner Bird asked if we have been consistent with our policy or whether Mr. Law is getting caught in a transition, and Director Keating stated that we are being consistent; he felt the map which shows the marginal access easements we have obtained along U.S.I proves this. Commissioner Wodtke noted that what he would really like to prevent is allowing people building in an area where we hope we will have a road in the future. Public Works Director Davis commented that we could have a setback ordinance as has been done on SR 60, and Director Keating pointed out that the new commercial and industrial zoning districts have increased front yard setbacks and you can park in those setbacks, which would facilitate this type situation. Mr. McQueen argued that the Ellsworth property was inconsistent; it was just approved with an entrance off U.S.I and an exit onto Old Dixie; possibly that was a good compromise, but they were not offered that compromise. Director Keating confirmed that with Ellsworth they did specify connection on Old Dixie and they were allowed to build within the 401, but he noted that staff was looking at what the Plan said, and it said Old Dixie will be the frontage road in the area where it is that close to U.S.1. Commissioner Scurlock assumed that if the developer went back and came up with another scenario to access Old Dixie, then we could consider it, but what is before us today is whether or not we allow them to build a building within the 40' access. Mr. McQueen stated that if they could still have use of the setback area and it would still count in their overall density and flow area, they would go ahead and concede the 25' setback. c� 33 �jl OCT2 1985 BOOK 6l.+ Pw�S FFP,_ CT 2 3 1995 Book ' 62 PAGE4,83 Staff noted that they don't have to dedicate this; it is just an easement so they can use it for any calculations they want - just don't put the building on it. Mr. McQueen agreed they would concede setting the building back 25'. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. The Chairman hoped that everyone was clear on what was agreed upon, and Director Keating stated that his understanding is that the Laws have got to provide for future connection to the White Aluminum a drive that will go north and south through their property and there are to be no structural improvements in that area. They will have to have a 22' drive that is consistent with White Aluminum, and they will have to file an easement agreement giving access to the general public along that drive. Mr. McQueen again stated 25' would be the building setback and asked whether staff could approve this as a modification of the site plan so they can get on with construction; that was confirmed. APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL - EKONOMOU The hour of 10:00 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: 34 _ L� 1 VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter of in the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper In the issues of —� , '6 Z��5 Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day ofA.D. ZZ n Manager) Y c.0 (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida) (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING APPEAL OF SITE PLAN APPROVAL On September 12, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission of Indian River County, Flor- ida, sitting as the local planning agency, condi- tionally approved the site plan application sub- mitted by Christopher Ekonomou to construct a 1200 square foot warehouse on the west side of 11 th Court, S.W., north of Oslo Road. The Indian River County Board of County Com- missioners will conduct a public hearing regard- ing the appeal by Christopher Ekonomou of the decision by the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion to conditionally approve the site plan. The public hearing, at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by said Board of County Commis- sioners in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, October 23, 1985, at 10:00 a.m. 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 evi- dence upon which the appeal will be based: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick S. Lyons, Chairman�. Oct. 3, 16,1985: -' — Direct -or Keating commented that he had suggested this be postponed until after the Special Meeting to be held for discussion of roads, but Board members indicated that we can go ahead under the old rules until they are changed. Attorney Vitunac agreed, but noted that the Board does have the option of studying the issue. After further discussion, it was generally agreed we would consider this matter in relation to the current policy. The Board reviewed staff memo and recommendation, as follows: 35 T 2 3 1985 62 PAc 484 OCT i 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 485 TO: The Honorable_ Members DATE;October 10, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: ` CHRISTOPHER EKONOMOU'S SUBJECT: APPEAL OF CONDITIONAL Robert M. Keating, AI SITE PLAN APPROVAL Planning & Developmen Director FROM - 'Karen M. Craver REFERENCES: Staff Planner It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS On September 12, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission conditionally approved a major site plan application submitted by Christopher Ekonomou. Approval was granted to construct a 1,200 square foot warehouse on the west side of 11th Court, S.W., north of Oslo Road. Due to the fact that 11th Court, S.W. is an unpaved road, approval was given with the condition that the applicant pave the road, from Oslo Road to his north property line, a distance of 250 feet. It is the condition of site plan approval which Mr. Ekonomou is appealing at this time. ANALYSIS During the past year, the Planning and Development Division has received several applications for development of properties within Oslo Park Subdivision. Mr. Ekonomou's approved application is for construction on lot 19, block B, Oslo Park. As all streets within the non-residential portion of Oslo Park are unpaved, the Technical Review Committee has required that all applicants escrow 37J% of the cost of paving their frontages, prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy. In cases where the properties have been within 200 to 300 feet from Oslo Road, the nearest paved road, the Technical Review Committee has recommended that the applicants pave from Oslo Road to their north property lines. In both situations, the Planning and Zoning Commission has consistently upheld the recommendations of the Technical Review Committee. Since receiving site plan approval for lot 19, Mr. Ekonomou has submitted an application for development of lot 20, which lies immediately south of lot 19. Again, the Technical Review Committee informed the applicant he would be responsible for paving 11th Court, S.W. from Oslo Road to his north property line. Due to other inadequacies of the site plan, the application has not yet been taken before the Planning and Zoning Commission. It was the position of the Technical Review Committee that because Mr. Ekonomou is developing 2 lots within 120 feet of Oslo Road, he should be required to pave rather than escrow funds. The Planning and Zoning Commission was informed of the proximity of lot 19 to Oslo Road and concurred with the Technical Review Committee. The Planning and Zoning Commission was not aware at the time they granted conditional site plan approval that Mr. Ekonomou planned to develop property nearer to Oslo Road, specifically lot 20. 36 i The new Site Plan Ordinance, which went into effect in mid-June, contains a reserved section entitled "Paved Road Requirements". The County Commission chose to reserve the section until such time as it adopts a formal policy regarding paving. On October 31, 1985, a workshop on paving requirements will be held by the Board and the Planning and Zoning Commission. In addition, right-of-way dedication and stormwater management problems within single-family subdivisions will be discussed. At the public hearing adopting the Site Plan Ordinance, the Board instructed the Planning and Development Division to continue its existing paving requirement policy in the interim. As Division policy had been to require developments within a reasonable distance of paved roads to connect, the paving requirement was attached to Mr. Ekonomou's site plan approval. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that Mr. Ekonomou's appeal be denied, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's conditional site plan approval be upheld. Attorney Gene Roddenberry came before the Board on behalf of Mr. Ekonomou, who is trying to build a 1200 sq, ft. building on a 50 x 150 lot in Oslo Park; it will have two parking spaces and it will not be a.big traffic generator. Attorney Roddenberry noted that in the past, staff, in an effort to get the roads paved, has been requiring people to escrow a certain amount of the estimated cost when they go for a C.O.; this works out to about $10.00 a sq. ft. in Oslo Park, and for this particular lot it would amount to $500. On the other hand, it seems staff feels they can require an individual to pave the road if it is within 200 or 300 feet of Oslo Road. Attorney Roddenberry felt the footage is totally arbitrary; Mr. Ekonomou is about 250' from Oslo Road; it will cost him about $10,000 for surfacing and drainage to develop a 1200 sq. ft. warehouse, and the benefit will accrue to other property owners. The Attorney felt the funds should be escrowed rather than the burden being put all on one person, and he believed the present policy is totally vague and capricious. Commissioner Bird asked if Mr. Ekonomou is willing to pay his fair share, or $500, and this was confirmed. Director Keating emphasized that these are all issues that will be discussed in staff's issue paper. He agreed that the policy that staff has had in relation to paving is not a simple one; they have to look at many different factors. Here we 37 OCT�9 Bou 62 FADE 486 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK . 62 PAGE 487 basically have an area that is zoned industrial, and it is substandard in public facilities with a lot of unpaved roads. Mr. Ekonomou seems to have a monopoly on lots on the one road, and Oslo is the closest paved road. The Comprehensive Plan specifies that before a development can be improved it cannot create an adverse impact on the road system. Commissioner Scurlock noted there is a simple solution available if the Commission wished to pursue it, and that is that the Board has the ability to look at a situation and determine there is enough development in an area to have a mandatory assessment roll. Director Keating noted that is one option staff has identified. Commissioner Bird believed if this was paved all the way through from Oslo to 8th Street S.W., about 22 properties would be participating, but at the $500 per lot, that would only generate about $11,000, If Attorney Roddenberry's figures are accurate, it would cost Mr. Ekonomou $10,000 to pave just 2501. Director Davis stated that the distance Commissioner Bird is referring to is about 660' and the county could pave it for about $11-12,000. If you take a small contract to an independent contractor, you undoubtedly have a higher cost. Commissioner Bird wished to know if we are asking for enough escrow funds for the County to go in and do the paving, and Director Davis stated that $10.00 a foot has been on the upper side of our assessments. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to allow Mr. Ekonomou to put in escrow an amount equal to $10.00 a lineal foot and then ask staff to make a recommendation as to whether we should go to a mandatory paving on this road. 38 Director Davis advised that in an industrial subdivision such as this in the Oslo corridor where neighboring roads are coming in with industrial type uses, he would like staff to take a look at the whole subdivision. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. APPEAL OF PETITION PAVING DENIAL - S.W. 11TH LANE James Lawhon came before the Board and reviewed the follow- ing letter: James L. Lawhon PD.Box 833 October 14, 1985 Vero Beach,Fla,,-- 32961-0833 Indian River County Commissioners Indian River Court House Vero Beach, Fla. Dear Commissioners; I respectfully request a re -hearing for the petition for paving S.W.11th Lane for the following reasons: 1. We do have 67% of the property owners on the petition according to the figures confirmed by Jim Davis on Oct.10,1985 meeting. He recommended a rehearing to resolve this problem. 2. Of the people who opposed the petition, two of them need to move fences, one will need to move a planter, the man who said he flew home to speak has already sold his home and waiting for -the closing. Mr. Weaver who asked that his name removed from the petition had not signed the petition tat was being heard. We realize there is a problem dealing with thru-lots but we feet there has to be a fair and equitable way to get the street paved. Therefore we are prepared to pay the assessment for the paving on the lots where houses are already built and prepared to pay our fair share of the assessment for our frontage. The only stipulation we are asking is that the right-of-way completly cleared. 61n erely Yours, James L. Lawhon l (305) 231 7175 M 39 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PA,QE 4S8 an 62 FA ,8 Mr. Lawhon felt there was a misunderstanding before when the Board turned down the request for petition paving and directed him to pave the complete street when there are 19 lot owners on it and only 7 lots on his side of the street. He stated that it would cost him $32,000 to pave this piece of street. - Commissioner Scurlock inquired just what has changed since the previous meeting, and Mr. Lawhon emphasized that there now is no confusion about them having 670 of the property owners signing the petition. Director Davis confirmed that some confusion arose previ- ously due to a husband/wife situation where the title to the property was in the wife's name and the husband tried to withdraw the property from the petition. Also, people came in to speak in opposition who owned property beyond the limits of the project. The longer project did not become the scope of work that was finally petitioned. Discussion followed as to how many property owners still are opposed, and it was noted that there are signatures from property owners owning 67% of the frontage, but this actually is five out of 11 property owners. The 67% does meet our criteria for paving. It was determined that no one else wished to be heard at this time, but it was also noted there had been no notice of surrounding owners. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman to reconsider the issue and set a time certain for another hearing. Mrs. Lawhon informed the Board that she and Mr. Lawhon realize it is not fair for people whose houses face a different street to have to pay for the paving, and they will pay the cost for those owners and pay it in advance, if necessary. They would like to get on with this project. 40 Chairman Lyons believed that is a fair approach, but pointed out that we do have to have another public hearing; we cannot take action today. Mr. Lawhon stressed that they need a permit to proceed with development, and Director Davis did not see why they can't get a land development permit; they just would be taking a chance that the road will be done under the petition paving program rather than their having to do it all. He noted that they can bond out the improvement. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. REZONINGS & COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS - GRAND HARBOR The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notices with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: NOTICE — PUBLIC NEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption ofl a County ordinance, rezoning land from: C -11A, Restricted Commercial District, RM -6, Multiple - Family Residential District, RS -6, Single -Family Residential District and RS -1. Single -Family VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL, Residential District, to RM -8, Multiple -Family Residential District. Grand Harbor. Inc., as Agent for the subject property, located east of U.S.I Published Weekly Highway xt and north of North Gifford Roat (45th street). The subject property is described as: Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida BEING PARCELS OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 13, 23 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA:. SAID PAR- COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: + CELS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DELINEATED AND DESCRIBED IN THE STATE OF FLORIDA SECTIONS AS FOLLOWS. SECTION 13: Before the undersi ned authorit g y personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr, who on oath GOVERNMENT LOTS 1. AND 2, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE FOLLOWING DE - says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published SCRIBED PARCEL: at Vero Beach in Indian River County; Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING NORTH OF THE FOLLOWING DE - a SCRIBED LINE: FROM THE SOUTH- WEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 113. RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE ��� i /l _CJ �� in the matter of —y -tfc_v 1%! OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 IN SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 2,025.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING: THENCE RUN EAST, ON A LINE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, TO THE WEST SHORE OF THE INDIAN RIVER FOR THE POINT OF ENDING. In the Court, was pub- TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR 'MAINTENANCE PURPOSES, INGRESS j AND EGRESS ON, OVER AND ACROSSTHE 1 /`'� DESIBED PARCEL: FOLLOWINNORTH lished in said newspaper in the issues of A§V �� I THE 15FEET OF THE SOUTH 2,025.96 FEET OF SECTION 13 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPT- ING THE WEST 200 FEET THEREOF. . SAID EASEMENT LYING AND BEING IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SAID SEC- TION 13. Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at CONTAINING 54.5 ACRES, MORE OR Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore LESS. SECTION 23: been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither aid nor promised an Y p y person, firm or SOUTHWEST QUARTER (LYING EAST OF U.S. stt) AND THE NORTHWEST corporation any discount, rebate, commission or eefund for the purpose of securing this adver- QUARTER of THE SOUTHWEST QUAR- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. TER (LYING EAST OF U.S. u'1). CON- Sworn to and subscribed before this / day TAINING 71.856 ACRES, MORE OR j LESS. THE WEE L me of A. D. �� OF NORTHWEST QUARTER F THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SEC- TION 23. THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST i 'Manager) QUARTER AND THE EAST HALF OF . THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION - I 23. a,. i 1 ` (Clerk of the Ci u , is rver Co (SiAU ty, FI r•a) THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER IOF THE,, NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 41 i;�i CT 3 1O`�p985 23. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUAR- TER OF SECTION 23:• __ . �_ �. �DOK t. f,1a 400 CONTAINING 232.998 ACRES, MORE ARC DISTANCE OF 154.23 FEET; OR LESS. THENCE SOUTH 65° 43' 29" WEST, SECTION 24: 132.52 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF OF SECTION 24. 547.14 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE ALL OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 LYING OF 37° 49'10", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE NORTH OF GIFFORD DOCK ROAD AS OF 361.15 FEET TO A POINT OF RE - DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD VERSE CURVE: THENCE ON A CURVE BOOK 500, PAGE 833. TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF CONTAINING 176.996 ACRES, MORE 555.37 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OR LESS. OF 42° 33' 12", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 AND THE OF 412.47 FEET TO A POINT OF INTER - EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST SECTION WITH A CURVE ON THE EAST QUARTER; ALL IN SECTION 24, TOWN- RIr+HT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO, RADIUS P 1NT OF SAID SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, IN- DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. 1, THE RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE BEARS SOUTH CONTAINING 139.036 ACRES, MORE 730-39' 13" WEST,. 17,248.78 FEET;. OR LESS. s THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT -OF -- AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOW- WAY UNE, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ING FOUR DESCRIBED PARCELS: A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A PARCEL x1 RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CEN - BEGIN AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT TRAL ANGLE 01 ° 37' 29", RUN AN ARC MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER DISTANCE OF 489.13 FEET: THENCE OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF LEAVING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC- LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A TION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A . 39 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY,' RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CEN - FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 89° 37' TRAL ANGLE OF 74° 59' 33", RUN AN 36" WEST, 81.47 FEET: THENCE ARC DISTANCE OF 32.72 FEET; SOUTH 19° 03' 54" EAST, 27.57 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 42' 51" EAST, THENCE ON A CURVE WITH AN ARC 31.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 17' DISTANCE OF 50.09 FEET; THENCE 09" WEST, 35.00 FEET TO A POINT ON FOLLOWING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO, 1 ON A NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE - CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CEN- 23; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, TRAL ANGLE OF 02° 33'08", RUN AN RUN SOUTH 89° 42' 51" EAST, 968.64 ARC DISTANCE OF 768.35 FEET; FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT -OF- LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, WAY LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THAT PORTION OF THE 70 FOOT WIDE THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT -OF - NORTH 19° 32' 29" WEST, 565.37 FEET WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT AND THE CHORD BEARS NORTH OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS DE - 59°46125" EAST, 205.94 FEET, RUN AN SCRIBED, IN PART, AS THE EAST 70 ARC DISTANCE OF 207.14 FEET. FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ON A OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF CURVE TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS PAR- SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, ALLEL TO AND 200 FEET EASTERLY RANGE 39 EAST. OF THE AFORESAID EAST RIGHT -OF- CONTAINING 28.384 ACRES, NET. WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, PARCEL #3 THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST 17,448.78 FEET AND THE CENTRAL CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP ANGLE BEING 02° 23' 36", RUN AN 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN ARC DISTANCE OF 728.84 FEET; RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE THENCE NORTH 46° 22' 28" EAST, RUN NORTH 00° 05' 48" EAST AND 1194.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 33' ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SEC - 34" WEST, 127.38 FEET; THENCE ON A TION 13 A DISTANCE OF' 1098.36 FEET CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM RADIUS OF 3966.10 FEET AND A CEN- THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE TRAL ANGLE OF 05° 27' 28", RUN AN ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH ARC DISTANCE OF 377.79 FEET; 00° 05'48" EAST, 745.09; THENCE RUN THENCE SOUTH 59° 38' 56" WEST, 257.91 FEET; THENCE PERPENDICULAR TO SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 89° 59' 29" WEST, 491.15 FEET, MORE OR SOUTH 89° 54' 12" EAST, 187.35 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT AT THE LESS, TO A -POINT ON THE WEST LINE NORTHWEST CORNER OF A MANMADE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST BOAT BASIN; THENCE FOLLOWING QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUAR- THE WEST SHORELINE OF SAID BOAT TER OF SECTION 23; THENCE RUN BASIN, RUN SOUTH 00° 20' 23" EAST, 00° 06' 48" EAST, ALONG SAID 745.11 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE iSOUTH EAST LINE,. 1102.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS AND LEAVING SAID SHORELINE, RUN EX-: s CEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART OF NORTH 89° 54' 12" WEST, 193.02 FEET, WEST LINE ITHE 70 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE OUT- MORE OR LESS, TO THE OF SAID SECTION 13 AND THE POINT FALL DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE OF BEGINNING. Z FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- . PORTATION, ( SAID PARCEL LYING AND BEING IN IN- MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: DIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND FROM THE AFORESAID POINT OF CONTAINING 3.25 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. BEGINNING, RUN NORTH 00° 06' 48" PARCEL x4- WEST, 626.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST BEGINNING OF THE 70 -FOOT RIGHT- CORNER OF SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP OF -WAY; THENCE SOUTH 89° 42' 49" 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN EAST, 794.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE 46° 22' 28" EAST, 100.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 42' 49" WEST, RUN SOUTH 89° 55' 68" EAST AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID 867.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 06' SECTION 24, A DISTANCE OF 1588.70 48" EAST, 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON OF BEGINNING. THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE SAID OFFICE PARCEL CONTAINS 19.29 INDIAN RIVER, SAID POINT BEING THE :ACRES_NET,_ POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FOL - PARCEL sat -''- "- BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONO- LOWING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE RUN NORTH 18° 57' 59" WEST, 2.17 MENT MARKING THE SOUTHEAST - "CORNER' OF THE NORTHEAST QUAR- FEET; THENCE NORTH 15° 31' 54" TER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER WEST, 76.24 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, RUN OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, SOUTH 55° 50'42" WEST, 474.10 FEET; RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUN- THENCE RUN SOUTH 24° 13' 08" EAST, TY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 201.90 FEET: THENCE RUN SOUTH 26° 00° 01'26" EAST, 663.16 FEET TO THE 44' 49" WEST, 252.19 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST RUN SOUTH 15° 33' 32" EAST, 468.09 HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; SAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SEC- CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT TION 23; THENCE FOLLOWING THE WHICH LIES NORTH 12° 20' 05" WEST, SOUTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF 347,96 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTH- SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF WEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST 347,96 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF QUARTER OF SECTION . 23, RUN SOUTH 89° 43' 57" EAST, 625.09 FEET; NORTH 74° 11' 07" WEST, AND A CEN - THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, TRAL ANGLE OF 56° 17' 57', AN ARC DISTANCE OF FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 26° 12' 20" WEST, 257.44 RUN NORTH * 02' 08" WEST3 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE .TO THE FEET; THENCEE R RUNN SOUTH 711 077'' 311 " LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4414.98 WEST, 1TO FEET; THENCE ON A FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° CURVE THE LEFT HAVING A 39' 56", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF i RADIUS OOF 1FEET, A CHORD F 205.39 FEET: THENCE NORTH 65° 46' BEARING OF SOUTH 35° 17' WEST, 57" WEST, 412.48 FEET; THENCE ON A AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OFF 71 40' CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A 49.24 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 1CUR- RADIUS OF 180.61 FEET AND A CEN- FEET A POINT OF REVERSE CUR - FEE TRAL ANGLE 75° 45' 14", RUN AN ARC ; THENCE ON A CURVE TO E; DISTANCE OF 238.79 FEET TO A POINT THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF THE RI OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A FEET, CHORD BEARING OF CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A CEN - SOUTH WEST, AND A CEN- SOUTH 26 30' ' RADIUS OF 162.17 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 52° 34' 24", RUN AN F 5 RUN AN TRAL ANGLE OF b4 08' ARC DISTANCE OF 167.15 FEET TO A F ARC DISTANCE VE 172.58 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE, POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE THENCE ON A CURVE THE LEFT, ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.11 FEET AND A CEN- 42 HAVING A RADIUS OF 742.23 FEET, A TRAL ANGLE OF 25° 18' 45", RUN AN CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 48 32' 42 BOOK 62 MUZ 491 03" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 10° 06'05". RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 130.86 FEET TO A POINT OF INTER- SECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT: SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 23° 07' 07" WEST, 651.48 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 85° 15'45'* WEST, AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 36° 45' 44", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 418.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 13° 38'37" EAST, 300.77 FEET TO A POINT OF INTER- SECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 13° 38' 37•", EAST, 350.71 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 56° 20' 52" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 94° 35' 30", RUN AN ARC -DISTANCE OF 579.00 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.94 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 18° 34' 36" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 19° 02' 58", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.32 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.97 FEET, A .CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 01 ° 57' 21" WEST, AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 60° 06. 52", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 102.79 EAST; = THENCE RUN. NORTH. 9q!,�QO', .00' EAST, 350.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 00' 00" EAST, 290.00 FEET: THENCE NORTH 90° 00' 00" EAST, 950.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19° 42' . 35" EAST, 602.45 FEET: THENCE NORTH 00° 00'00"* EAST, 400.00 FEET, THENCE RUN NORTH 78° 53' 53" WEST, 220.66 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 125.74 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 05° 37' 22" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 169° 02- 30". RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 370.95 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CUR- VATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 347.97 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 68° 29' 04" EAST, AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 43° 19' 06", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 263.08 FEET; MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER; THENCE FOLLOWING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE IN- DIAN RIVER, RUN NORTH 38° 05' 50" WEST, 101.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 32° 29'06" WEST, 96.26 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 27° 19' 20" WEST, 103.58 FEET.; THENCE RUN NORTH 26° 35'00" WEST, 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 23° 45' 58" WEST, 99.93 FEET: THENCE RUN NORTH 16° 43' 13" WEST, 95.33 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 21' 17' 20" WEST, 100.72 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 26° 33'53" WEST, 108.16 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 26° 25' 11" WEST, 99.45 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 19° 40' 11" WEST, 97.16 FEET, THENCE RUN NORTH 40° 53' 07" WEST, 56.12 FEET, THENCE RUN NORTH 18° 57'49" WEST, 57.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 60.73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. A public hearing at which parties in interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the :ounty Commission Chambers of the County 4dministration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday. Oct - )bar 23, 1985, at 9:05 A.M. Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision which may be at this meeting will need to ensure hat averbatim record of the proceedings is nade, which includes testimony and evidence ipon which the appeal Will be based. Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman tctober 4, 15, 1985. VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a in the matter OA22 in theCourt, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D. (SEAL) NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of a County ordinance rezoning land from: C -1A, Restricted Commercial District and RM -8, Multi- ple -Family Residential District to CL, Limitedu Commercial District. Grand Harbor, Inc. as Agent for the subject property, located east of U.S. Highway u1 and north of North Gifford Road; (45th Street). The subject property Is described as: BEGIN AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER , OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SEC- TION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 89° 37' 36" WEST, 81,47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19° 03'.54" EAST, 27.57 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE WITH AN ARC DISTANCE OF 50.09 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 02° 33' 08", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 768.35 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS _ NORTH 19° 32' 29" WEST, 555.37 FEET AND THE CHORD BEARS NORTH 59° 46' 25" EAST, 205.94 FEET, RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 207.14 FEET, THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS PAR- ALLEL TO AND 200 FEET EASTERLY OF THE AFORESAID EAST RIGHT-OF- WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 17,448.78 FEET AND .THE CENTRAL ANGLE BEING 02° 23' 36", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 728.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46° 22' 28" EAST, 1194.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 33' 34".WEST, 127.38 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3966.10 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 05° 27' 28", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 377.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 59° 38' 56" WEST, 257.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 59' 29" WEST, 491.15 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE 'OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUAR- TER OF SECTION 23; THENCE RUN SOUTH QO° 06'48" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1102.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS AND EX- CEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART OF THE 70 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE OUT- FALL DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANS- PORTATION, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE. AFORESAID POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN NORTH OQ° 06' 48" WEST, 626.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF ,BEGINNING OF THE 70 -FOOT RIGHT- ' OF -WAY; THENCE SOUTH 89° 42' 49" EAST, 794.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH' 46° 22' 28" EAST, 100.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 42' 49" WEST, 867.67 FEET: THENCE SOUTH 00° 06' 48" EAST, 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID OFFICE PARCEL CONTAINS 1929 ACRES NET. ' A public hearing at which parties in inter and citizens shall have an opportunity to heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at .1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday. Oct- ober 23,1985, at 9:05 A.M. 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 testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. Indian River County s Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman October 4, 15, 1985. _ 43 OCT 2 3 19385' gppK '� PAGE � .6 92 r OCT 2 3185 BOOK 62 PAGE 493 non" =immNotice Of hearm u+et peon �{y a County arm r hom. SMg4- GW X11' Sini% gle-pamResWential O�ncL RSB. Famiry Rasldenaal Dbtriel and R48 Muieple / Fa ' Y Rasldential Dlatrkt to CG. General Can" mercial D=Grand Nares. Uro., ae t for VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL the sables vraPem: WAteo dI U. Irm Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida I COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Reach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a // O in the matter of`LJ�.�'(".t°C�'L/!�l�� in the /y�//� ry,/ / Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of r� V ' Z�& '77_5— Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal Is a newspaper published at j Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and aff(ant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. ��% ..� Sworn to and subscribed befor ' me s y ofd—A.D. V` sines?A ager) f l (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, Florida (SEAQ 44 mean teat a verbaem record Or me Wac—u*. is madewh" bio WSW'My arta "WWMi upon tMian �a�COurft . gay.%yPofa>.kk aLyons. CMlmun Oolobar 1,18,1966.. - 1 - Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ` J' Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed before me thbs �� day ofA.D. (BEAU (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, 45 TION 23; HENCE 1-ULLUMNU I nc SOUTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF HE NORTH- WEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, RUN SOUTH 89' 43' 57" EAST, 625.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN NORTH 26° 12' 20" WEST, 257.44 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4414.98 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 39' 56", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 205.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 65° 46- 57" WEST, 412.48 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO HE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.61 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE 75" 45'14" RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 238.79 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; HENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 182.17 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 53" 34' 24", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167:15 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.11 FEET AND A CEN- ' TRAL ANGLE OF 25° 18' 45", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 154.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65" 43' 29" WEST, 132.52 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO ' THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 547.14 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37'49'10". RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 361.15 FEET TO A POINT OF RE- . VERSE CURVE: THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF . 555.37 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42° 33'12", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.47 FEET TO A POINT OF INTER- SECTION WITH A CURVE ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE BEARS SOUTH 73° 39' 13" WEST, 17,248.78 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT -0F - WAY LINE, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE 01 * 37' 29", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 489.13 FEET; THENCE eF LEAVING HE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A . CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A-.-- K RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF14° 59' 33", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89" 42' 61" EAST, 31.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 17' 09" WEST, 35.00 FEET TO A POINT ON ' THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE - SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN SOUTH 89°'42' 61- EAST, 968.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,,- LESS EGINNING,,LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF THE 70 FOOT WIDE - DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT -OF- .^ WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS DE- SCRIBED, IN PART, AS THE EAST 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. CONTAINING 28.384 ACRES, NET..•"'•,�` �'.s A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday. Oct- ober 23, 1985, at 9:05 A.M. Anyone whof may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need tc ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.,,.: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Patrick B. Lyons; Chalrman ' ', Mk Octobw ,er 4.„18. ]9fi5 ,, • - - - Boos 62 PAGE 49 " NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING ' -' 'i Notice of hearing to consider the adoption ofl a County ordinance rezoning land from: C-tAj. RestrictMulti- ple-Family Residential) District to CG, District and Gengeral oornthercial subjectfip Grand Harbor. located Least of U.S. VERO BE BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Highway =1 and north of North Gifford Road • Published Weekly (45th Street). The subject property Is described as: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONU- MENT MARKING HE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUAR Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida TER OF HESOUTHWEST QUARTER SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUN- COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: r TY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 00, 01' 26" EAST, 663.16 FEET TO THE STATE OF FLORIDA SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST uni d nF THE NORTH HALF OF THE Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being in the matter of In the Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of ` J' Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Swom to and subscribed before me thbs �� day ofA.D. (BEAU (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River County, 45 TION 23; HENCE 1-ULLUMNU I nc SOUTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF HE NORTH- WEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, RUN SOUTH 89' 43' 57" EAST, 625.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN NORTH 26° 12' 20" WEST, 257.44 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4414.98 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 39' 56", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 205.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 65° 46- 57" WEST, 412.48 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO HE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.61 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE 75" 45'14" RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 238.79 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; HENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 182.17 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF 53" 34' 24", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167:15 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.11 FEET AND A CEN- ' TRAL ANGLE OF 25° 18' 45", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 154.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 65" 43' 29" WEST, 132.52 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO ' THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 547.14 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 37'49'10". RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 361.15 FEET TO A POINT OF RE- . VERSE CURVE: THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF . 555.37 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 42° 33'12", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.47 FEET TO A POINT OF INTER- SECTION WITH A CURVE ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE BEARS SOUTH 73° 39' 13" WEST, 17,248.78 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT -0F - WAY LINE, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE 01 * 37' 29", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 489.13 FEET; THENCE eF LEAVING HE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A . CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A-.-- K RADIUS OF 26.00 FEET AND A CEN- TRAL ANGLE OF14° 59' 33", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89" 42' 61" EAST, 31.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 17' 09" WEST, 35.00 FEET TO A POINT ON ' THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE - SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN SOUTH 89°'42' 61- EAST, 968.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,,- LESS EGINNING,,LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF THE 70 FOOT WIDE - DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT -OF- .^ WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS DE- SCRIBED, IN PART, AS THE EAST 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. CONTAINING 28.384 ACRES, NET..•"'•,�` �'.s A public hearing at which parties in Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be heard, will be held by the Board of County Com- missioners of Indian River County, Florida, in the County Commission Chambers of the County Administration Building, located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday. Oct- ober 23, 1985, at 9:05 A.M. Anyone whof may wish to appeal any decision which may be made at this meeting will need tc ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.,,.: Indian River County Board of County Commissioners By -s -Patrick B. Lyons; Chalrman ' ', Mk Octobw ,er 4.„18. ]9fi5 ,, • - - - Boos 62 PAGE 49 " 1985 62 PnE 495 BOOK VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO LLAA�i^�'��– OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE ACOUNTYORDINMCEN Published Weekly HOTIC2;-t CdwKTO1NO oaring to coMlder the adoption of Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida Notice of a County �dinana rezoning �d R� Mumddee--Family Residential DIa Grand Harbori! � District. Agent for the sublet p►oPerty of Wt for #1 a north of North Giffleatord COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA U.S. HI hwayy pTo�a�4tthh�8lreet). pr ? THElbed u: AT THE SOUTHWEST Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published COMMENCE CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 92 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA: THENCE at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being ST AND RUN ALONNOR IiE WEST DO -05' 4NE OF FAIT SEF ' 10NG. FETO THEET TION 13 A DISTANCE GI I FR POINT a / THE POINT BEGINNING CONTINUE NORTH ALONG THE SAID WEST THEN CE RUN 1"1 Z!"% 00° 05' 48" EAST, 745.09; PERPENDICULAR TO SAID WEST LINE, in the matter of �T" -�4/ - C -acC��J� SOUTH 89° 54' 12" EAST, 187.35 FEET OR LESS TO A POINT AT THE a �{ MORE NORTHWEST CORNER A BOAT BASIN; T ENCEF FOLLOWING TWF WEST SHORELINE OF SAID BOAT in the Court, was pub- L°Rvl"" F e NORTH 89 64,12" WEST, 193-02 E MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST L OF SAID SECTION 13 AND THE PC lished in said newspaper in the issues of / Lyt OF BEGINNING. {� / sajn PARCEL LYING AND BEING IN LESS. A public hearing at which parties In Interest and and Citizensillb shall have the Board of County Com - Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at hesrd, will be held by Vero Beach, in said Indian River Count and that the said newspaper mWloter of Indian River County. Florida. In the been continuous) y' p per has heretofore minty Commleslon Chambers of the County y published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered Administration Building, located a! 1840 25th as second class mail matter at thePo st office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County,Florida Street, Vero Beach, Florida on Wednesday, Oct - for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy adver- ober, 23,190,At905A.M. dsalsion tiserrcnt; and affiant further says that he has neither aid nor y person, firm or Anyone who mayy wish to appealanY Y p promised se which may be msde at this meeting w 0 need to corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Is made, which includes testimony and evidence upon which the aPpeaLwill be based. !_ � � Indian River County Sworn to and subscribed before me this – day of 5-C.A.D. , Board of County Commissioners n/J ^ n n By:.s-Patrick B. Lyons. Chairmen j I L l/ ,/ October 4.IS. 1985. (Clerk of the (SEAL) VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL NOT= OF Iq.'QULATION OF t.ANO UBE — n/����� Published Weekly ewa� #W04t• NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING TO LLAA�i^�'��– OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE ACOUNTYORDINMCEN AMENDING THE COMPRBHBNSIVE PLAN Vero Beach Indian River County, Florida y NOTICE HEREBY GIVEN that the Indian � County River County Board of County Commiseloner, shall hold a public hearing at which partly in In - West and citizens shall have an opportunity to COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA be heard, In the County Commission Chamber of the County Administration Btdlding, located at 1840 25th Street. Vero Beach. Florida, of Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath Wednesday. October 23, 1988, at 9:08 a.m. to Consider the adoption of an Ordinanceantilift. AN says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF at Vero Beach in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING r THE TEXT AND MAP OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE a �{ PLAN PROVIDING FOR 1) ENLARGE- MENT OF THE COMMERCIAL/INDUS. TRIAL NODE LOCATED EAST OF U.S. aft BETWEEN NORTH GIFFORD ROAD in the matter of AND SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD FROM FIFTY (50) ACRES TO EIGHTY-FIVE (85) ACRES AND MODIFICATION OF THE DESCRIPTION TO READ '•'AN EIGHTY- FIVE (85) ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE IS LOCATED EAST OF U.S. #1 AT THE IN- TERSECTION OF NORTH GIFFORD ROAD;" 2) REDUCTION OF THE COM - in the Court, was pub- T EMERCIAL AST DENOF U.S.. 01 AODE THE PRO- POSED INTERSECTION OF STORM lished in said newspaper In the issues of �• !?�. f > % 0 GROVE ROAD FROM EIGHTY (80 ACRES TO TEN (1OF AX0T)YACRES(; 3 CREATOURISTT//COMMERCIA )AND 'FIVE NODE ACR LO- CATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE IN- DIAN RIVER AT ITS APPROXIMATE IN- TERSECTION WITH THE 49TH STREET Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at EXTENSION: AND PROVIDING FOR EF - FECTIVE DATE. Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been enteredwhich Anyone who awish to appeal any decision nmy do tree eat this meeting wilt need to as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida "sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings fora period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- b msde, which Includes testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based. tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or Indian River County cortx,ration any (1iscount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- Board of County Commissioners tisement for publication in the said newspaper. By:•s•Patrlek B. Lyons, Chairman October 4, 15, 1985. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of A.D.y� ger) (SEAL) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indian River Director Keating reported that at the Planning & Zoning Commission meeting there was one public hearing held on all the rezonings and the Comprehensive Plan amendments and then a hearing on the Development Order. He suggested that staff be allowed to give a quick overview of the entire process, review the rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments, and then later take up the Development Order. Planner Stan Boling explained that what makes this different from a normal site plan is its size, which makes it a D.R.I. The process begins with the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council reviewing it and assessing the regional impacts. They have a lot of input from other agencies, and there is a cycle of review and submissions. What the Board received several weeks ago was a recommendation from the Regional Planning Council where the Development Order was approved with conditions. Staff reviewed this, added some conditions re local concerns, and came up with a Development Order which involves the basic issues of the project. This is not the final order from the County as they still would have to go through our local site plan procedure, etc. The Development Order basically says this project is approved if certain conditions are satisfied. It sets the larger issues in perspective, but they cannot pull building permits after the Development Order is passed; we can still put in our own local requirements. Planner Boling continued that.the Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the Order Thursday night and made a few changes, which are in the Board's backup material. We need to be consistent with our Comprehensive Plan, but state agencies rules, etc., still take precedence. Today the decision would be on the Comprehensive Plan amendments, on the rezonings, and on the Development Order. If the Order is approved and issued, there is an appeal period. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the document we are going to be considering has changed, at least to some degree, from what 47 BOOK �2 PAGE 49s OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE N was forwarded on at the Regional Planning Council level. He noted that in a site plan you approve the.final product, but the Development Order is contingent on about 65 things yet to be done. He wished to know why those items aren't all addressed and' plans approved prior to us issuing the Development Order rather than issuing the Order contingent on all these things happening? Director Keating believed the primary purpose of the D.R.I. is to look at and mitigate any possible impacts, and it makes sure the conceptual plan doesn't have adverse impacts of a regional nature. In our local site plan review, we do tie things down really closely, but we still make release of the site plan contingent on obtaining all the other agency permits required; we cannot demand everything up front. Assistant County Attorney Barkett pointed out that this also is the way the Statute is written. We have certain time con- straints to act on the document which is forwarded to us by the Regional Planning Council. Chairman Lyons felt there is another thing which makes this a little different in his mind - the environmental constraints which have not been met face to face by the developer and are still being danced around, and they will have a major impact on what the site plan is. He wondered whether we really have a viable project. Director Keating commented that even though there are certain unknowns about the specific design, what has been delineated is a recommended set of parameters, and what the Board is really approving is a concept that is pretty structured. The developer must abide by certain limits within which to do his design. Commissioner Scurlock expressed concern that when you go through the whole process, you have many activities that have to occur between now and when this final product is actually delivered to the market. He asked if we have a mechanism that shows the critical path of these items because we are talking 48 M M - ® M about an extremely complicated D.R.I. with a 10 year development plan, and we need a schedule to keep track of who monitors all this. Director Keating advised that staff did start developing a sort of flow chart, and we do have a graph with a sequence of events; he believed we will want to have an annual review. Commissioner Scurlock felt this should be part of the Development Order, and Planner Boling believed it was addressed in the timing conditions of the Order. Director Keating noted that the reason staff didn't prepare a detailed check list is that they did not know what would be approved in the Development Order. Chairman Lyons believed we are working with.a moving target; the proposal that went to Planning & Zoning was different from that which went to the Regional Planning Council, and he believed the project will continue to change in the future. He still wondered if it is timely to consider this Order as it will end up different than it is on paper right now. Director Keating confirmed a different plan was presented and it is somewhat confusing. The Development Order is really a set of conditions that modifies the original proposal, and that is the way staff recommends the Board look at it today. It was agreed to move on and address the proposed Comprehen- sive Plan amendments and zoning changes at this time, and Chief Planner Shearer reviewed the following memo: 49 OCT 23 1985 BOOK 62 RASE O& r_�OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 499 TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 18, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: GRAND HARBOR, INC., RE - Robert M. Kea'ing ICP QUEST TO AMEND THE COM - Planning & Development Director PREHENSIVE PLAN AND TO REZONE 346 ACRES FROM: REFERENCES: Richard Shearer, AICP GRAND HARBOR, INC. MEMO rhiref_ Tnng-Range planning CHIEF It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Grand Harbor, Inc., an agent for the owners, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the U.S. 1 and North Gifford Road Commercial/Industrial node from 50 acres to 85 acres and by creating a 65 acre Tourist Commercial node on the west side of the Indian River at the approximate intersection of 49th Street, extended. Also included in this request, is a proposal to reduce the size of the commercial node at U.S. 1 and the extension of Storm Grove Road from 80 acres to 10 acres. In addition, the applicant is requesting to rezone approximately 235 acres from C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, RS -6, Sin- gle -Family Residential District, and RS -1, Single -Family Residen- tial District, to RMh6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/acref for a residential/golf. course development; to ;-rezone 19.29 acres from C-lA and RM -6 to CL, Limited Commercial District for, an office park; to rezone 60.73 acres from RS -1, RS -6, and RM -6, to CG, General Commercial District for a resort commercial area; to rezone 28.38 acres from C-lA and RM -6 to CG, for a shopping center; and to rezone 3.25 acres from RM -6 -to CG for a commercial marina. On October 17, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission con- sidered these requests and made the following recommendations: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Requests: 1) Enlarge the commercial/industrial node located east of U.S. 1 between North Gifford and South Gifford Roads from 50 acres to 85 acres; Voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval; 2) Create a 65 acre tourist/commercial.node on the west side of the Indian River at the approximate intersection of 48th Street; Voted 3 -to -1 to recommend approval; 3) Reduce the size of the Storm Grove Road and U.S. 1 commercial node from 80 acres to 10 acres; Voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval. Rezoning Requests: The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -0 to recommend approval of each of the five rezoning requests. 411 ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness of the appli- cation will be presented. The analysis will include a descrip- tion of the current and future land uses of the site and sur- rounding areas, potential impacts on the transportation and utility systems, and any significant adverse impacts on environ- mental quality. Existing Land Ube Pattern The subject property consists of citrus groves, undeveloped land, dredged waterways, filled land, and mangrove marsh. North of the subject property is undeveloped land and citrus groves zoned RM -6, RS -6, and RS -1. East of the subject property is the Indian River. South of the subject property is undeveloped land and citrus groves zoned RS -1, RS -6, and RM -6. West of the subject property are an auto repair facility, a residence, undeveloped land, and citrus groves zoned C -1A. Further west, across U.S. 1, are various heavy commercial and light industrial uses including several fruit and vegetable packing houses, a lumber yard, and storage facilities zoned M-1, Restricted Industrial District. Future Land Use Pattern The Comprehensive Plan designates 80.11 acres of the subject property as Environmentally Sensitive (up to 1 unit/acre). The remaining part of the subject property and the land north, south, and immediately west of it is currently designated as MD -1, Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). The land further west, across U.S 1, is designated as part of the U.S. 1 MXD, Mixed -Use Corridor (up to 6 units/acre). In addition, the Comprehensive Plan designates a 50 acre commercial/industrial node on the east side of U.S. 1 between North Gifford and South Gifford Roads, and designates an 80 acre commercial node on the east side of U.S.1 at the proposed intersection of Storm Grove Road. The proposed amendments+ to the Comprehensive Plan include a proposal to move the existing commercial/industrial node located east of U.S. 1 between South Gifford and North Gifford Roads to the intersection of U.S. 1 and North Gifford Road and to enlarge it from 50 to 85 acres in order to accommodate the proposed office and shopping center developments along U.S. 1. A second proposed amendment is to create a 65 acre tourist commercial node on the Indian River at the approximate intersection of 49th Street. The third proposed amendment is to decrease the size of the Storm Grove Road and U.S. 1 commercial node from 80 acres to 10 acres. The net effect of these three proposed amendments would result in the creation of one new node and a net increase in node acreage of 30 acres, which is summarized below: Node Existing Size Proposed Size U.S. 1 between North Gifford 50 acres 85 acres & South Gifford Roads Indian River Tourist/Commercial 0 65 acres Node Storm Grove Road & U.S. 1 80 acres 10 acres Commercial Node I -i Total Node Acreage 130 acres 160 acres While these proposed amendments would increase the total amount of node acreage available in this part of the County, it would reduce the total amount of commercial node acreage available 51 OCT 231 1985 BOOK 62 FacE 500 BOOK 62 WE 501 along U.S. 1 which would discourage strip commercial development along U.S. 1, a stated objective of the Comprehensive Plan. Staff feels that conditions have changed in this area since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted. When the Plan was adopted, the County had plans to extend Storm Grove Road to connect with U.S. 1. An 80 acre commercial node was established at this proposed intersection -to serve the area west of U.S. 1 including the Bent Pine development. . Subsequently, the County changed its road• building priorities to 16th Street, Indian River Boulevard and Lindsey Road (49th Street). Because of this change in priorities and the fact that there has been no commercial development in the Storm Grove Road/U.S. 1 area since the Plan was adopted, it no longer seems appropriate to maintain an 80 acre node at this proposed intersection. The proposed 10 acre node will include the existing commercial uses in the general area of the node and some infill property. In analyzingthe tourist/commercial node request, staff con- sidered the fact that the subject property was altered from its natural state several years ago. At that time, the subject property was dredged and filled to form a harbor, and a channel was dredged to connect the harbor to the Intra -Coastal Waterway in the Indian River. These factors make this property appropri- ate for the location of a marina. Moreover, the staff reviewed the Comprehensive Plan policies relative to tourist/ commercial nodes and found the following provision: Tourist commercial nodal areas are designated on the Land Use Map. However, future demands may justify designation of additional areas. Staff feels that this provision of the Comprehensive Plan, together with the fact that the subject property has been altered for a marina, justifies consideration for establishing a tour- ist/commercial node in this area. The staff offers the following comments on the rezoning requests: 1) Request to rezone approximately 235 acres from C-lA, RS -1, and RS -6 to RM -6: The proposed RM -6 zoning is in conformance with the MD -1 land use designation and -is consistent with the existing RM -6 zoning for the majority of the Grand Harbor site; the requested density is 25% less than the maximum density allowed by the MD -1 land use designation, applicable to the subject property; 2) Request to rezone 19.29 acres from C -1A and RM -6 to CL: The proposed CL zoning is consistent with the proposal to expand the existing commercial/industrial node located east of U.S. 1 between North Gifford and South Gifford Roads to cover the proposed Grand Harbor office park; 3) Request to rezone 60.73 acres from RS -1, RS -6, and RM -6 to CG: The proposed CG zoning is in conformance with the proposed tourist/commercial node. The CG zoning district is the least intensive zoning district that allows commercial marinas; 4) Request to rezone 28.38 acres from C -1A and RM -6 to CG: The proposed CG zoning is in conformance with the proposal to expand the U.S. 1 and Gifford Roads node and is consistent with the staff's plans to recommend that the land in this node lying south of the subject property be zoned CG; 5) Request to rezone 3.25 acres from RM -6 to CG: The proposed rezoning is in conformance with the proposed tourist/commercial node. The CG zoning district is the least intensive zoning district that allows commercial marinas. 52 M M Transportation System The subject property has direct access to U.S. 1 (classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). In addition, the subject property includes the North Indian River Boulevard Corridor (which is also classified as an arterial street). The maximum development of the 675 acre Grand Harbor site based on the Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings could generate and attract up to 50,300 Average Annual Daily Trips. Grand Harbor will be developed in two phases -with 29,800 AADT expected at the completion of phase 1. Based on the total trips expected as a result of the project, phase 2 will not commence until Indian River Boulevard has been constructed. Environment Approximately 80.11 acres of the subject property is designated as environmentally sensitive. In addition, approximately the east half of the Grand Harbor site is located in an A9 flood zone (elevations 5' & 6'), indicating an area within the 100 year floodplain. Utilities County water and wastewater facilities are not currently avail- able for the subject property. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendations, staff recommends that the Compre- hensive Plan be amended by: 1) Enlarging the commercial/industrial node located east of U.S. 1 between North Gifford and South Gifford Roads from 50 acres to 85 acres; �, 2) Creating a 65 acre tourist/ commercial node on the west side of the Indian River at the approximate intersection of 49th Street; and 3) Reducing the size of the Storm Grove Road and U.S. 1 commercial node from 80 acres to 10 acres. Based on these recommendations, and the Planning and Zoning Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the following rezoning requests be approved: 1) Request to rezone approximately 235 acres from C-lA, RS -1, and RS -6 to RM -6; 2) Request to rezone 19.29 acres from C-lA and RM -6 to CL; 3) Request to rezone 60.73 acres from RS -1, RS -6, and RM -6 to CG; 4) Request to rezone 28.38 acres from C-lA and RM -6 to CG; and 5) Request to rezone 3.25 acres from RM -6 to CG. Chief Planner Shearer advised that zoning request #1 (235 acres) is the residential, golf course, and tennis club part of the development; #2 (19.29 acres) is for the office part of the 53 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 82 FaG.E 502 � OCT 2 3 rasa BOOK 62 PAPE 5®3 project; #3 (60.73 acres) is for the resort commercial area; #4 (28.38 acres) is for the shopping center along U.S.I; and #5 (3.25 acres) is for the commercial marina. Chairman Lyons inquired about the RS -1, and Chief Planner Shearer explained that is Single Family with one unit per acre, and it is for the environmentally sensitive area. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know why in the D.R.I.'s in the Sebastian area there was environmentally sensitive land where no density was allowed, and Planner Shearer explained that was in the City of Sebastian. Our Comprehensive Plan states there is a maximum density of one unit per acre for environmentally sensi- tive land, and this can be transferred to the upland property, if there is any. In this case we are looking at transferring all that density to the upland properties. Chief Planner Shearer then referred to the proposed change in the nodes as set out in the table on the second page of his memo. Commissioner Scurlock inquired whether the proposed transfer and expansion of the number of nodal acres is all within the subject property and all under one ownership or if this is taking away from other properties that have been designated and moving it to other owners. Chief Planner Shearer advised that staff did a fairly detailed study of the nodes. Storm Grove Road node was desig- nated 80 acres, but priorities have changed and it is felt that conditions have changed since the Comprehensive Plan was adopted which would justify reducing the size of the node. Also, since adoption of the Comprehensive Plan, there has been no commercial development at Storm Grove Road. We have a tentative boundary of 9.9 acres which would include both of the existingcommercial uses of that area and some in -fill property. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know how the property owners who were losing node property were noticed, and Planner Shearer 54 M M M stated that there was no notice to the specific owners as the boundaries for that node were never officially set. Commissioner Scurlock commented that staff indicated that part of the reasoning for the 65 acre tourist/commercial node was that there was an existing dredged harbor and he wished to know if the 65 acres was based on 60 boat slips or 600. Planner Shearer believed when the applicant originally applied, they envisioned a lot more than 72 boat slips, but Director Keating stated that staff was just looking at the fact that a tourist/commercial node could go there because of the existing conditions and the size of it wouldn't necessarily be determined by the boat slips. Commissioner Scurlock asked if staff still would make a recommendation for such a tourist/commercial node if they couldn't get any boat slips, and Director Keating could only say they looked at this based on some of the elements used when developing a marina siting plan. There already is a channel dredged and a pretty deep basin right there, and this site was looked at as being one of the very few sites where you could put something like this. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know why this area was overlooked when we did the Comprehensive Plan in the first place. Director Keating believed the major reason is that unlike the major nodes which were developed based on the need to serve a residential population, the tourist/commercial nodes were related more to demand. Attorney Henderson informed the Board that the Grand Harbor people are prepared to make a presentation. Chairman Lyons believed it would be interesting to know what they plan to do with the land, but noted that we are not here for a site plan review. Commissioner Scurlock felt we need to limit any presentation to what this land is best suited for, the proposed Comprehensive Plan changes, and the zoning changes. 55 OCT 3 1985 BOOK 62 FAcE 504 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 Fac -t 505: Attorney Henderson noted that their presentation deals primarily with the existing conditions on.the land and it addresses the environmental factors that are involved. He pointed out that the proposed plan was submitted to Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and out of that came the Development Order which the Board is also considering. It is very difficult to separate this. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a D.R.I. matter. This is a rezoning and Comprehensive Plan change, and he would rather not talk about site plans and pretty pictures now. Attorney Henderson stated that he did not want the Board to vote in a vacuum on the zoning and Land Use Plan change and suggested possibly they could vote on the rezonings, etc., after the hearing on the Development Order because the rezoning was requested specifically fitting the plan that has been developed with exact legal descriptions. Attorney Henderson continued that the Development Order must lay the basis for more submittals, and they still have to go through a detailed procedure of reviews and permits. He also stressed that the Development Order when passed will be recorded on the public record and as such would be a control and act as a land use regulation of this specific property. Chairman Lyons noted that one of his concerns is the possibility that the project might not go through after the rezoning was granted, and then how do we stand on the environmentally sensitive land. Attorney Henderson believed anyone ever involved with the property would be faced with coming in and asking for a modification of the Development Order. b It was noted that the Development Order expires in three years. Director Keating explained that staff looked at this from the perspective of whether the Comprehensive Plan amendments and rezonings would stand by themselves and came to the conclusion 56 they could. All the rezoning is at less than the maximum density allowed by the Land Use designation, and staff feels the nodes are all warranted. Basically staff said that all these things, except the tourist/commercial node, would be things that they conceivably could have initiated themselves, and they•feel the tourist/commercial node is warranted by virtue of the alteration of the land that occurred before. Attorney Vitunac pointed out also that the only reason the Board wouldn't be able to change the zoning back in the future would be if there were some vested rights to proceed under the existing zoning; that zoning encompasses this Development Order, and if the Order could not be complied with or was abandoned, there would be no vested rights, and the County could revert the zoning to something else. He further noted that Director Keating has said that he is comfortable with the proposed rezoning even if this project doesn't happen. Chairman Lyons asked if anyone present wished to be heard on the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments. Dr. Hilary Swain informed the Board that she is a profes- sional ornithologist, currently working with Pelican Island Audubon Society looking at habitat loss along the Indian River, and she is here to represent the views of Pelican Island Audubon Society on this development. She first wished to review the historical aspect of the site. Dr. Swain stated that Florida is one of the five states which have experienced the greatest loss of wetlands over the past few years, and she felt the history of the subject site typifies the sorts of activities that have resulted in such wetland losses in Florida. She then presented a map showing the subject area in 1951, noting that it was a high marsh containing extensive flats of saltwort and glasswort with mangroves interspersed. The whole area was subsequently impounded and ditched and diked, which certainly altered its characteristics, but Dr. Swain stressed that it still remained a very important and a very functional wetland; most of the 57 OCT 2 3 1985 _ BOOK 62 PmGE 566 detract from their wildlife value. Dr. Swain continued that around 1975 about 500 of the existing wetland in this area was seriously damaged when the 1. owner spread fill along the eastern edge of the marsh adjacent to the river. He was instructed by the Corps to restore the western end of the marsh to its original tidal regime, but he failed to comply. Dr. Swain informed the Board that the assessment on the current situation on the site has been done by various profes- sional biologists, and it is their opinion that it is an important and functioning wetland, which supports a wide variety of birds and animals - egrets, herons, ospreys, etc. - and also is an important nursery ground for juvenile fish. This sort of high marsh is very productive from a nutrient point of view and is crucial to the well being of fisheries on the river. Local fishermen have recently deplored the decline of the river as the result of continued habitat loss. Since this area very wisely was designated environmentally sensitive, Dr. Swain contended it should not have the proposed development, which will effectively result in the net loss of one area of high marsh and further losses on adjacent areas. She stressed that the development is not limited to existing upland and fill. It is on existing wetland area that is designated environmentally sensitive. Dr. Swain, therefore, believed that the only use for this wetland is its preservation and its enhancement with a program that will restore it to what it was originally as high marsh. She further wished to emphasize that Pelican Island is not against develop- ment in general and not even against development on this project if it were limited to upland and fill, but they do seriously object to development on the environmentally sensitive wetlands. Dr. Swain felt there has been considerable confusion about the exact location of the proposed tourist/commercial node, and passed out maps showing that it completely straddles the environmentally sensitive wetlands. 58 M 2 3 1985 BOOK n 62 I'�tiGE 507 wetlands along the river are impounded like this, and it does not detract from their wildlife value. Dr. Swain continued that around 1975 about 500 of the existing wetland in this area was seriously damaged when the 1. owner spread fill along the eastern edge of the marsh adjacent to the river. He was instructed by the Corps to restore the western end of the marsh to its original tidal regime, but he failed to comply. Dr. Swain informed the Board that the assessment on the current situation on the site has been done by various profes- sional biologists, and it is their opinion that it is an important and functioning wetland, which supports a wide variety of birds and animals - egrets, herons, ospreys, etc. - and also is an important nursery ground for juvenile fish. This sort of high marsh is very productive from a nutrient point of view and is crucial to the well being of fisheries on the river. Local fishermen have recently deplored the decline of the river as the result of continued habitat loss. Since this area very wisely was designated environmentally sensitive, Dr. Swain contended it should not have the proposed development, which will effectively result in the net loss of one area of high marsh and further losses on adjacent areas. She stressed that the development is not limited to existing upland and fill. It is on existing wetland area that is designated environmentally sensitive. Dr. Swain, therefore, believed that the only use for this wetland is its preservation and its enhancement with a program that will restore it to what it was originally as high marsh. She further wished to emphasize that Pelican Island is not against develop- ment in general and not even against development on this project if it were limited to upland and fill, but they do seriously object to development on the environmentally sensitive wetlands. Dr. Swain felt there has been considerable confusion about the exact location of the proposed tourist/commercial node, and passed out maps showing that it completely straddles the environmentally sensitive wetlands. 58 M Commissioner Scurlock asked if Dr. Swain is correct that about 20% of the node is in the environmentally sensitive area, and Planner Challacombe stated it is about 500. The entire wetlands encompassing this node is about 30 acres. Commissioner Bird noted that the area shown looks like an old grove, and Planner Challacombe confirmed that a lot of it is an old grove. Dr. Swain stated that the land was actually ditched and there have been various comments as to whether it was grove or ditched for beans. She continued that at the minute it is tidally flushed and functioning as a marsh, and she'has that from a report both from Florida Fish S Game and from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. She believed that the Board has a statement from Brian Barnett of the Fish g Wildlife Commission to this effect. His report is as follows: FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION THOMAS L. HIRES, SR. WILLIAM G. BOSTICK. JR. C. TOM RAINEY, D.V.M. J.H. BAROCO MRS. GILBERT W. HUMPHREY Chairman, Lake Wales Vice -Chairman, Winter Haven Miami Pensacola Miccosukee t,acsH � b 9r ROBERT M. BRANTLY, Executive Director a t C F.G. BANKS, Assistant Executive Director R = i D A CO. Miss' P. 0. Box 1840 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 September 26, 1985 Mr. Robert Keating u Director, Department of Planning and Development Indian River County 1840 25th Street Vero Beach, Florida 32960 Re: Grand Harbor, Indian River County Dear Mr. Keating: As requested, we are hereby providing the Indian River County Planning and Development Department with our comments regarding development of the Grand Harbor Tract. The enclosed letter to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council states our recommendations for project design (7 August 1985, enclosed). We offer the specific guidelines on pages 5 and 6 as a starting point for development of a comprehensive wetland management plan. According to the Regional Planning Council guidelines, such a plan must 59 OCT - 3 1985 BooK 62 FA,E 508 rOCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAF. 509 be prepared and submitted to the Technical Subcommittee on Mosquito Impoundments of the Governor's Working Group'on Mosquito Control. To date, the applicant has apparently ignored all suggestions that such a plan be developed, or that he initiate consultation with the subcommittee. We strongly recommend against development of an estuarine channel - low marsh - deepwater basin system as proposed. Again, the Regional Planning Council guidelines emphasize that management and preservation of high marsh must be a major objective of the wetland management plan. This is wholly appropriate, since this wetland type provides unique habitat and other wetland benefits. Outright elimination of the high marsh is simply an unacceptable proposal. Since open water marsh management or other ditching strategies offer little hope of success for this tract, we offer the rotational impoundment management scenario as the best, and probably only, alternative which will provide adequate mosquito control and management capabilities for the high salt marsh. Regarding the proposed estuarine waterway system, let us re-emphasize that the extensive, wide, 4 -foot -deep waterway system is unacceptable, even without any additional marinas or other deep basins. Shallow marsh systems do not require 4 -foot -deep channels to be well -flushed. These channels would essentially become a navigable inland waterway system for large boats. The Regional Planning Council limit of 5 horsepower motors south of the major marinas is not adequate in this regard. Large sailboats could still navigate and even anchor in the channels, and the presence of such a system invites future docking and marina development. The entire wetland system south of the major marina #1 (and #2 if it is relocated in accordance with our guidelines) should be considered a wetland preserve, not a residential estuarine system. Therefore, only electric motors or small boats such as canoes or rowboats should be permitted in that area. We recommend that any inland channels south of the marina be limited to 2 feet in depth, mean low water, and that they be limited to 10 feet in width. With regard to the specific mosquito control and "wildlife enhancement" measures recently proposed by Dr. J. Shisler of the Environmental Connection in New Jersey, we offer these brief comments. Elimination of the high marsh is unacceptable, and will not be considered a viable option for mosquito control in these wetlands. The wildlife enhancement measures are poorly conceived, and range from some of possible but insignificant value (nesting platforms or islands), to the absurd (manatee sanctuaries and underwater viewing area3 in the estuarine waterway system). These proposals although well -meant, offer little significant habitat enhancement, and would be constructed through destruction of the existing wetland system. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this development plan. Please call me if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely yours, Brian S. Barnett Biological Administrator 60 / FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION 1110MAS L. 1111US, Sit. �111.1.1:1�1 (�. ISOSI'It'K, .I R. t . TONI RAINIA. h.VAI. ).11. IIAROCO !SIRS. GILBERT \V. IIUMI'llREY l'h.un::.n,, i .i.r '1 .dc �'r r l h.r:r.r,.ur, \\ ru:,•r f I,n n Mimi'l I', n>.r, d.r �1rcr,,.rrlrr• 11011111TIM. BRANTLY, Ex,kutive 1)irv,:wr F.(;. RANKS, A..i,tant Executive Director Mr. Sam Shannon Treasure Coast Regional Council P. 0. Box 2395 Stuart, Florida 33494 �µESH V �9p F�p L C C , R 2 � t {, AA coMMISS% Planning P. 0. Box 1840 Vero Beach, Florida 32961 August 7, 1985 Re: Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact, Indian River County Dear Mr. Shannon: The Office of Environmental Services of the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission has reviewed the referenced Application for Development Approval (ADA) for a Development of Regional Impact, and offers the following comments. The applicant proposes to construct a residential planned -unit development with mixed-use commercial and office complexes on a 677 -acre tract. Major features of the project include 3,000 residential units, a freshwater lake system, an office park, shopping centers, four marinas including a central marina resort, a championship golf course, a tennis club, and a 300 -unit resort hotel. According to the ADA, the development tract includes 496 acres of citrus groves, approximately 80 acres of wetlands, a 20 -acre existing deepwater basin, and 81 acres of previously filled land. There are no significant native upland habitats on the entire tract. The approximately 80 acres of historic salt marsh are now essentially impounded by dikes and a large landfill between the wetlands and the Indian River. The marshes occur in distinct parcels which have been variously impacted by diking, drainage, freshwater inflow, agricultural operations, and invasion by native upland species and exotics. _ The wetlands were, for the most part, adequately described in the ADA, but several important clarifications are warranted. The 25 -acre northernmost marsh ("A", Figure 1) was described (p.. 18.2) as rt... a series of narrow ditches (1-2 feet in depth) bordered by sea daisy flats and Brazilian pepper spoil mounds." Actually, Brazilian pepper is only significant in the northwest corner of this parcel, and along the perimeter dike. The open, shallow ditches are tidally flushed; are fringed by scattered red, black, and white mangroves; and support large forage fish populations. Most mangroves in this marsh were severely freeze -damaged, but are resprouting. Tidal inflow to the "impoundment" is via an open culvert from the tidal creek north of this wetland, and around the culvert where the dike is breached. The "flats" are dominated by sea daisy, with a lesser component of groundsel bush and an occasional Brazilian pepper. Many of these areas were saturated or inundated, and very little accumulated litter was observed. Numerous tricolored herons, little blue herons, green herons, and snowy egrets were observed in this marsh. This parcel is an impacted but functional estuarine wetland. 61 OCT 231985 : BGCK 2 PACEZ BOOK 62 PnE 51 Similarly, Brazilian pepper is limited to the perimeter berm of the 11 -acre marsh ("B", Figure 1) immediately southwest of the aforementioned wetland. This area, as described in the ADA, is dominated by shallow freshwater marshes and flats, with low spoil ridges traversing the site. These ridges are dominated by sea daisy and groundsel bush. Through dike breaches and the main north -south canal connected to the aforementioned tidal creek, this area is also tidally connected. It is dominated by freshwater drainage and rainfall, however, has much greater detrital and litter accumulation than the adjacent marsh, and is tidally inundated only during extreme tidal events. Marsh rabbits, raccoons, freshwater turtles, tree frogs, leopard frogs, forage fishes, wading birds, red -winged blackbirds, and grackles constitute the dominant fauna of this area. Alligators and river otters have also been observed in these freshwater marshes and ponds. The remaining wetlands are adequately described in the ADA. The largest system is a 40 -acre salt marsh ("C", Figure 1) complex of sea daisy, saltwort, glasswort, saltgrass, sea lavender, salt jointgrass, leatherfern, and mangroves. Shallow ditches are numerous in this wetland which is essentially impounded except for a flap -gated culvert connecting this system to a tidal marsh farther east ("D", Figure 1). The flap -gate is on the tidal end of the culvert, so tidal penetration occurs only via the imperfectly fitting flap -gate, or when the gate is intentionally opened. Groundsel bush and Brazilian pepper occur on elevated mounds and ridges in this marsh. Two distinct 5 -acre marshes occur on the site. There is a tidal high salt marsh ("D", Figure 1) with a perimeter ditch and cross ditches supporting red, black, and white mangroves east of the southern end of marsh. It has a 30 -foot -wide direct connection to the Indian River. The development tract also includes 5 acres of an impounded marsh ("E", Figure 1) at the southeast corner of the site. The 5 acres within this project consist of a saltgrass marsh with mangroves bordering the ditches at the marsh perimeter. This wetland is part of a triangular 16 -acre Brazilian pepper -marsh -mangrove system extending east to the Indian River shoreline berm, and is the only completely impounded wetland on the site. Southwest of wetland "C" is a highly disturbed 20 -acre tract with high ground dominated by Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, groundsel bush, and other upland and transitional species ("F", Figure 1). The wetlands and ditches in this area support cattails, smartweed, bacopa, pluchea, and other opportunistic wetland species. The applicant proposes to construct approximately 38 acres of freshwater lakes and marshes to serve as project amenities, sources of fill, stormwater retention basins, and irrigation sources. These lakes and channels would occur on the western two thirds of the property, and would be divided into 3 drainage basins which are briefly described in the ADA. Generally, the basins would be connected in series via overflow structures, with the final freshwater system outfalling into the proposed estuarine channels. Few design details for the freshwater system are presented in the ADA, but this system could potentially provide significant fish and wildlife habitat. This appears to be one of the developer's intentions, but we would need much greater design and management details to assure this potential would be realized. Provision of diverse slopes, habitats, and depths in the freshwater system is essential to development of productive fish and wildlife habitat. Transitional and upland buffers around created wetlands, proper contouring and diverse species establishment in the created wetlands, water level fluctuation and management, minimal shoreline maintenance, control of exotic or egressive native plant species, and water quality control are critical to long-term maintenance of productive freshwater systems. The ADA contains an appropriate framework for such a system, but does not include sufficient details to ensure success. We would gladly work with the applicant to ensure development of a high-quality, productive freshwater system. 62 � s � We are less enthusiastic about development plans for the eastern third of the property. The northernmost marina (111) would provide 343 berths for boats ranging from 30 to 80 feet in length, in an existing 20 -acre basin with an existing 50 -foot -wide, 4 -foot -deep (controlling depth) channel to the Intracoastal Waterway. The other three proposed marinas would be dredged from uplands and existing wetlands. Marina 112 would provide 148 berths for 30- to 80 -foot boats, and be 7 feet deep. It would.serve as the "central" resort marina. Marinas 113 and 114 would be 4 feet deep, providing 59 and 96 slips, respectively, for 30- to 40 -foot boats. Acreage figures in various sections and revisions of the ADA conflict, but the latest dredge and fill estimates submitted indicate that 6.38 acres of shallow state-owned bottoms in the Indian River would be dredged to provide greater width (100 feet), depth (7 feet), and length (1,800 feet) in the Marina 111 access channel; to provide a 4 -foot -deep access channel for Marina 114; and to provide two 3 -foot -deep flushing channels between the resulting marina system and the Indian River. In addition, 10.45 acres of uplands would be dredged; and 13.81, 5.25, and 12.62 acres of wetlands would be dredged to 7 -foot, 4 -foot, and 3 -foot depth, respectively. Fill within wetland impoundments would include 9.8 acres for golf course construction, and 21.6 acres for other development. In summary, the project would provide 646 berths for 30- to 80 -foot boats. Dredging would impact 6.38 acres of Indian River bottoms, 10.45 acres of uplands, and 31.68 acres of wetlands. Filling would occur on 31.4 acres of wetlands. We have attended several interagency meetings with the applicant and his agents, and have repeatedly emphasized that the proposed estuarine marina and channel system is environmentally unacceptable, and must be substantially revised before it could be considered a viable project. Conversion of 80+ acres of wetlands into a marina and estuarine canal system is unacceptable, even considering the beneficial aspects of the wetland restoration program. Despite the adverse impacts associated with aborted agricultural operations, impoundment, and wetland drainage, the site's wetlands could be restored through proper management. We are particularly concerned with the proposed extensive dredging for navigational access and marina construction. As we have previously stated on several occasions to the applicant and his agents, the Indian River is an estuarine lagoon which exhibits very limited tidal flushing at the project site. Water quality, clarity, nutrient enrichment, and bottom characteristics are major concerns which may well determine the ultimate fate of the entire Indian River system. Loss of productive benthic habitats, including seagrass meadows, drift algae flats, oyster reefs, and scattered oyster - attached algae flats, must be prevented if the Indian River is to be preserved. Field inspection has revealed presence of these benthic communities adjacent to the proposed dredging sites. We would anticipate increased sedimentation, turbidity, and wake -induced erosion to result from dredging and greatly increased boat traffic adjacent to these communities. Therefore, we recommend against any dredging in the Indian River associated with this project, except for possible removal of anoxic sediments from existing previously dredged channels. Potential impacts upon endangered or threatened species are also of great concern. The additional 646 large boats anticipated by this project would undeniably pose a significant risk to the endangered West Indian manatee, Florida's official state marine mammal. While balancing the public desire for boat slips against the degree of risk is a complex issue, it is obvious that dredging new marinas for large boats over 14 miles from the nearest ocean inlet poses an unacceptable risk. We strongly support the Florida Department of Natural Resources recommendation (26 July 1985, enclosed) to drastically reduce the number of proposed boat slips. Since all permitted berths could then be provided within the existing basin, there would be no need for the other three marinas. 63 1985 Be& 62 OCT, 2 a ms BOOK 62 PAG -L 513 The eastern indigo snake (threatened) has been observed on site, and would be more adversely impacted by the extensive habitat destruction proposed than by enlightened management of the wetland system. Also, the threatened Atlantic salt marsh snake, an endemic subspecies found only in the salt marshes of Volusia, Brevard, and Indian River counties, may occur in the tidal marshes of this tract. Enhancement of the salt marsh system, rather than conversion to a marina and channel complex would best provide potential habitat for this species. Severe pesticide (DDT) contamination of the wetland soils, due to pumped runoff from the adjacent citrus groves, is another problem confronting the marina proposal. This subject requires extensive analysis to determine the best available technology for safeguarding the Indian River from DDT contamination. Regarding the tidal and circulatory characteristics of the Indian River and proposed marina system, the applicant's hydrological consultant has verified that the proposed marina system would not flush adequately to prevent degradation of the marinas and, ultimately, the Indian River. System modifications to enhance flushing would require additional channels into the Indian River. Since no significant dredging in this Aquatic Preserve is acceptable, we must strongly recommend, as we have at every past meeting with the applicant, that only the existing marina basin and channel be developed as navigational waters. Even if these environmental concerns were not paramount, permitting construction of such a large marina system before completion of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council and Indian River County marina siting elements of their respective comprehensive plans would be inappropriate. Such action would allocate a disproportionately large percentage of the county's marina slips to one development project. Despite the obvious financial advantage for the developer of such a system, it is erroneous to claim that development of this tract of land requires this marina system to be financially rewarding. As we have repeatedly stressed to the applicant, we believe the tract is environmentally suited to development as proposed, except for the marina - estuarine channel system. In light of the above discussion, we recommend the following alternative scenario as an appropriate development plan: 1) Develop the existing uplands and freshwater lake system _ essentially as proposed, after implementing our previous recommendations and stormwater runoff precautions. 2) Limit marina development to the existing basin and navigable channel, with possible marina expansion into adjacent uplands or the highly disturbed northwest corner of wetland "A". A shallow flushing channel from the southern end of the existing basin to the Indian River may be appropriate. Also, the two fill pads in the basin could be scraped down to -5 feet msl to improve circulation, with the resulting spoil used to shallow portions of the basin to -5 feet msl. 3) The remainder of marsh "A", and the northern lobe of marsh "C" (north of the historic tidal creek) should be restored as a salt marsh impoundment. Management should include summer flooding for mosquito control as necessary, and connection to the Indian River to maximize tidal exchange between these systems. 4) The southern portion of marsh "C" (south of the historic tidal creek) should be restored and managed in the same manner as the marsh in 3) above. 64 S) The historic tidal creek between the marshes discussed above should be restored via a wide, shallow swale cut through the existing landfill, from the present marsh to the Indian River. The current proposal already includes this swale as a flushing channel for the proposed marina 112. 6) The existing freshwater systems (marshes "B" and "F") should -be restored as productive freshwater marshes as appropriate. Marsh "B" is an ideal candidate for use as a polishing pond for effluent from the freshwater lake system. Occasional overflow could be routed into either the restored impoundments or the tidal creek. Marsh "F" is the most disturbed wetland on the site. This area could also be used as a stormwater polishing pond if necessary, or it could be developed as desired by the applicant, in recognition of environmental enhancement of the remaining wetlands. 7) Wetlands "D" and "E" should be preserved. Minimal alteration to improve management options or enhance flushing could be appropriate. These seven recommendations are an appropriate framework for development of an acceptable wetland management plan. We would gladly review proposals submitted by the applicant, and strongly recommend that any scenario for wetland alteration and management on this tract be submitted for review and acceptance by the Technical Subcommittee on Mosquito Impoundments of the Governor's Working Group on Mosquito Control. Thank you for the opportunity to review this ADA. Decisions regarding development of this tract could, in effect, determine the future of the entire Indian River system through establishing a precedent for other owners of tidal or impounded wetlands, and by permitting or restricting major navigational dredging projects in the Indian River Aquatic Preserves. Development as outlined in our recommendations could provide a state-of-the-art showpiece to serve as an example for future development, and restore the fish and wildlife values of an impacted wetland system. Please call me if we can be of further assistance. Sincerely yours, / 5�� /d' Brian S. Barnett South Florida Section Leader Commissioner Scurlock inquired if these comments were made at the Regional Planning Council, and Dr. Swain believed they were made only to the Planning g Zoning Commission and the Board. Chairman Lyons noted that the letter of August 7th written by Brian Barnett was addressed to the Regional Planning Council, and he believed there were in receipt of it. This was confirmed by Dan Carey of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Dr. Swain continued her presentation and pointed out that the Comprehensive Plan states that environmentally sensitive 65 OCT231985 BOOR 1 62 PACE 514 OCT 2 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 515 areas are those "particularly sensitive to development impact and as such these areas will have low density requirements and will be subject to regulations to assure development does not interfere with the natural ecosystem." She stressed that Pelican Island Audubon believes that none of the plans submitted today assure any protection of the area, and she felt that the first and most important issue is that the county is considering introducing a tourist/commercial node into the midst of an environmentally sensitive area. Commissioner Scurlock believed the actual tourist/commercial area is south of the harbor area, and this was confirmed. Dr. Swain continued that the second issue concerns the zoning change within the remainder of the environmentally sensitive wetlands from RS -1 to RM -6. They feel any increase of density in this area is inappropriate and would change its character since 4' deep waterways do not have the same value as high marsh, and high marsh is the habitat which is scarce and declining. Dr. Swain believed the developer has an ideal opportunity to fulfill the requirements of the Comprehensive Plan by transferring this density to the uplands and noted that most developers would give their eye teeth to have high marsh behind rather them rather than than along the river as the situation is normally reversed. Dr. Swain felt the Board should ask the developer to comply with existing regulations and continued that in looking at the County Code, they contend that the developer has not met six out of the eleven standards of review; they feel the conceptual plans presented are inadequate and do not meet the required needs; they have doubts about the proposal which seems to keep changing; and they fear that the proposed node might end up as a white elephant in an environmen- tally sensitive area. Dr. Swain summarized that Pelican Island Audubon feels that this is a clear case of inappropriate use of environmentally sensitive land; that the developer has not demonstrated an 66 � r r� overriding need for a change in the Comprehensive Plan for a tourist/commercial node or for a rezoning on environmentally sensitive land; that the proposed changes would represent a very difficult precedent for the county with respect to the use and rezoning of the remaining environmentally sensitive areas; and Audubon would be relieved if the County would defer any decision until the developer has consulted with the necessary permitting bodies and presented a more uniform and workable plan. Although this is a very large and impressive development, Dr. Swain hoped the Commission would not be swayed by its size. Commissioner Scurlock believed Dr. Swain was speaking for the Pelican Island Audubon Society, and it was his understanding that they would not have an objection to the tourist/commercial node in this area as long as it was not on the environmentally sensitive lands. Dr. Swain agreed. Commissioner Bird commented on the reference made to "rapidly disappearing marsh lands" and stated that he did not believe we have approved any projects along the river that have destroyed the marsh area. He also felt that in comparison to most of our unfortunate neighbors to the south, we have practically virgin shoreline. Dr. Swain stated that it was virgin in 1951; it is not now. Planner Shearer wished to clarify that the basin area is included in the tourist/commercial node and the major part of the node would be located south of that. Chairman Lyons suggested that at this point the Board recess for lunch and reopen the meeting at 2:00 P.M. Commissioner Scurlock stated that if this involves the environmentally sensitive lands, he would not vote for the change to commercial. Attorney Henderson reported that the developer has an hour presentation which will answer all the environmental questions, and they are prepared to make this either before or after lunch. 67 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 FAcE"51 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK . 62 FACE 517 The Board of County Commissioners thereupon recessed at 12:30 P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 2:00 P.M. with the same members present. The Chairman reopened the hearing on the Grand Harbor proposed rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments and requested that Attorney Henderson limit their presentation to the tourist/commercial node in the environmentally sensitive area. Attorney Henderson believed the presentation concentrates on that issue. Planner Shearer wished to clarify one point on the environ- mentally sensitive Land Use designation and the proposed rezoning to 121111-6. He assured the Board that it is standard practice for a developer, as in Vero Groves, to apply for a zoning category for an entire project and then all of the development rights from the environmentally sensitive land are transferred to the uplands. Commissioner Scurlock questioned why staff would even consider including any environmentally sensitive area when the site is of such a size. Director Keating explained that first of all staff did an analysis on a request made by the developer, and this was the area he delineated. He was then required to do an environmental survey to determine the characteristics and quality of the environmentally sensitive land. Director Keating continued that basically through this whole process, the environmentally sensitive land was further divided into exempt and non-exempt areas, the basis being its productive value. Using those values and the survey, and also because of the mitigation proposed, staff felt there was justification for delineating this area as a tourist/commercial area. Where the environmentally sensitive land was touched, it was not that of the highest value and other environmentally sensitive land would be created for what was lost. Commissioner Scurlock felt that is a separate topic and we can't consider it at this point. 68 Commissioner Wodtke believed when you look at something on this massive a scale, you have to look at the cause and effect on all the environmentally sensitive land to the north and south and whether there are tradeoffs or other benefits. He did not see how we can consider this project without considering the whole. Attorney Vitunac believed there is a slight misconception about the D.R.I. It is not the same as considering a site plan when we are deciding on a rezoning. Under the law a D.R.I. is a special case and it is treated as a total package; you are allowed to consider the big picture, and that actually is what the D.R.I. was devised for - to look at the whole project. Attorney Vitunac pointed out that this is a ten year plan; the Board can listen and if it is decided to go ahead with the zoning changes, the protections would come in the Development Order. He also noted that Comprehensive Plan changes as a result of a D.R.I. do not count against our annual review. Chairman Lyons noted that actually we don't have to rezone until after we have heard the Development Order, and Commis- sioner Bird felt, based on what Attorney Vitunac advised, possibly the Board should see the overall plan. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Commission has the option to consider it separately, and Attorney Vitunac felt the developer at least has the right to make his whole presentation. Attorney Henderson made the point that the Development Order is actually a land use regulation applying specifically to this property, and the whole package results in a situation where a piece of property is impressed with a plan of development. He commented that it has been stated that the developer has been "dancing around the environmental issues" and that they have not been addressed. Attorney Henderson emphasized that this whole project was submitted to the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council a year ago. It has undergone extreme scrutiny by many agencies, and when we talk about a plan that is a moving target, those changes have been minimal compared to the original 69 OCA 19 : BOOK 6� PGE 51.8 OCT 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 519 submission and in each case have been in response to input from the Regional Planning Council staff. If the target is moving, it is simply because the developer has been addressing the concerns of the various agencies. He continued that there also seemed to be concern that if the property is rezoned, that, in'effect, would be a right to develop the property, but as Attorney Vitunac pointed out, there are more controls involved in the process all along the way. Attorney Henderson also felt there is some confusion over the environmentally sensitive areas. The Master Plan has a broad brush approach to describing those areas and requires developers to come in with a survey defining them. They also have definitions by the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council of environmentally sensitive areas and those have been addressed. He felt it is important to point out that if they had come before this Commission with a plan for tourist/commercial and offered nothing in the way of mitigation, they would expect to be turned down, but their plan offers mitigation in the form of re- establishment of the environmentally sensitive areas which historically existed but do not exist today. Attorney Henderson believed we must deal with the existing conditions, what the developer proposes to do, and what the overall gain is in the environmental values that are involved. Attorney Henderson then introduced the following people who have been involved with development of the Grand Harbor Plan since its beginning: Robert Snyder Professional Engineer Consultant in Ocean Environmental Engineering Supervisor of Palm Beach Soal & Water Conservation District, 7 years Chairman of Florida Association of Conservation District's Coastal & Wetlands Resource Committee, 4 years Member of Society of Naval Architects & Marine Engineers. John Clark Marine Scientist and Coastal Resource Planner, 35 years 70 � � r Graduate in Fisheries Science from University of Washington, with experi- ence at -Wood's Hole and Sandy Hook Marine Labs Works for the National Parks Service in International Affairs. Nationally renowned expert in Coastal Zone Management, who has written major books on that subject and served as a visiting professor at major universities Helped to start the National Wetlands Counc i.l Steve Bieman Marine Biologist with four years experience with the DER Involved with his own consulting company ECO Shores for 8 years John Clark informed the Board that he has been adviser to this project for a little more than a year, and his roll is as a proponent of enlightened environmental management - not of any particular project. He continued that he carefully examined the whole subject project, decided it was good, and decided to support it. Mr. Clark noted that this project comes at a time of a major turning point in the treatment of impaired and degraded wetland ecosystems, and the new techniques and innovations proposed have been giving them some trouble because they are pushing against some of the traditional practices in the field. At Grand Harbor they have a testing ground for this new approach to wetland conservation where much of the area is an ecological wasteland, or at least operating in a very poor condition compared to what it could be. Mr. Clark informed the Board that the approach they are using is based on four premises: 1) to preserve all pieces of natural functioning wetland intact, including whatever restoration they need to get them operating properly. That includes the piece connected by tidal flow and the strip of shoreline along the project also directly connected to the river, which are the parts that are now functioning naturally and unimpaired. Z) to put back into function whatever degraded disfunctional wetlands they can find to the maximum extent practicable. 71 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK." PAGE590 OCT 2 � 1985 BOOK 62 FACE 521 3) to reconnect all the chopped up individual pieces caused by what has gone on.before (drainage, fill, etc.) into an integral ecosystem with optimum ecologic and economic benefit. Their goal is to get this whole system back together and working as a unit; connecting to the river where they have to for circulation and providing for the entrance of tidal flow to flush this whole stagnated system. 4) to assure that the rebuilt system meets regional demands for the natural conditions and services of nature; in other words, that what it produces is what people who live around here want - birds, clean water, etc. Mr. Clark summarized that this means that they will preserve 121 acres of the natural functioning wetlands and rehabilitate 961 acres of the wetland area. The whole estuarine system will be 109 acres when they are through. In addition, they will be creating 6j miles of interactive tidal edge, which is ecotone where two systems come together, and this has about the highest value of any ecological category. The other critical element is that the fresh water supply will be improved. It will be put through the systems of lakes and swales and pass through coarse sand and soil to be purified, and by doing so, will create a full estaurine system which has the water supply, the flow and circulation, the wetlands, etc. Mr. Clark confirmed that their plan involves taking out 11 acres of what would be considered throughout the whole site as wetlands of significance, but stressed that in return they will be rehabilitating 961 acres and preserving 121, all of which will be paid for by the developer. He believed there was an error made in a previous statement as the area to the north is not wetland that is connected to the river; there is atidal gate. They hope through their plan to make a super fish nursery out of something that is not presently functioning that way. Mr. Clark wished to stress that this is a not a development versus preservation issue because of what they will rehabilitate. He 72 further stated that this is not wilderness - it is junk wetlands. Mr. Clark explained that the developer plans to incorporate his plans for a marina into a functioning system of wetlands that will connect to the river and improve fishing and habitat, and if he did not believe this, he would not stake his reputation as a conservationist on this project. He did believe this project is an exceptional opportunity for the county and will add a great deal of positive environmental benefit. Commissioner Scurlock asked whether Mr. Clark works for the developer or serves on a committee, and Mr. Clark stated that he is paid by the developer. Bob Snyder, Professional Engineer, reviewed the existing conditions in more detail, referring to a chart made up from aerial photos and topos. He noted that one thing all wetlands documentation always stresses is the importance of the aesthetic qualities of wetlands. Mr Snyder referred to studies which demonstrate the compatibility of marinas and wetlands. He confirmed that the strip along the river's edge, shown as dark green on the chart, is functioning; it is connected to the river; the shoreline is in excellent shape; and they do feel it is worth preserving. The shoreline to the north around the entire basin was never finished; even the shoreline on the river has been impacted and is vegetated with Brazilian pepper and Australian pine, and that they intend to mitigate into fully functional condition. The area shown as pale green is the least impacted of the historical wetlands. They have not been able to find out when it was isolated, but the sea level has been rising for some time and the tidal range is quite small; so it is impossible to say if this were reconnected and nothing else done what would result. The yellow area is actually abandoned agricultural lands, and they do not consider that a rehabitable piece of land; it is a series of fairly deep ditches with a mixture of vegetation on the banks. They would hope to use all that plant material in reestablishment of some of the other areas. Mr. 73 OCT 3 1985 GE 522 CT 2 3 1985 62 523 Snyder informed the Board that they have a video film presenta- tion which Steve Bieman will explain as he has spent more time on the property than any of them. Mr. Bieman proceeded to make the T.V. presentation showing 1. the actual condition of the area. Discussion arose re the mech- anism that controls the water flow in and out of this area, and Mr. Bieman advised that there is a water gate with flashboard risers. At times they take the boards out of the risers and pump the water through, which results in a large amount of fresh water coming out through the ditch, which is happening now. There is also a small breach about 1' wide in the side of a flashboard riser; so, the spot where this would completely block the fish off is, in fact, breached, and that apparently is where the fish could be getting in. Mr. Bieman reported that these films were made a year ago and emphasized that the orange grove pumps fresh water through and into the river at times when it can least stand it. It is all fresh water since practically none of the saline water of the river flushes back into the wetlands. Commissioner Bowman asked who controls that flashboard, and Mr. Bieman assumed it is the grove owner. He explained that what they are trying to do is lower the water table in the grove to a point where the roots of the orange trees will not be saturated and rot. When there is a lot of rain, they try to move as much water out of there as fast as they can, and that's when they remove the boards. Mr. Bieman continued to give a detailed description of the land, and Brian Barnett of the Fish & Game Commission made the point that some of the vegetation described by Mr. Bieman is that which grows on high marsh. Further discussion ensued re the environmentally sensitive lands, and Environmental Planner Art Challacombe confirmed that by the definition of our Comprehensive Plan, this is environ- mentally sensitive land, but it is altered and definitely not of a functional quality as shown historically. 74 � � r Commissioner Scurlock asked if the environmentally sensitive lands are identified by plant life, and Planner Challacombe confirmed that they are and also by historic values. Mr. Biemann continued to describe the land and their plans for the ecosystem, and Mr. Barnett informed the Board that when he was there in August and July, not during the high sea level period, there was tidal inflow into that area from normal high tides and there were mullet in virtually all of the ditches as well as mangroves. Argument ensued between Mr. Bieman and Mr. Barnett about the actual depth of the ditches. In further discussion Mr. Bieman explained that what the developer is proposing is to use part of this for the marina to justify spending money to rehabilitate the other wetlands. Commissioner Scurlock asked if it wouldn't be easier to find a piece of land that isn't in this condition, and Mr. Bieman explained that in the other area there apparently was an attempt made to grow something and you have mounds and ditches. With that sort of topography to get back to something that would be high marsh and low marsh, you would have to desiccate the entire area, and it was not in his opinion functional. Commissioner Bird inquired if our Comprehensive Plan shows the filled land as environmentally sensitive land, and he was informed that it did not. Commissioner Bowman believed the area reviewed by Mr. Bieman does not.encompass the whole 65 acres they plan to use, and Mr. Bieman confirmed that was true as a lot of it that is planned for creation of wetlands is back in the grove area. Commissioner Bowman then inquired about the depth of water Mr. Bieman is talking about in the wetlands, and Mr. Bieman explained that they plan to smooth it out and make it a nice transition with a fringe of low marsh. Commissioner Scurlock wished to know the difference between low and high marsh, and Commissioner Bowman advised that low marsh may be flooded several times a day under normal conditions 75 0 GTZn 3 1985 Boa 62 Frti;c 5?4 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK . 62 FADE 525 and high marsh would be flooded only during high water, possibly once or twice a year. Mr. Bieman contended that there is not much low marsh in Indian River County, and Commissioner Wodtke believed the mosquito impoundments alone eliminated a great deal of it. Commissioner Scurlock stated that what he apparently is being told is that they will create some additional areas to compensate for the loss of this area. They will do that in a higher area and then come back in the low area and build, which doesn't make any sense to him. Mr. Snyder pointed out that they consider the land which has been used for agriculture as being artificial and not really a wilderness wetland. Because of the weird geometry and to make an overall plan work and make the wetlands viable and valuable aesthetically, there will be some encroachment into these areas. He stated that all this has been covered with the Regional Planning Council staff and presented charts to demonstrate what is planned. Commissioner Scurlock felt:4it is obvious that they want to use that area so they can get the hotel to overlook the marina, and he felt they should simply say so. Mr. Snyder agreed that is so and stated that they also want to bring the development and the people into the wetlands. He noted another consideration is access for mosquito control. Mr. Snyder proceeded to review the charts he had displayed and explained that there would be a commercial marina facility to the north for the public and also some slips lower down because the plan works better that way. He pointed out the changes made from the original plan. Commissioner Scurlock did not believe that the County staff has seen these charts as yet. Mr. Snyder explained that these charts are just a slightly different and more well done presentation of the same charts staff has seen. He continued to point out what would be 76 � _ r preserved and flushed and stated there will be some connections for circulation where there will be no boat traffic. Chairman Lyons asked for an explanation of the controversy about the 4' - 2' depth. Mr. Snyder advised that the Regional Planning Council staff put on a condition of a maximum of 4' depth; County staff had recommended 21; however, after some discussion re the need to maintain flushing and because mid tide is 1' lower at one time of the year, they agreed that was good reason for maintaining some at 41. There is no intent to utilize those channels other than for aesthetics and to flush. The deepest point in the marina is 7', and dredge and fill permits are in process. Mr. Snyder noted that the low marsh system has not been open to the river in a long time. They want to have a low marsh fringe about the high marsh so the system can respond in ei-ther direction. He further noted that the total fringe area, which is recognized as the most highly productive ecotone, increases to about 61 miles. Commissioner Bird inquired if what was shown is what they are going to recreate as a mitigation and it is non-productive now. Mr. Bieman clarified that it is non-functional since it is not connected to the river, and Mr. Snyder believed the proposed reconnecting will be of great benefit to the river. He informed that Board that it has been estimated that there are some 39,000 acres of impoundments from Jupiter to Titusville, and most people agree that connecting them back to the river is the hope for the future of the Indian River. This, they feel, is the kind of thing that can be done at private expense to give the river back something that is demanded by the area. Commissioner Scurlock believed part of the area proposed to _ be reconnected has a DDT problem, and if they do reconnect it, he wished to know if the DDT will get into the river. Mr. Snyder stated that it would get into the river to a much lesser extent. He noted that the water comes back in from the 77 1,985 BOOK 62 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 527 river only when the gate is open, which is at the whim of the owner. He stated they did have a concern about the DDT, but when the pumping is stopped, the DDT settles to the bottom. In addition, DDT is taken out, or volatilized by plants. Mr. Snyder'" pointed out that much more DDT comes from the North Relief Canal, and advised that there is no state standard on pesticides in sediments. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they have excavated sediment and put in on their golf course, and Mr. Snyder confirmed that they did; it was monitored and there was no long term adverse effect. He noted that the problem arises when you have erosion and the DDT particle goes with the soil. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the Audubon Society and Game 8 Fresh Water Fish Commission have reacted to their proposal, and Brian Barnett stated that they commented on the original pro- posal, but they never saw the new charts until today. Mr. Snyder pointed out that they took their comments and made modifications accordingly, which resulted in the new charts. Discussion ensued as to what the Regional Planning Council voted on, and Chairman Lyons believed that they voted on a submission that was somewhat different. Dan Carey of the Treasure Coast Planning Council advised the Board that when the Council reviewed this project, it was a substantially different arrangement with four marinas and connections between them. The Council recognized there were problems, including high levels of DDT in some areas, and they felt the high marsh is very important. The Council felt that conceptually the project had some merit, but they wanted to see the bottom two marinas out of there and more preservation of habitat. Mr. Carey believed what the Board is looking at now is an attempt by the developer to modify and try to satisfy these concerns. 78 Commissioner Scurlock wished to know whether it is standard to have this many conditions still to be resolved when the Council asks a local community to act on a Development Order. Mr. Carey stated that it is. He explained that the Sta.tu.tes require that once the Council finds the application sufficient, they notify local government and a hearing date is set; then they have 50 days to issue an opinion. This is not much time, and, therefore, they put in enough conditions to inform local government that they think the project can go if those conditions are met. If the conditions cannot be met, the Council and the Commission both can revisit the whole issue again. Mr. Carey believed the Board must look at the conditions recognizing what was originally submitted wasn't perfect: He believed the developer has been forthright in facing these problems. Commissioner Scurlock asked how we can be sure that local participation will be available from all the various technical committees and agencies involved, and Planner Challacombe pointed out that this plan is at a conceptual level only. The details have to be worked out through the various agencies and staff would be consolidating that effort prior to bringing the final mitigation plan back to the Board for approval or disapproval. He noted that staff now brings all the DER and Army Corps applications back to the Board, and that same procedure would be followed. Chairman Lyons informed those present that Dan Carey will be the new Executive Director of the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council. Commissioner Bird noted that it is difficult when you listen to experts with great credentials on both sides of an argument. He asked Mr. Carey if he felt there is an adequate mitigation and that the benefits derived will offset what is lost. Mr. Carey noted that this is an innovative.plan and very complex, but he felt the net benefit will be positive based on meeting the conditions they made. He pointed out that we are 79 OCT 2 3 1995 Boor 598 OCT 2 3 1985 aooK 6z PAGE 52.9 looking at an opportunity funded by a private source, and we will put the performance standards on them. Commissioner Wodtke believed it is obvious there can be a lot of changes, but -the bottom line is whether this will be a positive effect on the system. Commissioner Bird felt if the project just stops the discharge of DDT into the river, it will have a positive effect. Mr. Carey emphasized that you must look at the whole picture. If that property is totally left alone, we have a problem on our hands. Here is someone who wants to build a whole community. He wants some use out of the land and is willing to give the public some benefits in return. There is a balancing that goes on. Commissioner Scurlock stressed that before he would vote for any D.R.I., we must have some very specific conditions on ourselves so that all this does not "fall through the cracks." Commissioner Bowman referred back to the last chart displayed and noted that we are trying to save the high marsh, but on that chart the high marsh has been reduced to a series of islands surrounded by water that is 4' deep, which she believed is an unnatural high marsh. Director Keating pointed out that there will be a list of conditions in the Development Order. It is very possible this chart may not be approved as it is, but staff does feel there are sufficient conditions included that the developer has to meet so that they know and we know what sort of general design would be acceptable for that area. Attorney Henderson informed the Board that they also have experts in the audience who will answer any questions the Board may have on other matters, such as traffic, sewer and water, drainage, etc. Commissioner Scurlock noted that he was involved in writing the comments on most of those subjects. 80 Commissioner Wodtke asked if we are going to go through the Development Order and the restrictions now, and Attorney Vitunac felt it would appropriate to hear the staff's recommendation re the Development Order at this time. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he was hoping .to get a Motion about the nodes and rezonings and get those items in line, and then he would assume that the Development Order would assure us that all the conditions and considerations that have been raised today, if properly constructed, will ensure that the land is used in a wise way. Commissioner Bowman inquired where the Development Order goes after it leaves here, and Commissioner Scurlock answered that it goes back to the Regional Planning Council and they have time to appeal it. If they don't appeal it, it stands. Then if the developer is not in substantial compliance within the three year period, it goes back to us and to the Regional Planning Council. ON MOTION by Commissioner Wodtke, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously closed the public hearing on the rezonings and Comprehensive Plan amendments proposed by the developers of Grand Harbor. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-88, which will incorporate any Compre- hensive Plan amendments approved for Grand Harbor, Inc., and agreed to amend the Comprehensive Plan by enlarging the commercial/industrial node located east of U.S.1 between North and South Gifford Roads from 50 acres to 85 acres. 81 600lt 62 OCT 231995 OCT 2 3 1985 N I BOOK MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, to amend the Comprehensive Plan by creating a 65 acre tourist/commercial node on the west side of the Indian River at the approximate intersection of 48th Street and to incorporate this change in Ordinance 85-88. Commissioner Scurlock wanted to indicate that he felt he has been given assurances that the environmental concerns are going to be addressed and also wished it made clear that we have the ability to go back and change this action if it is obvious that they can't be met. Commissioner Bowman stated that she had too many questions regarding the environmentally sensitive areas and, therefore, would not vote for the Motion. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4-1 with Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition. MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird. to reduce the size of the Storm Grove Road and U.S. 1 commercial node from 80 acres to 10 acres and to incorporate this change in Ordinance 85-88. Commissioner Bird and Commissioner Scurlock both expressed the wish that the affected owners had more notice, and Commis- sioner Scurlock stated that he would like staff to identify the situation to those owners so they could, at least, be involved in the further process of the D.R.I. approval. It was noted that the actual boundaries of the node have not as yet been defined and that when they are, staff then can determine who is involved. 82 0 THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried 4-1 with Commissioner Bowman voting in opposition. (Ordinance 15-88 will be inserted after the amendment proposed for the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan is voted on.) It was determined no one wished to make any further comment on any of the proposed rezonings. The Board then referred back to the five rezoning requests discussed earlier and believed all five could be included in one ordinance. Discussion followed as to exact descriptions of the land involved, and staff assured the Board that they do have the legal descriptions. Commissioner Bowman again expressed concern about the RS -1 on the environmentally sensitive lands, and it was noted that all that density will be transferred to the uplands through the PRD process. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously adopted Ordinance 85-89 approving the five rezonings re- quested by Grand Harbor, Inc., as follows: 1) Rezoning approximately 235 acres from C -1A, RS -1 and RS -6 to RM -6; 2) Rezoning 19.29 acres from C -1A and RM -6 to CL; 3) Rezoning 60.73 acres from RS -1, RS -6, and RM -6 to CG; 4) Rezoning 28.38 acres from C -1A and RM -6 to CG; and 5) Rezoning 3.25 acres from RM -6 to CG; all per legal descriptions to be supplied by staff. 83 � � 1 5 BOOK �r cF 532 __ Fr_0CT 2 3 1985 ORDINANCE NO. R5_89 Boa 62 F -AGF: 53.3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE ACCOMPANYING ZONING MAP FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, The Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency on such matters, has held a public hearing and subsequently made a recommendation regarding this rezoning request; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, did publish and send its Notice of Intent to rezone the hereinafter described property; and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has determined that this rezoning is in conformance with the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County; and / WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has held a public hearing pursuant to this rezoning request, at which parties .in interest and citizen were heard; WHEREAS, these proposed amendments were considered at the same time as the proposed Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact, and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Zoning of the following described property situated in Indian River County, Florida, to -wit: SECTION 1 The subject property is described as: BEING PARCELS OF LAND LYING IN SECTION 13, 23 AND 24, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; SAID PARCELS BEING MORE PARTICULARLY DELIN- EATED AND DESCRIBED IN THE SECTIONS AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 13: GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE FOLLOW- ING DESCRIBED PARCEL: ALL THAT PART OF GOVERNMENT LOT 1, SECTION 131 TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LYING NORTH OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED LINE: FROM THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SAID SECTION 13, RUN NORTH ALONG THE WEST LINE OF GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 IN SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 2,025.96 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE RUN EAST, ON A LINE PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 13, TO THE WEST SHORE OF THE INDIAN RIVER FOR THE POINT OF ENDING. ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES, INGRESS AND EGRESS ON, OVER AND ACROSS THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PARCEL: THE NORTH 15 FEET OF THE SOUTH 2,025.96 FEET OF SECTION 13 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, LESS AND EXCEPTING THE WEST 200 FEET THEREOF; SAID EASEMENT LYING AND BEING IN GOVERNMENT LOT 1 OF SAID SECTION 13. N. CONTAINING 54.5 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SECTION 23: THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER AND THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (LYING EAST OF U.S. #1) AND THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER (LYING EAST OF U.S. #1). CONTAINING 71.858 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER AND THE EAST HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTH- EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTH- EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23. CONTAINING 232.996 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. SECTION 24: THE WEST HALF OF THE WEST HALF OF SECTION 24. ALL OF GOVERNMENT LOT 3 LYING NORTH OF GIFFORD DOCK ROAD AS DESCRIBED IN OFFICIAL RECORD BOOK 500, PAGE 833. CONTAINING .176.996 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. GOVERNMENT LOTS 1 AND 2 AND THE EAST HALF OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER; ALL IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. CONTAINING 139.036 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. AND LESS AND EXCEPT THE FOLLOWING FOUR DESCRIBED PARCELS: PARCEL #1 BEGIN AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 890 37' 36" WEST, 81.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 190 03' 54" EAST, 27.57 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE WITH AN ARC DIS- TANCE OF 50.09 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING THE EAST OCT 15 ffQQK F�,JE�34 ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 BOOK 66..E P," 535 RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U. S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 020 33' 08111 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 768.35 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 190 32' 29" WEST, 555.37 FEET AND THE CHORD BEARS NORTH 590 46' 25" EAST, 205.94 FEET, RUN AN ARC DIS- TANCE OF 207.14 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ON A CURVE TQ THE LEFT, WHICH IS PARALLEL TO AND 200 FEET EASTERLY OF THE AFORESAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY 'LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 17,448.78 FEET AND THE CENTRAL ANGLE BEING 020 23' 36"1 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 728.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH '46° 22' 28" EAST, 1194.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 33' 34" WEST, 127.38 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3966.10 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 050 27' 28", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 377.79 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 590 38' 56" WEST, 257.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 59' 29" WEST, 491.15 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE RUN SOUTH 000 06' 48" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1102.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART OF THE 70 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA- TION, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE AFORESAID POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN NORTH 00- 06' 48" WEST, 626.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE 70 -FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTH 89° 42' 49" EAST, 794.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46° 22' 28" EAST, 100.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 42' 49" WEST, 867.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 06' 48" EAST, 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID OFFICE PARCEL CONTAINS 19.29 ACRES NET. PARCEL #2 BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 00° 01' 26" EAST, 663.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTH- EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, RUN SOUTH 89° 43' 57" EAST, 625.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN NORTH 26° 12' 20" WEST, 257.44 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4414.98 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 020 39' 56"1 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 205.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 65° 46' 57" WEST, 412.48 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.61 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE 750 45' 14", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 238.79 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 182.17 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 520 34' 24", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167.15 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.11 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 250 18' 45", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 154.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 650 43' 29" WEST, 132.52 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 547.14 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 370 49' 10", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 361.15 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 555.37 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 420 33' 1211, RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.47 FEET TO A ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE BEARS SOUTH 730 39' 13" WEST, 17,248.78 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE 010 37' 29", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 489.13 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY.,, NO. 1 ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 740 59' 33", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 42' 51" EAST, 31.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 17' 09" WEST, 35.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN SOUTH 890 42' 51" EAST, 968.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF THE 70 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS DESCRIBED, IN PART, AS THE EAST 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. CONTAINING 28.384 ACRES, NET. PARCEL #3 COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWN- SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 000 05' 48" EAST AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 1098.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 00- 051 48" EAST, 745.09; THENCE RUN PERPENDICULAR TO SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 89° 54' 12" EAST, 187.35 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AN MANMADE BOAT BASIN; THENCE FOLLOWING THE WEST SHORELINE OF SAID BOAT BASIN, RUN SOUTH 00° 20' 23" EAST, 745.11 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE LEAVING SAID SHORELINE, RUN NORTH 890 54' 12" WEST, 193.02 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 AND THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING. SAID PARCEL LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CONTAINING 3.25 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. PARCEL #4 COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 24, TOWN- SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89° 55' 58" EAST AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 24, A DISTANCE OF 1588.70 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FOLLOWING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE RUN NORTH 18° 57' 49" WEST, 2.17 FEET; THENCE NORTH 150 31' 54" WEST, 76.24 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, RUN SOUTH 550 50' 42" WEST, 474.10 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 240 13' 08" EAST, 201.90 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 26° 44' 49" WEST, 252.19 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 15° 33' 32" EAST, 468.09 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES NORTH 12° 20' 05" WEST, 347.96 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING A RADIUS OF 347.96 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 740 11' 07" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 560 17' 57", AN ARC DISTANCE OF 341.90 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH OCT 23 1985 2 Face. 5:36 0 CT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62. Pace 537 ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 460 02' 08" WEST, 273.79 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 710 07' 31" WEST, 152.98 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 119.30 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 350 17' 11" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 710 40' 40", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 149.24 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 182.65 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 260 30' 58" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 540 08' 14", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 172.58 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 742.23 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 480 32' 03" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 100 06' 0511, RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 130.86 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 230 07' 07" WEST, 651.48 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 850 15' 45" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 360 45' 44", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 418.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 13° 38' 37" EAST, 300.77 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 13° 38' 37" EAST, 350.71 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 56° 20' 52" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 940 35' 30", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 579.00 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.94 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 180 34' 36" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 190 02' 58", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.32 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.97 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH O1° 57' 21" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 60° 06' 52"1 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 102.79 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 900 00' 00" EAST, 350.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 00' 00" EAST, 290.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 900 00' 00" EAST, 950.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 19° 42' 35" EAST, 602.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 00' 00" EAST, 400.00. FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 78° 53' 53" WEST, 220.66 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 125.74 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 05° 37' 22" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1690 02' 30", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 370.95 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 347.97 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 680 29' 04" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 430 19' 06", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 263.08 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER; THENCE FOLLOWING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER, RUN NORTH 380 05' 50" WEST, 101.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 32° 29' 06" WEST, 96.26 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 27° 19' 20" WEST, 103.58 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 260 35' 00" WEST, 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 23° 45' 58" WEST, 99.93 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 160 43' 13" WEST, 95.33 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 210 17' 20" WEST, 100.72 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 260 33' 53" WEST, 108.16 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 260 25' 11" WEST, 99.45 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 190 40' 11" WEST, 97.16 FEET, THENCE RUN NORTH 400 53' 07" WEST, 56.12 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 180 57' 49" WEST, 57.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 60.73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Be changed from: C-lA, Restricted Commercial District, RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District, RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, and RS -1, Single - Family Residential District, to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District. ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 SECTION 2 The subject property is described as: BEGINNING AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER.;. OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 00° 01' 26" EAST, 663.16 FEET TO THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SAID SECTION 23; THENCE FOLLOWING THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID WEST HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF THE SOUTH- EAST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, RUN SOUTH 89° 43' 57" EAST, 625.02 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN NORTH 26° 12' 20" WEST, 257.44 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 4414.98 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 020 39' 56", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 205.39 FEET; THENCE NORTH 650 46' 57" WEST, 412.48 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 180.61 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE 750 45' 14", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 238.79 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 182.17 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 520 34'24", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 167.15 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 349.11 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 250 18' 45", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 154.23 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 650 43' 29" WEST, 132.52 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 547.14 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 370 49' 10", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 361.15 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 555.37 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 420 33' 12", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 412.47 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE ON THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS POINT OF SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY CURVE BEARS SOUTH 730 39' 13" WEST, 17,248.78 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE, RUN SOUTHEASTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE 010 37' 29", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 489.13 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 25.00 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 740 59' 33", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 32.72 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 890 42' 51" EAST, 31.73 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 17' 09" WEST, 35.00 FEET TO A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE AFORESAID NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE ALONG SAID SOUTH LINE, RUN SOUTH 89° 42' 51" EAST, 968.64 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING; LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM, THAT PORTION OF THE 70 FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WHICH IS DESCRIBED, IN PART, AS THE EAST 70 FEET OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHWEST QUARTER OF "SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. CONTAINING 28.384 ACRES, NET. Be changed from: C-lA, Restricted Commercial District and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CG, General Commercial District. OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 FAG- 538 OCT 23 1985 BOOK FAr,F,5 9 ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 SECTION 3 The subject property is described as: BEGIN AT A CONCRETE MONUMENT MARKING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23, TOWNSHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST. INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 890 37';.36" WEST, 81.47 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 19° 03' 54" EAST, 27.57 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE WITH AN ARC DIS- TANCE OF 50.09 FEET; THENCE FOLLOWING THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1 ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 17,248.78 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 02° 33' 08"1 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 768.35 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, THE RADIUS POINT OF WHICH BEARS NORTH 190 32' 29" WEST, 555.37 FEET AND THE CHORD BEARS NORTH 590 46' 25" EAST, 205.94 FEET, RUN AN ARC DIS- TANCE OF 207.14 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTHWESTERLY ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, WHICH IS PARALLEL TO AND 200 FEET EASTERLY OF THE AFORESAID EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF U.S. HIGHWAY NO. 1, THE RADIUS OF SAID CURVE BEING 17,448.78 FEET AND THE CENTRAL ANGLE BEING 020 23' 36114? RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 728.84 FEET; THENCE NORTH 460 22' 28" EAST, 1194.87 FEET; THENCE NORTH 36° 33' 34" WEST, 127.38 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 3966.10 FEET AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 050 27' 28", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 377.79 FEET; THENCE. SOUTH 590 38' 56" WEST, 257.91 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 89° 59' 29" WEST, 491.15 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OF THE AFORESAID SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF THE NORTHWEST QUARTER OF SECTION 23; THENCE RUN SOUTH 00° 06' 48" EAST, ALONG SAID EAST LINE, 1102.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING, LESS AND EXCEPTING THEREFROM THAT PART OF THE 70 -FOOT WIDE DRAINAGE OUTFALL DITCH RIGHT-OF-WAY TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA- TION, MORE PARTICULARLY DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: FROM THE AFORESAID POINT OF BEGINNING, RUN NORTH 00- 06' 48" WEST, 626.33 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING OF THE 70 -FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY; THENCE SOUTH 89° 42' 49" EAST, 79.4.47 FEET; THENCE NORTH 46° 22' 28" EAST, 100.93 FEET; THENCE NORTH 89° 42' 49" WEST, 867.67 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 00° 06' 48" EAST, 70.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. SAID OFFICE PARCEL CONTAINS 19.29 ACRES NET. Be changed from: C-lA, Restricted Commercial District and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CL, Limited Commercial District. SECTION 4 The subject property is described as: COMMENCE AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION,24, TOWN- SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN SOUTH 89° 55' 58" EAST AND ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SECTION 24, A DISTANCE OF 1588.70 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER, SAID POINT BEING THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE FOLLOWING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE RUN NORTH 180 57' 49" WEST, 2.17 FEET; r ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 THENCE NORTH 150 31' 54" WEST, 76.24 FEET; THENCE LEAVING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE, RUN SOUTH 55° 50' 42" WEST, 474.10 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 24° 13' 08" EAST, 201.90 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 26° 44' 49" WEST, 252.19 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 15° 33' 32" EAST, 468.09 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES NORTH 120 20' 05" WEST, 347.96 FEET; THENCE RUN ALONG SAID CURVE, HAVING .;A RADIUS OF 347.96 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 740 11' 07" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 56° 17' 5711, AN ARC DISTANCE OF 341.90 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 46° 02' 08" WEST, 273.79 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 71° 07' 31" WEST, 152.98 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT HAVING A RADIUS OF 119.30 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 350 17' 11" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 710 40' 40", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 149.24 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 182.65 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 260 30' 58" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 540 08' 14", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 172.58 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 742.23 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 480 32' 03" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 100 06' 0511, RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 130.86 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE LEFT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 230 07' 07" WEST, 651.48 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 85° 15' 45" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 360 45' 441, RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 418.00 FEET; THENCE RUN SOUTH 130 38' 37" EAST, 300.77 FEET TO A POINT OF INTERSECTION WITH A CURVE TO THE RIGHT; SAID CURVE HAVING A RADIUS POINT WHICH LIES SOUTH 13° 38' 37" EAST, 350.71 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 560 20' 52" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 940 35' 30", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 579.00 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 767.94 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH 180 34' 36" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 190 02' 58", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.32 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 97.97 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF SOUTH O10 57' 21" WEST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 600 06' 5211, RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 102.79 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 900 00' 00" EAST, 350.85 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 000 00' 00" EAST, 290.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 900 00' 00" EAST, 950.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 190 42' 35" EAST, 602.45 FEET; THENCE NORTH 000 00' 00" EAST, 400.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 78° 53' 53" WEST, 220.66 FEET; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE RIGHT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 125.74 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 050 37' 22" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 1690 02' 30", RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 370.95 FEET TO A POINT OF REVERSE CURVATURE; THENCE ON A CURVE TO THE LEFT, HAVING A RADIUS OF 347.97 FEET, A CHORD BEARING OF NORTH 680 29' 04" EAST, AND A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 430 19' 06"1 RUN AN ARC DISTANCE OF 263.08 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO A POINT ON THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER; THENCE FOLLOWING THE MEAN HIGH WATER LINE OF THE INDIAN RIVER, RUN NORTH 38° 05' 50" WEST, 101.00 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 320 29' 06" WEST, 96.26 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 270 19' 20" WEST, 103.58 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 260 35' 00" WEST, 97.31 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 230 45' 58" WEST, 99.93 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 160 43' 13" WEST, 95.33 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 210 17' 20" WEST, 100.72 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 260 33' 53" WEST, 108.16 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 26° 25' 11" WEST, 99.45 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 190 40' 11" WEST, 97.16 FEET, THENCE RUN NORTH 400 53' 07" WEST, 56.12 FEET; THENCE RUN NORTH 180 57' 49" WEST, 57.25 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. OCT 2 3 1985 eooK 62 Pac- 540 BOOK 62 PAGC 54i ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 SAID PARCEL CONTAINING 60.73 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Be changed from RS -1, Single -Family Residential Dis- trict, RS -6, Single -Family Residential District, and RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CG, General._Commercial District. SECTION 5 The subject property is described as: COMMENCE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SECTION 13, TOWN- SHIP 32 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA; THENCE RUN NORTH 000 05' 48" EAST AND ALONG THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 A DISTANCE OF 1098.36 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING CONTINUE ALONG THE SAID WEST LINE, NORTH 000 05' 48" EAST, 745.09; THENCE RUN PERPENDICULAR TO SAID WEST LINE, SOUTH 89° 54' 12" EAST, 187.35 FEET MORE OR LESS TO A POINT AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF AN MANMADE BOAT BASIN; THENCE FOLLOWING THE WEST SHORELINE OF SAID BOAT BASIN, RUN SOUTH 00" 20' 23" EAST, 745.11 FEET MORE OR LESS; THENCE LEAVING SAID SHORELINE, RUN NORTH 89° 54' 12" WEST, 193.02 FEET, MORE OR LESS, TO THE WEST LINE OF SAID SECTION 13 AND THE POINT OF BEGIN- NING. SAID PARCEL LYING AND BEING IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND CONTAINING 3.25 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. Be changed from: RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District to CG, General Commercial District. SECTION 6 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners of- Indian f- Indian River County, Florida on the 23rd day of October 1985. BOARDf" COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF IX6IA`h RIVER COUNTY ATRICK B. Acknowledgment by the Departmel-Z of State of this 4th day of November , 1985. , �;nairman Stdte of Florida ORDINANCE NO. 85-89 Effective Date: Acknowledgment from the Department of State received on this 7th day of Nov. , 1985, at 11 A.M./P.M. and filed in the office of the Clerk of the Board of County Commis- sioners of Indian River County, Florida. APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY. S. VkV'e_-' :��a BRUCE BARKETT, Assistant County Attorney Grand Harbor Ord. JEFF2 OCT 2 3 1985 Boo.r 542 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62 PAGf'54.3 REQUEST TO AMEND THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN - GRAND HARBOR The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publication attached, to -wit: VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL Published Weekly Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida COUNTY OF INDIAN RIVER: STATE OF FLORIDA Before the undersigned authority personally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oath says that he is Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press -Journal, a weekly newspaper published at Vero Beach in in Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being a W�7tir� in the matter of i in the ��— q Court, was pub- lished in said newspaper in the issues of / /J/ Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, Florida for a period of one year next preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver- tisement; and affiant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver- tisement for publication in the said newspaper. Sworn to and subscribed before me this day of--r<=�G A.D. a J • n ( niss h(lanager) (Clerk of the Circuit Court, I (SEAL) NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING::' TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF A COUNTY ORDINANCE AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN OF THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN Notice is hereby given that the Indian River (County Board of County Commissioners, shall ,hold a public hearing at which parties In Interest and citizens shall have an opportunity to be (heard, In the County Commission Chambers of !the County Administration Building, located at ,1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida, on Wednesday, October 23, 1985, at 9:05 a.m. to consider the adoption of a County Ordinance an - titled: AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF, COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP OF THETRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: NG OR REMOVING 49th STRETOVBE- TWEEN U.S. HIGHWAY 1 AND THE EX- TENSION RIVER BOULE- VARD AND PROV Di AN NG FOR AN EFFEC- TIVE DATE. A detailed map of the proposed Thor- oughfare Plan is available In the Plan- ning Department office in the County Ad- ministration Building. al decision Anyone who may wish to apps any (which may be made at this meeting will need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings lis made, which includes tis estimony Indian River and evidence upon which the rr appeal County I Board of County Commissioners By: -s -Patrick B. Lyons, Chairman October 4, 15,1985. The Board reviewed memo of Chief Planner Shearer, as follows: 84 i TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 18, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SUBJECT: GRAND HARBOR, INC. Robert M. Keati g, &XCP REQUEST TO AMEND THE Planning & Development Director THOROUGHFARE PLAN FROMRiVhard Shearer, AICP REFERENCES: CPA -024 Chief, Long -Range Planning RICH2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their regular meeting of October 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS Grand Harbor, Inc., is requesting to amend the Thoroughfare Plan, which is part of the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan, by deleting 49th Street (Lindsey Road) between U.S. 1 and Indian River Boulevard extension. This request is to allow the developer more flexibility in designing an entranceway into the proposed Grand Harbor develop- ment. On March 14, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on this request. On March 19, 1985, the Transportation Planning Committee con --this request and tabled action until their April meeting. On April 11, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled action on this request until their first meeting in May. On April 16, the Transportation Planning Committee considered this request and voted unanimously to neither recommend approval nor denial of this request. The Committee stated that they felt the Board of County Commissioners should consider this request when the entire development was considered for approval. On May 9, 1985, the Planning and Zoning Commission .voted 4 -to -1 to neither recommend approval nor denial of this request. - - On June 17, 1985, the Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council informed the Planning Department that they had no objection to this proposed amendment. On June 27, 1985, the State Department of Community Affairs notified the County that they had no objection to this proposed amendment. ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS The Public Works division and Planning Department have reviewed this request in relation to the overall Thoroughfare Plan. The staff offers the following comments relative to this request: 1) Forty-ninth Street, a proposed secondary collector, is intended to serve abutting property and to collect and distribute localized traffic to U.S. 1 and Indian River Boulevard. 85 OCT 19 BOOK 6 PrAGF.S44 F POO, OCT 2 � 1985 BOOK 62 Ft -H. 545 2) If 49th Street is deleted, it would create a double "T" intersection on U.S. 1 with 49th Street intersecting U.S. 1 from the west and a road to Grand Harbor intersecting U.S. 1 from the east. These intersections would be approximately 800 feet apart and would both need to be signalized. 3) One signalized intersection of 49th Street and U.S. 1 is preferred over two signalized "T" intersections 800 feet apart. However, a synchronized and phased signalization system has been developed which will allow the two "T" intersections to function adequately. Additional information in a memo from Jim Davis is attached. RECOMMENDATION Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners delete 49th Street between Indian River Boulevard and U.S. 1 from the County's Thoroughfare Plan. Commissioner Scurlock felt this actually is quite simple - Lindsey Road doesn't go all the way through to this project - it stubs out, and he did not see any need to have it shown on the Transportation Plan. Chairman Lyons thought it was going to Indian River Boulevard, and Public Works Director Davis explained that what Commissioner Scurlock is saying is that while the Thoroughfare Plan does show the link, actually we don't physically have the right-of-way between U.S.1 and where the Boulevard is projected to be. Chairman Lyons noted that we have gone to a lot of work to get Lindsey Road paved and through to U.S.I and he had trouble saying it is not going through to Indian River Boulevard. Director Davis advised that this has been reviewed through Planning 8 Zoning meetings and other committees for quite a while. In April, 1985, both the developer and Kimley Horn 8 Associates began to look at the impacts of deleting the four-way intersection and simply having a split "T" intersection with two signalizations. It was staff's opinion that one intersection and one signal is better than two. Kimley Horn has done some computer work to see if the split "T" could be worked out. Their study has been reviewed and they did use sound traffic engineer- ing techniques to determine the two intersections could work. 86 - M Staff still feels one is better than two, but Kimley Horn feels confident this can be done without a problem on the U.S.I corridor. Commissioner Bird asked why the Transportation Planning Committee would not take a stand on this, and Commissioner Scurlock reported that they took the position that the project was of such a large size it should be considered as part of the total rather than considered separately. He had been under the impression that we had the right-of-way already, but later it became clear that we did not. Director Davis advised that Lindsey Road is designated as a secondary collector and the main impetus of including that link was to serve the abutting properties 1/4 mile north and 1/4 mile south. This project encompasses most of the land between U.S.I and the Boulevard; so, by taking all that land and bringing it internally into the project, you are almost deleting the need for that secondary collector link. In addition, you have 53rd St, as a primary collector to the north and the North Gifford Road corridor to the south. The Lindsey Road corridor is not that important in the system. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird., SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously agreed to amend the Transporation Element of the Comprehensive by deleting 49th Street between Indian River Boulevard and U.S.I from the County's Thoroughfare Plan; this change to be incorporated in Ordinance 85-88 adopted earlier. 87 j i • 62 FticF 546 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK 62' I uc.. 547 ORDINANCE N0. 85-88 AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE TEXT AND MAP OF THE LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR 1) ENLARGEMENT OF THE COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL NODE LOCATED EAST OF-U.S. #1 BETWEEN NORTH GIFFORD ROAD AND SOUTH GIFFORD ROAD FROM FIFTY (50) ACRES TO EIGHTY-FIVE (85) ACRES; 2) REDUCTION OF THE COMMERCIAL NODE LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. #1 AT THE PROPOSED INTERSECTION OF STORM GROVE ROAD FROM EIGHTY (80) ACRES TO TEN (10) ACRES; 3) CREATION OF A SIXTY-FIVE (65) ACRE TOURIST/COMMER- CIAL NODE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE INDIAN RIVER AT ITS APPROXIMATE INTERSECTION WITH THE 49TH STREET EXTENSION; AND 4) DELETION OF 49TH STREET BETWEEN INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD AND U.S. 1 FROM THE COUNTY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN; AND PROVIDING FOR EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Florida Statute 163 requires that local governments prepare and adopt Comprehensive Plans, and WHEREAS, The Board of County Commissioners has adopted a Comprehensive Plan pursuant to Florida Statutes, and WHEREAS, Florida Statutes provide for the amendment of Comprehensive Plans twice per calendar year, not including amendments directly related to a proposed development of regional impact which may be considered by the Board of County Commissioners at the same time as the application for development approval, and WHEREAS, These proposed amendments were considered at the same time as the proposed Grand Harbor Development of Regional Impact, and WHEREAS, the Planning and Zoning Commission, sitting as the local planning agency, has held public hearings and made recommendations concerning these amendments, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has held public hearings at which parties in interest and citizens were allowed to be heard, and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has determined that these amendments are consistent with the general spirit and intent of the County's Comprehensive Plan, 88 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, that the Land Use and Transportation Elements of the Comprehensive Plan of Indian River County, Florida, and the accompanying Land Use Map and Thoroughfare,.Plan, be amended as follows: SECTION 1 That page 35 of the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan be amended to read as follows: An fi4tp--(-5Q-) eighty-five (85) acre, commercialfimdtistria-1 node is located east of U.S. Satith--Gi-€€o-r-&-4t&a-d at the intersection of U.S. #1 and North Gifford Road. SECTION 2 That page 36 of the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan be amended to read as follows: Am eighty -0-0 ten (10) acre commercial node is located on the east side of U.S. #1 at the proposed intersection of Storm Grove Road. SECTION 3 That a commercial node be created and the description of the node be added to page 36 of the text of the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan to read as follows: A sixty-five (65) acre tourist/commercial node is located on the west side of the Indian River at its approximate—intersection with the 49th Street extension. SECTION 4 That the Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan be amended by deleting 49th Street between Indian River Boulevard and U.S. 1 from the Thoroughfare Plan. SECTION 5 EFFECTIVE DATE The provisions of this ordinance shall become effective upon receipt from the Florida Secretary of State of official acknowledgement that this ordinance has been filed with the Department of State. Code: Words in strUek--tkrattgh type are deletions from existing law; words underlined are additions. 89 booK 62 F,,F 548 FF'OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK ORDINANCE NO. 85-88 (continued) 62 FA,; 549 Approved and adopted by the Board of County Commission- ers of Indian River County, Florida on the 23rd day of October 1985. OF Y COMMISSIONERS R COUNTY ATRICK B MY5WS, PUBLIC HEARING- DEVELOPMENT ORDER GRAND HARBOR D.R.I. Chairman Lyons announced that at this time he would reopen the hearing on the Grand -Harbor D.R.I. that was continued from October 16, 1985. Staff memo and recommendation is as follows: TO: The Honorable Members DATE: October 18, 1985 FILE: of the Board of County Commissioners DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: 42:4412: SUBJECT: PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Robert M. Keati g, 61CP ORDER FOR THE GRAND Planning & Development Director HARBOR DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT FROM: E. Stan BolingE,�,S. REFERENCES: Grand Harbor Staff Planner Stan2 It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their special meeting of October 23, 1985. DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS: ° DEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL IMPACT (D.R.I.) CONSIDERATIONS The Grand Harbor project is a large multiple use development project proposed for an area north of the City of Vero Beach between U.S. #1 and the Indian River. Its -scale and scope are such that the project requires development of regional impact (D.R.I.) review pursuant to Florida Statutes Chapter 380.06. The purpose of the D.R.I. process is to provide a mechanism to review large projects from a regional perspective, culminating in an assessment by the regional planning council of the anticipated multi -county impacts of the project and recommendations to mitigate any adverse impacts. Supplied to the local government of jurisdiction, this regional =assessment provides a basis for the local government to draft a development order for the project. Overal the D.R.I. 90 process enables area governments and agenpies that do not have jurisdiction over the project a chance to review and comment on the project. The D.R.I. process also enables the Regional Planning Council, State Department of Community Affairs (DCA) n..,and the project applicant an opportunity to appeal any local government actions or issued requirements in connection with the application for D.R.I. approval. The Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council (T.C.R.P.C.) has coordinated the review of the Grand Harbor project and has submitted, in the form of official recommendations, an assessment of the regional impacts of the project. The Planning Council coordinated the first part of the D.R.I. reviets process, following these general steps: 1) Pre -application conference with T.C.R.P.C. and other affected agencies and government entities; 2) Formal application for development approval (ADA), which includes proposals, and supporting information; 3) Review process involving all affected agencies and government entities submitting comments and questions regarding the ADA; 4) Responses from the applicant; [note: several rounds of questions and responses ensued]; 5) T.C.R.P.C. notification to the County that all questions and comments adequately had been addressed - known as a letter of sufficiency; 6) T.C.R.P.C. public hearing on the project; approval of a report and recommendations regarding the regional impacts of the project; 7) T.C.R.P.C. transmittal of its official report and recommendations to the County [received September 30, 1985]. The last phase of the D.R.I. review process is coordinated and controlled by the County. The remaining steps in the process are generally as follows: 1) The Board of County Commissioners, after reviewing T.C.R.P.C.'s recommendations and local staff recommenda- tions, approves, approves with conditions, or denies the ADA. (a) If the Board approves the ADA, the approval and any conditions attached to the approval are included in a development order. The development order is the basic agreement between the local government and the applicant. The development order vests the appli- cant with the right to develop the proposed project in accordance with the terms specified in the development order. (b) 'If the Board denies the ADA, the Board must specify the reasons for denying the application. 2) The development order is issued by the County as a Zesolutiopa to be recorded. e��Lt4�V 3) The issued development order is transmitted to the State, T.C.R.P.C., and the developer. Within 45 days after the order is rendered, the State, T.C.R.P.C., 'the developer, 91 Boa 62 PmuE 550 41�1 BOOK 62 P .0 551 or any other aggrieved party may appeal the order to the Florida Land and Water Adjudicatory Commission. This triggers the development order appeal process. 4) The County monitors the progress of the project, to ensure that the terms of the development order are met. No local development approvals or permits are to be issued that conflict with the approved development order. 5) The developer submits the required annual report to the County, T.C.R.P.C., and the State. The report aids in the monitoring of the project's progress. The Planning and Zoning Commission, at their October 17th special meeting, made some amendments to staff's original development order proposal. The Commission unanimously recommended that the Board of County Commissioners grant approval to the Grand Harbor development, subject to the conditions of the amended development order. Florida Statues require that the local government determine whether and to what extent the development would: a) be consistent with the local land development regulations, and b) be consistent with the report and recommendations of the T.C.R.P.C. These requirements should be considered in the review of the proposed development order. °OVERVIEW OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed project is located between U.S. #1 and the Indian River, north of 45th Street and south of 53rd Street, on ±680 acres. The proposed uses include: Residential - 3,000 units (estimated to house 6,180 to 7,470 people) Commercial Shopping Center - 355,450 sq. ft. Commercial/Harbor Center - 130,000 sq. ft. Office - 241,760 sq. ft. Resort Hotel - 300 rooms Golf Course - 112 acres Tennis Club - 20 courts Marina - 646 berths, although only 72 are to be allowed at this time The proposed development schedule is as follows: Estimated Completion Phase Date Approximate Sq. -Ft. I 1990 Residential Units - 1,500 (estimated to house 3,090 to 3,735 people) Caaamercial/Shopping Center - 177,725 sq. ft. Camiercial/Harbor Center - 130,000 sq. ft. Office - 120,880 sq. ft. Resort Hotel - 300 roans Golf Course - 112 acres Tennis Club - 20 courts Marina - a total of only 72 berths are to be allowed at this time II 1995 Residential - 1,500 units (estimated to house 3,090 to 3,735 people) Ccmrercial/Shopping Center - 177,725 sq. ft. Office - 120,880 sq. ft. Marina - a total of only 72 berths are to be allowed at this tame NSA The developer estimates that 560 construction jobs will be created and 1,574 permanent year-round and seasonal jobs will be created as a result of the project. ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: °GENERAL APPROACH OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER Although much information has been provided in the ADA, more detailed information, revised plans and re -designing are needed to ensure that the negative impacts of the project will be minimized and positive impacts of the development will be maximized. The amount of re -designing and subsequent design approval that is needed is reflected in the number of Treasure Coast Regional Planning Council recommendations. Also, because of the size of the proposed project, many traffic and utility improvements will be needed during the construc-tion of the project. The proposed development order details the need for further design and re -design work and approval. The proposed order has also been drafted to specifically tie most conditions to a particular and definable step in the County's development approval process. In doing this, it is recognized that the project is to be viewed as a whole. Thus, the important environmental and mitigation issues and conditions that immediately affect the eastern, river portion of the project, are tied to activities and development of the entire site. This will ensure that the portions of the project that are more easily or readily developable will not be allowed to be developed before the more sensitive areas of the project are designed, approved, and in some cases developed as to mitigate the negative regional and local impacts identified in the Planning Council's report and recommendations. °THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ORDER A copy of the recommended development.order is attached to this memorandum. As proposed, the development order will meet the requirements of F.S. 380.06. The order would be effective for a period of 20 years, but it would lapse if construction was not initiated within three years of the effective date. The following is a synopsis and explanation of the various categories of the order. Transfer of Approval This section would ensure that the project as a whole would remain unified as to the commitments, conditions and obligations of the'development order in the event that portions were sold -off. This transfer of approval provision is similar to the transfer provision contained in the County's Subdivision and Platting Ordinance. Air These conditions and the application of the County's Tree Protection Ordinance (includes provisions for wind erosion control) will address dust problems that may arise during _ construction. These conditions will be part of the land clearing and tree removal permits that the Planning department issues prior to development. Historic and Archaeological Sites This section's condition encourages the developer to, upon discovery of artifacts, contact the State to arrange for preservation of such artifacts. 93 OCT 2 3 19 5 BoaK 62 PAGE 55-2 r OCT 2 3 1985 Habitat, Vegetation, and Wildlife BOOK 62 PAGE'55-3 The conditions in this section address most of the environmental issues and impacts involved in the project. A re -design of the estuarine/waterway system is to be required, subject to County and Regional Planning Council approval. The performance standards of the new design are outlined and will amend the amount and location of the waterways and marinas. The standards also ensure that many of the wetland areas that are now cut-off from the River will be re -opened to the river, revitalizing the system and making it more productive. Revitalization of existing "non-functional" wetland areas is the most important part of the developer's proposal to mitigate impacts of developing in other environmentally sensitive areas on the site. The importance of re -vitalizing and establishing viable wetlands is also addressed in recommendation #12, wherein the estuarine waterway system (including a vegetated littoral zone) is to be constructed prior to the issuance of certificates of occupancy for any structures. Conditions are included to ensure that soils containing DDT or other restricted constituents (used previously on the site for pest control) are not allowed to come into contact with the Indian River or the to be constructed estuarine/waterway system. Other conditions are included to ensure maintenance of the water quality of the river; these include the submission and approval of a fuel management spill contingency plan and a hazardous materials management plan. Protection of manatees is an important issue and has been addressed by reducing the number of proposed boat slips from 646 to 72. If the developer can later prove that additional slips can be provided in such a way that will not negatively impact the manatee population, then he may apply to modify the development order with a substantial deviation. Such a request would involve a re -review of the manatee issue and would initiate another round of the D.R.I. process. The request would be considered by the Regional Planning Council. The order also requires that efforts shall be taken to increase awareness of manatee/boat use problems. Development and dredging activities are addressed in terms of effect on vegetative cover and shorelines. Disturbed shorelines are to be re -vegetated and re-established; unimpounded wetlands are to remain intact, and all dredging maintenance activities are subject to D.E.R. permitting. Mosquito Control A mosquito impoundment management plan must be approved prior to any excavation or construction on site. Approval of the plan by the Governor's Technical Subcommittee and the Mosquito Control District could require re -designing portions of the site and should, therefore, be determined prior to excavation or construction. Drainage The Public Works drainage conditions, with the County's ensure that there is be created estuarine Division has reviewed and approved the which are designed to ensure conformance Stormwater Management Ordinance, and to no direct run-off into the River or the to waterway system. 94 � r � Water Supply and Wastewater The Utilities Services Division has reviewed and approved the water supply conditions. These conditions ensure that the county water system will be expanded by the developer (with credit given for "over -sizing" the system) to serve the site. The wastewater conditions ensure that proper sewer service is provided and that the developer expand or create County wastewater facilities and connect such facilities to the site. The developer shall also construct the lines and facilities needed to transport wastewater effluent to the site for spray irrigation. The use of a temporary wastewater treatment facility is restricted. Disaster Preparedness The Emergency Management Services Division has reviewed the conditions to provide emergency shelter space and has indicated the provisions will be adequate. Energy This condition shall be implemented in the site plan process to ensure the use of energy conservation measures. Transportation The Public Works Division, in conjunction with the Kimley-Horn consultants, Regional Planning Council staff, and the developer's consultants have reviewed and agreed to the transportation conditions. All conditions are tied to specific requirements that will be applied during the development review process. Monitoring will be facilitated via information required in the annual report. Education, Police Protection, Fire Protection The project shall consist of higher priced residential units, commercial and office development. The assessed value and ad valorem taxes that will be payed as a result of the project should off -set the cost of impacts that the project will have on local schools, fire protection, and police protection. The number of school age children that has been estimated to reside in the project at build -out is minimal and would not require the building of additional facilities. The project's contribution to the school district via ad valorem taxes should pay for 4 times the number of school age children estimated to -'—`-"`be added to the system due to this project. A provision in the development order gives the County the right -to apply future education, police protection, or fire protection impact fees to the project. The project's estimated annual contribution to the South County Fire District through ad valorem taxes is $906,000 (in 1983 dollars) at build -out. Fire Chief Forrest Smith has indicated that the taxes, as well as the application of any future fire protection impact fee, would more than off -set facilities, equipment, and manpower needed to service the project. The Utilities Services Division will ensure proper fire flow and fire hydrant spacing during project phase approvals. The project's Office through at build -out. estimated annual contribution to .the Sheriff's ad valorem taxes is $490,000 (in 1983 dollars) 95 OCT BOOK 62 �A1 554 OCT 2 3 1985 ao� 62. �Av�55 Economy and Fiscal Impact The inclusion of economic information in the annual report should aid the County on monitoring actual 'positive and negative fiscal and economic impacts. The remaining portions of the order are provided to fulfill requirements of F.S. 380.06. The Planning and Development Director has the primary responsibility for monitoring the pr--iect's progress and conformance to the conditions. HENDATION: zecommends that the Board of County Commissioners adopt _.e proposed development order. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he wished discussion about the flow sheet and list of who is going to do what, time frames, etc., re the sixty conditions. Chairman Lyons believed all these things can be taken care of with the addition of one sentence at the end of Condition 8 - Habitat, Vegetation and Wildlife on Page 4 of the proposed Resolution establishing the Development Order, which covers the mitigation plan, i.e.: "No site plans shall be approved until the requirements of this section have been met." Commissioner Scurlock wished to be sure that with all the various agencies involved in the permitting process, that their input and requests are brought to the attention of the Board rather than only staff having input. He noted that previously these permits never came to us; now they are brought to the Commission and he would like to see this same procedure followed so that we don't suddenly just get a notice from some agency saying we have only 30 days to respond. Administrator Wright assured him that all this will be brought to the Board's attention. Director Keating explained that this development plan has got to be.submitted before the County considers the conceptual PRD which also must have a public hearing. It was decided to go through the proposed Resolution re the Development Order page by page. Chairman Lyons referred to the language in the second line at the top of the second page referring to "requirements," and he 96 asked if this meant housing requirements. Planner Boling explained that it referred to Development Order requirements. Commissioner Scurlock questioned the terms used re commencement of development within three years, and Planner Boling believed that the second paragraph in that section explains this where it refers to "permanent evidence of a structure other than a mobile home on the site." Commissioner Scurlock, however, wished to know if this refers to roads or buildings as he felt it could be construed that roads, water and sewer, etc., just the infrastructure, would be an indication of construction. He felt this is just like the Sea Oaks situation. Attorney Henderson stated that they are satisfied with the last clause in Condition 2, and he believed "work beyond the stage of excavation" would include roads. Mr. Carey believed it will take a couple of years just to get permits for this project because it is so complex; the Council wants it to get moving and felt if they put in paved roads and make real improvements other than just clearing, it would be satisfactory. Commissioner Scurlock asked if they ran just one road back to the harbor area, would that qualify, and Mr. Carey did not think it would. He agreed possibly this may need more clarification. Director Keating noted that in our current Site Plan Ordinance, Section 23 of the Zoning Code, one additional caveat is evidencing a good faith effort to pursue to completion. Discussion continued at length about identifying what is sufficient, and Administrator Wright asked if there is not something that requires the construction be "continuous," and Director Keating stated that applies once the project is commenced; this is to,determine when it is started. Attorney Vitunac felt wording requiring "a good faith 97 BOOK 62 PAG - L557 -OCT 2 3 1995 effort" after the "continuing construction" will cover it, and if we have to, we will let the Court determine it. Attorney Henderson pointed out that when the initial sewer and water and roads are in, the developer will have about twenty million in the project. It was generally agreed to add the following wording: "and exhibit a good faith effort to continue the project." Planner Boling stressed that staff tried to structure the conditions so that this all has to come back to the Commission. It was reiterated that on Page 4, at the end of Condition 8, the following wording will be added: "No site plans will be approved until all requirements of this section has been met." Chairman Lyons questioned Condition 12 which states that pumping of water to lower the water table on-site shall cease prior to connection of waterways to the basin or lagoon as he felt that could be misconstrued that they would have to stop all pumping. You can't run sewer lines, etc., without pumping, and he did not want to have a conflict with the every day work. Environmental Planner Art Challacombe explained that the intent of Condition 12 was not to preclude all pumping but just at those particular times when the estuarine basin would be connected to the Indian River and also subsequent times after that. He informed the Board that the revised wording staff would recommend adding after talking with Mr. Carey of the Regional Planning Council is: "The developer shall coordinate the timing of his construction schedule such that immediately prior to -the period when connection of waterways on-site to the existing basin or to the Indian River lagoon takes place, pumping of the water to lower the water table on-site shall cease. No pumping shall take place after the connection is made." Commissioner Bird did not understand the concern, and Planner Challacombe stated that the concern is that lowering of the water table after connection would cause salt water 98 intrusion. He emphasized that this refers only to pumping that could lower the water table. Chairman Lyons discussed Condition 17, Page 5, and stated that he felt the the emphasis is in the wrong place. The way it is set up, i -t seems the manatee is the controlling.fa.ctor in connection with the expansion of the marina, and the Chairman felt the effect on the wetlands should be considered also. He, therefore, requested that the words "primary basis" be stricken, and the sentence read, as follows: "It is recognized that the basis for this restriction is concern for potential boating impacts upon the West Indian manatee and the wetlands......" Commissioner Scurlock referred to Condition 29 re Water Supply on Page 8 and informed the Board that at the Regional Planning Council meeting he questioned the wording - "They shall not irrigate from the shallow aquifer." He felt there was an inconsistency here because although the Development Order approved at the Regional Planning Council indicates we want to give them the ability to irrigate from the lakes, if they should dredge the lakes into the aquifer, the way the language is written, they cannot use the lakes to irrigate. Commissioner Bowman felt we should just say the developer may not dig his lakes deep enough to intrude into the shallow aquifer. Planner Boiling believed that this is taken care of under Condition 29 which says "limited amounts of supplemental irrigation water may be derived from the surface water management system of lakes." Mr. Carey believed all the Regional Planning Council was trying to do was say that they want the developer to use the lowest available quality water for irrigation, not potable water, and he felt perhaps just adding that no water would be drawn from surface water wells would cover it. Commissioner Bowman continued to emphasize that we do not want lakes to be dredged into the aquifer, and i -t was pointed out 99 OCT 2 3 1985 ���InnF � 55.8 OCT 2 1985 wx 62 mUE 559 that the water in the aquifer in this area already has been degredated to the point where it is not potable anyway; there is high chloride contents in the shallow water because of the proximity to the river. If this were a project on the sand ridge, it would be different. Commissioner Bowman agreed, and after further discussion, Chairman Lyons asked if we are going to make a change in Condition 29 or leave it alone. It was agreed to leave it alone. Commissioner Wodtke next addressed Page 9, the Section on Disaster Preparedness. He noted that the project is for a proposed 3,000 units and about 6,000 people and he questioned how shelter space could be provided in just one building; Planner Boling noted that it wouldn't have to be in just one building. Commissioner Scurlock stated he had a question about that also because traditionally schools have been excellent places for these people to go in a disaster, and he hoped there would be some cooperation on this with the schools. Commissioner Wodtke then asked about Condition 45 relating to the center -line elevation of the access roads serving the evacuation facilities and asked if there is an option for something in lieu of this, i.e., a cash contribution. Commissioner Scurlock stated that he would like to do as we did with Village Green - get a cash contribution and handle this through Emergency Management. Commissioner Bird stated he also would prefer that, and Commissioner Scurlock suggested we make it an "either or" situation, i.e., provide the shelter or make a contribution. Attorney Henderson felt this is all right as written because Condition.44 requires that they can't go beyond 300 units until they provide adequate emergency shelter space, and Planner Boling pointed out that Condition 43 states that this space may be located either on or off-site. Discussion continued re the option of a cash contribution, and Attorney Henderson stated that they might very well be more 100 � r r than willing to make a cash contribution in lieu of building a shelter. The developer Richard Schaub stated that he would hate to build something and then give a cash contribution also, and Attorney Vitunac suggested the following words be added to the first sentence in Condition 43 - "or shall provide an equivalent in cash contribution." It was agreed to include the language suggested by Attorney Vitunac. Commissioner Scurlock next addressed the Transportation Section, commenting that he has been extensively involved with transportation. It is an area that needs particular attention because the impact is substantial and involves phasing. The key basically is the U.S.I corridor, and they have identified the necessity of building Indian River Boulevard and the main intersection is 53rd Street. Commissioner Bird asked what contribution the developer is making toward construction of Indian River Boulevard. Public Works Director Davis explained that he would be making the impact fee contribution as it relates to the impact fee zone he is in. When he comes to the end of Phase I, if there are not enough impact fees in the account for that zone to build the Boulevard, then he would have to build the Boulevard as a two lane facility as a minimum because his project only demands two lanes of roadway capacity for that next phase. He would either have to pay the premium of accelerating that road project or wait. The right-of-way is included in the impact fee capital improvement program, and the developer would get credit for his donation of right-of-way. Commissioner Bird commented that it seems the developer doesn't really need the Boulevard to a great degree to develop his project because hi.s main entrance road looks as if it goes under the Boulevard. 101 OCT 423 1985 BOOK 62 PAGE 560 OCT 2 3 1995 BOOK 62 Fac 561 Director Davis stated that the developer will have a connection to the Boulevard because he will need the Boulevard when a certain number of trips are generated for the project; what goes under the Boulevard is a golf cart tunnel. Commissioner Scurlock noted that basically the project stresses U.S.I and the only alternate route feasible is Indian River Boulevard. Whether the developer uses it or not, he has to lighten the load. Commissioner Wodtke brought up Condition 53 in regard to receiving building permits and stated he would assume this means that Indian River Boulevard would have to connect all the way to current Indian River Boulevard; this was confirmed. Commissioner Wodtke noted that the Boulevard at one time was thought of as a two lane road, and he asked if we have made an area that is two lane in a four lane road. Commissioner Scurlock believed when we build Indian River Boulevard, we will build it as four lane. Planner Boling noted that under Condition 56 re construction of entrance intersections, they need to make a further condition about the signalization. Director Davis advised that since that signal is warranted by the project and we now are going with a split "T" intersection rather than one four-way intersection, they wanted to insert wording requiring that the developer would fund the signalization as well as yearly maintenance and synchronization of that signal to the other signals on U.S.I to have an integrated system on the corridor. This wording should be added under 56 (a) where it talks about westbound movement: "The developer shall fund the cost of signalization construction, maintenance, and all operational cost involved with the signalization." This was agreed upon. Commissioner Bird stated that under Condition 63 entitled Education, Police_ Protection, Fire Protection, he would like to add "Recreation." He pointed out that with a project of this 102 M M size there will be children involved, as well as young working adults; it will have an impact on recreation demands in the county; and he felt there should be some ability for some contributions to offset this impact. Commissioner Scurlock agreed that the project.wi.11 have impact on the beaches, and we need money for development of the beaches we have acquired. Commissioner Bird believed the project is going to have a private beach club, but undoubtedly some will use the public beaches. He did not have a figure in mind nor the exact mechanism, but agreed we will need assistance in developing our beachfront property. Planner Boling informed the Board that one of the things we have to address when they come in with the conceptual PRD is the public water access requirement that we have in the Subdivision and Site Plan Ordinances where for every 600 lineal feet of shoreline they are to provide 15' access easement to the public or contribute the fair market value of that easement. Grand Harbor has got quite a.bit of shoreline, and what staff came up with essentially was an easement 180' wide or its fair market value. Commissioner Scurlock asked if the money could be used for development as opposed to acquisition, and Planner Boling stated it would be in the Park Development fund. It was agreed to add Recreation to the title and in Condi- tion 63 change the wording to "contributing towards school, police protection, fire protection or recreation impact fees subsequently adopted by the County....." Sam Hunter of the Indian River County School Board pointed out that the document says the assessed value of ad valorem taxes should offset the impact on the local schools. He wished to say that the current rate of the school system growth causes the School Board to have seri.ous doubts about that statement because actually their growth so far has been from the in -county birth 103 CT 23 1985 _BOOK 62 pmuE 562 OCT 2 3 1985 BOOK PAGF 563 rate. To accommodate the budding population, they will be opening a school in Sebastian in November and next year will be expanding three schools and after that two additional schools, all of which are elementary schools. These are all kids born here in the county, and they do not feel the proposed project is going to be excluded from the realm of producing kids for the school system. Mr. Hunter believed it also is anticipated the project will create 300 additional jobs and those people will not be living in the complex, but close to it. Therefore, the School Board last night wanted representation at this meeting for the sole purpose of reading into the record its desire to see that the County Commission does something about seeing to it that the School Board receives compensation of some sort for the financial impact of this development. Commissioner Scurlock advised that the School Board attorney has been in contact with Attorney Vitunac and himself and discussion did come up about a possible education impact.fee. Commissioner Scurlock felt if such a fee were implemented, it would have to be under the County since the School Board doesn't have that authority. Commissioner Wodtke noted that on Page 18 (3) the developer is required to make an annual report, but he would hope that where we might have some concerns on the Development Order, there would be a requirement for us to get a report either annually or bi-annually to make sure they address every issue. Commissioner Scurlock hoped that if we are going to be required to analyze the annual report, we receive a sufficient fee to cover the work required. He believed there has been a great deal of stress on the Planning Department because this is a major project, and there are many other things going on in the county as well. Commissioner Bird felt we can adopt such a fee structure, and Director Keating concurred that this was a good idea. 104 i _ s It was determined there were no further comments or changes desired in the Development Order. MOTION WAS MADE BY Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Wodtke, to adopt Resolution 85-128, establishing the Development Order approving the Grand Harbor development of regional impact, with the wording changes just agreed upon. Chairman Lyons inquired if everyone felt we and the environment are sufficiently protected, and Commissioner Scurlock believed there is enough protection with the review process and the flow chart, and we can always say stop. THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. It was voted on and carried unanimously. (Resolution 85-128 is on file in the Office of the Clerk in its • entirety.) PURCHASE OF COUNTY CODE BOOKS The Board reviewed memo of Administrative Aide Liz Forlani, as follows: Board of County TO: Commissioners DATE: October 16, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: purchase of County Code Books FROM: Liz Forlani REFERENCES: Administrative Aide to BCC The Finance Department, who handles the distribution of the County Code books, informed me that we have depleted our supply of 100 Code books that we ordered in 1974. 105 OCT 2 � 1985- BOOK 62 Fr1GF.564 BOOK 62 D0F 565 The price to purchase an additional 100 books, including all supplements and binders is approximately .$7,200. Supplement No. 38 is included in the price but Municipal Code did not know the exact amount of pages to the supplement' No. 38 and they gave an estimate for us to use. The Finance Department currently sells the Code books to the public for $75.00 and when the supplements come in the cost is divided equally and charged to the purchaser. The Finance Department handles the distribution of the books and supplements. to in-house personnel and the public. They also handle the billing and receipt of payment from the public. This procedure takes one person approximately 14 hours. The Commission office is responsible for the payment of Municipal Code's statement. RECOMMENDATION: 1. There is a need and public interest in purchasing these Code books and I would like authorization to purchase 100 County Code books, including supplements and binders - not to exceed $7,200. Funds to come from Contingency 001-99.91 ($849,883) 2. Reconsider the selling price of the County Code books and supplements taking into consideration not only the initial cost but also the handling procedure that goes with the selling of these books and supplements. Books including up-to-date supplements now cost $75.00 Additional supplements are charged by the page - Supplement No. 37 cost $2,300 and the public was charged $23.00. This cost does not reflect administrative costs. ON MOTION by Commissioner Scurlock, SECONDED by Commissioner Bird, the Board unanimously approved the budget amendment necessary to purchase County Code Books, as follows: TO: Board of County Commissioners October October 23, 1985 FILE: SUBJECT: Budget Amendment Liz Forlani FROM: Administrative Aide REFERENCES: to BCC Authorization to transfer funds to purchase County Code books. TO FROM Contingency 001-99.91 7,200 Outside Printing 001-101-511-34.72 7,200 106 REQUEST TO SET PUBLIC HEARING FOR GIFFORD IMPROVEMENTS Commissioner Scurlock informed the Board that all discussion held with Gifford representatives has indicated they wish to expand even further. It was agreed to set the public hearing for Gifford improvements at the next available meeting upon receipt of the Letter of Conditions from the FmHA. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE REPORT Commissioner Scurlock reviewed the following summary of actions of the Transportation Planning Committee meeting of October 15, 1985, and stated that he would like a Motion to accept the Committee recommendations. TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE 10-15-85 Summary of Actions 1. Traffic Impact Fee Ordinance Study: Committee unanimously approved reports 2 (Orchid Island Analysis), and 3 (Long-range Major Street and Highway Program.) 2. County Road 512 Corridor: Committee discussed future alternatives for improvements to CR -512, and heard from interested citizens. No action was taken or proposed until traffic conditions warrant improvements in the future. 3. Fellsmere Grade Road: Committee directed staff to proceed to investigate the inclusion of this road on the Thoroughfare Plan. 107 C CT 2 3 1985 BOOK 6 fa1E 566 OCT 2 3 1985 Boa 62 Fit 567 4. Highland Drive Traffic Complaints: Committee approved staff recommendations for the subject curve: a. Resurface the road b. Install street lighting C. Remove vegetation in the right-of-way d. Construct a sidewalk e. Provide roadway access to Oslo Road and/or 27th Avenue In addition, the Committee recommended finding a way to reduce the speed limit to 30 MPH west of the curve. 5. Proposed Site Plan, 17th Street at 3rd Court:' Committee heard from Rockridge residents about the subject proposed plaza, and recommended to the Vero Beach Planning and Zoning Department to restrict left -turns out of the site onto 3rd Court. 6. Street Lighting, US#1 at 99th Street: Committee recommended installation of a street light to be paid by the County beginning in FY 86-87. ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Commissioner Scurlock, the Board unanimously accepted the above report and recommendations of the Transportation Planning Committee. SOUTH COUNTY FIRE The Chairman announced that immediately upon adjournment of the Commission Meeting, the Board would reconvene acting as the District Board of Fire Commissioners of the South Indian River County Fire District. Those Minutes will be prepared separately. 108 � r � DOCUMENTS TO BE MADE A PART OF THE RECORD The following were received and are on file in the Office of the Clerk: Deeds of Easement and Bills of Sale of Utility Facilities from Vista Properties to the County for: A 15 foot Utility Easement for Potable Water Main through Golf Area I, Vista Plantation; dated May 24, 1985. - A 15 foot Utility Easement for Sanitary Sewer Mains through Golf ARea 5 and Rec Area "A", Vista Plantation, dated May 24, 1985. There being no further business, on Motion duly made, seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 5:12 o'clock P.M. ATTEST: Clerk 109 OCT 2 3 1985 62 PAsE 568