HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/14/1987Tuesday, April 14, 1987
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 Tuesday,
April 14; 1987, at 9:00 o'clock A.M. Present were DonIC.
Scurlock, Jr., Chairman; Margaret C. Bowman, Vice Chairman;
Richard N. Bird; Carolyn K. Eggert; and Gary C. Wheeler. Also
present were Charles P. Balczun, County Administrator;I,Charles P.
Vitunac, Attorney to the Board of County Commissioners and
Barbara Bonnah, Deputy Clerk.
The Chairman called the meeting to order, and Commissioner
Bowman led the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag.
ADDITIONS TO THE AGENDA/EMERGENCY ITEMS
Commissioner Bird requested the addition of a report on
Parks & Recreation on today's Agenda, and -Chairman Scurlock noted
that he has two financial recommendations in reference to
recreation that can be presented at the same time.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously added
the above item to today's Agenda.
CONSENT AGENDA
Commissioner Wheeler requested that items E and R be removed
for discussion., and Chairman Scurlock requested that Item K re
removed also.
o t14
BOOK VME UI ;
L_ APR 14.197 iJ
APR 14 1987
BOOK Pf1GE 0
A___Approval_of Appointments_ of_Deputy_ Sheriffs_ by Sheriff_Dobeck
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the following appointments of Deputy Sheriffs by
Sheriff Dobeck:
Timothy J. Peterson
Darin M. Jones
Gary S. Farless
James W. Hyde
Barry L. Beckerdite
B. Report
Received and placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to
the Board:
Annual Financial Report - Vero Lakes and Delta Farms
Water Control Districts for 1986
C. Approval_ of Renewal_ Applications for Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/24/87:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 24, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT RENEWALS
FROM: Charles P.
CountyAdmi nistrator REFERENCES:
The following persons have applied through the Clerk's Office for renewal of
pistol permits:
Raymond Paul Gillman
Roscoe 0. Whiddon
Wesley U. "Duke" Newcome
Donald A. Baldwin
J. Arlington Myers
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
� • 1
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
renewal applications for a permit to carry a concealed
weapon for the following persons:
Raymond Paul Gillman
Roscoe 0. Whiddon
Wesley U. "Duke" Newcome
Donald A. Baldwin
J. Arlington Myers
D. Approval of Renewal Applications for Pistol Permits
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/27/87:
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: March 27, 1987
the Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
LE:
SUBJECT: PISTOL PERMIT - RENEWALS
REFERENCES:
The following persons have applied through the Clerk's Office for renewal of
pistol permits:
Henry W. Helwig
Clifford V. Ferguson
Bill C. Law
Gladys S. Baldwin
Henry A. Fischer
All requirements of the ordinance have been met and are in order.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
renewal applications for a permit to carry a concealed
weapon for the following, persons:
BOOK 03
APR 14
APP 14 1997
d0 , f
BOOK mucE 0
Henry W. Helwig
Clifford V. Ferguson
Bill C. Law
Gladys S. Baldwin
Henry A. Fischer
E___Approval _of Appointments to Courthouse Advisory Committee
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/8/87:
TO: County Commissioners DATE: April 8, 1987 FILE:
FROM: Gary C. Wheeler
SUBJECT: Appointments to Courthouse
Advisory Committee
REFERENCES:
I respectfully request your approval of the following members
of the Courthouse Advisory Committee:
Gary C. Wheeler, Chairman
Judge Charles E. Smith
— John Acor (Hoyt Howard, alternate)
Charles E. Garris
John D. Frazier
Robert Jackson
The City of Sebastian has not notified us of their appointment
to this Committee at this time.
Commissioner Wheeler wished to add the Mayor Harris' name to
the above list of appointments to the Courthouse Advisory
Committee:
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board unanimously appointed
the persons listed above to the Courthouse Advisory
Committee, as recommended by Commissioner Wheeler.
-
4
F. Proclamation- Child Abuse Prevention Day
P R O C L A M A T I O N
CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION DAY
WHEREAS, child abuse is one of the most pressing family,
health and social problems in our state today; and
WHEREAS, last year there were over 100,000 new reports of
child abuse and neglect; and
WHEREAS, The Governor's Constituency for Children is a
statewide organization with a strong volunteer support base,
providing numerous programs to treat and prevent the muse and
neglect of our children; and
WHEREAS, Prevention of Abused and Traumatized Children is a
county organization with strong support providing programs on
prevention of abuse and neglect of Indian River County children;
and
WHEREAS, Indian River County organizations involved in
prevention of the abuse, will join with similar organizations
across the country in observing April, 1987, as National Child
Abuse Prevention Month;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County that APRIL 25, 1987 be
designated as "CHILD ABUSE PREVENTION DAY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY"
and urge all our citizens to join in the efforts to protect our
childre
Approved: April 14, 1987
APS l4 19007
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY: C
Don C. Scurlock, r.
Chairman
5
RJOK KIE 015
d.
BOOK 68 PAGE 06
G. Proclamation - American Home Week
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, Americans enjoy the freedom to G1�dT1 private
property and the right to use or transfer it as they see fit; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that in this bicentennial year
marking the signing of the U.S. Constitution, we remind ourselves
of this precious freedom; and
WHEREAS, with this ownership comes the need to protect our
private property rights; and .
WHEREAS, with these rights often comes the desire to
improve property - whether homes, farms, shopping centers,
industrial plants or office buildings - and by so doing, enhance
the value of such property; and
WHEREAS, the citizens of
mindful of this value, not only
sense of the inherent worth of
enjoyment of life locally; and
Indian River County should be
in a monetary sense, but in the
property as it pertains to the
WHEREAS, each year REALTORS - members of the local Board of
REALTORS call attention to the importance of private property
rights by celebrating AMERICAN HOME WEEK; and
WHEREAS, this year the Vero Beach - Indian River Ccunty
Board of REALTORS will emphasize the value of home ownership and
other property ownership, as -well as property improvement within
the community;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONER OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
APRIL 26 - MAY 2, 1987 be designated as
AMERICAN HOME WEEK
in Indian River County.
BE IT FURTHER PROCLAIMED that the Board urges all residents
of Indian River County to join with the Vero Beach - Indian River
County Board of REALTORS and its members in setting aside this
period to remind all citizens of their freedom to own private
property; the importance of protecting the rights that accompany
this ownership; and their awareness of the value of improving
such property.
I'm d: April'14, 1987
C
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY / G
Don Sc r ock, Jr.. j
Chairman (,
H. Proclamation - Teacher Appreciation Week
P R O C L A M A T I O N
WHEREAS, a strong, effective system of free public
education for all children and youth is essential to our
democratic system of government; and
WHEREAS, the Indian River County School system has made
considerable progress in the social, technological and scientific
fields due to our system of free and universal public education;
and
WHEREAS, much of this progress can be attributed to the
qualified and dedicated teachers entrusted with educational
development of our children and their full potentials; and
WHEREAS, teachers should be accorded high public
esteem, reflecting the value that the community places on public
education; and
WHEREAS, it is appropriate that teachers be recognized
for their dedication and commitment to educating their students;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT PROCLAIMED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that the week of
May 3 through May 9, 1987 be designated as
TEACHER APPRECIATION WEEK
in Indian River County, Florida, and the Board urges all citizens
to pay tribute to our public school teachers.
Adopted April 14, 1987
L_ APR 14, 1987
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
� G
Don -C. Scurlock, V,
Chairman
7
BOOK 8 pv1 p 07
APR 14 1987
BOOK F'1
1. Report - Occupational License Taxes
---------------------------------------
Report of Tax Collector Gene Morris re Occupational License
taxes collected during the month of March, 1987, is hereby made a
part of the record:
AarAenn n e1n1 u,
TO:
SWIM)E
OFFICE OF TF1E TAX COLLECTOR
GENE E. MORRIS, C.F.C.
TAX COLLECTOR
Board of County Commissioners
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
DATE: April 1, 1987
SUBJECT: Occupational Licenses
P. O. Box 1509
VERO BEACH. FLORIDA - 32961
TELEPNONEt(30S)567-6180
Pursuant to Indian River County Ordinance No. 86759, please
be advised that $2,800.95 was collected in occupational
license taxes during the month of March 1987, representing
the issuance of 126 licenses.
4 A�4k*�
Gene E. Morris, Tax Collector
J. IRC Bid #345 - Utility Service Truck Body
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 412/87:
8
TO: Board of County Commissioners DATE: April 2, 1987 DILE:
THRU: Joseph A. Baird SUBJECT: IRC BID#345-One (1) New Utility
Director, Budget Office Service Body W/Step Rear Bumper
for Traffic Engineering Dept.
FROM: 60-4-e-41-1 ��W-UU 64 REFERENCES:
Carolyn �%odrich, Manager
Purchasing Department
1. Description and Conditions
Bids were received Wednesday, April 1, 1987 at 2 P.M. for IRC
#345 -One (1) New Utility Service Body W/Step Rear Bumper
for the Traffic Engineering Department.
7 Bids were sent out. Of the 5 Bids received, 1 was a "No
Bid".
2. Alternatives and Analysis
This bid is for a utility body to be installed on the new
Ford Cab -Chassis currently on order. It also includes transferring
and reinstalling the hydraulic armlift from the 1970 Ford flatbed
to the new Ford Cab -Chassis.
The low bid was submitted by Layton Utility Equipment, Sebring, F1.,
in the amount of $3931.00. The bid meets all specifications.
3. Recommendation and Funding
Staff recommends IRC #345 be awarded to the low bidder, Layton
Utility Equipment in the amount of $3931.00.
There is $4100.00 budgeted in Account #111-245-541-066.42.
0
APR 14 1987 BOOK �� ��
APR 141987
BOOK .68 PnE 10
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously awarded
IRC Bid #345 in the amount of $3931 to the low bidder,
Layton Utility Equipment of Sebring, Florida, for one
(1) new utility.truck service body wlstep rear bumper
for Traffic Engineering Dept., as recommended by staff.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
. 1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
BID TABULATION
, 4
amu'
W
"b
� ^ �' J
0 3 ^ C o, y
i io y ao�° ' ao
Q'mm`d 4?
c `' --
UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT PRICE UNIT TRIC
BID NO.
IRC BID #345
DATE OF OPENING
April 1, 1987
BID TITLE One (1) New Ut i 1 i ty
Service Body W/Step Rear Bumper
ITE
NOM DESCRIPTION
L, One (1_� New Utility Service
Bow W/Step Rear Bumper
NB
KnapW*de
1. 6
dy
Fl. B
dy
Kna
hei
e
—
1 Each
222
00
21 1
00
2. -Mount Utility Body on Existing
New 1987 Ford_ F350 — _
INC
—
200
00
3. Transfer & reinstall 1
hydraulic armlift aerial
Model AF -36H & Stabilizing
torsion bar from existing 1970
Ford F-700 flatbed truck to
subject utility body and 1 ton
rnh-chassig- To include all
hoses fitting, hardware &
belt driven h draulic pump
Clutch Kit.
2373
22
1600
0
Total
4849
00
4602
22
3931
0
4992
00
10
K. Repair on Caterpillar 8168 - Landfill Compactor
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 412/8:
TO: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DATE: APRIL 2, 1987
THRU: CHARLES P. BALCZUN
COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR
VIA: TERRANCE G. PINTO- ,I\.
DIRECTOR OF UTILh'rY2VICES
FROM: H. T. "SONNY" DEAN
MANAGER OF SOLID W AGEMENT
DIVISION OF UTILITY SERVICES
SUBJECT: REPAIR ON CATERPILLAR 816B - LANDFILL COMPACTOR
BACKGROUND AND INFORMATION
The lugs on the subject piece of equipment are worn to a point where
sufficient compaction can no longer be obtained. To remedy the
situation, three options were pursued: 1) to completely buy new
wheels, 2) purchase second hand wheels, or, 3) replace the lugs on
the old wheels.
7TATTT VQ TQ
The price to buy new wheels cannot be justified since our wheels are
not worn out and are usable.
Estimates for one set of used wheels revealed a price of $12,500 but
would require replacement of the lugs which realistically are in the
same condition as our present wheels.
Quotations were obtained from two firms capable of rebuilding our
equipment to meet the original requirements. Ringpowefr Corporation
gave a price of $19,970.42. Florida Equipment and Service, Inc.
quotated a price of $14,351.55 to repair the machine. Stack Equipment
and Supply was contacted but only gave a price for the used wheels as
outlined above.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above information, the Division of Utilities, staff
recommends the Board of County Commissioners authorize the expenditure
of funds to Florida Equipment and Service, Inc. to replace the lugs on
all four wheels of the machine. Funds were budgeted tol,perform this
work.
Chairman Scurlock wanted assurance that the engine and other
parts of this piece of equipment are in good enough repair to
warrant the $14,000 expenditure.
Utilities Director Terry Pinto advised that it is the newest
piece of equipment we have, but without those locks installed on
the wheels, it would be very dangerous to operate on the
Landfill. He felt the Caterpillar is in as good a shape as could
11
be expected for a 1979 model; however, they will be looking for
replacement in two years.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously authorized
the expenditure of $14,351.55 to Florida Equipment and
Service, Inc. to replace the lugs on all four wheels of
the Caterpillar 816B, as recommended by staff.
L.' Cables Between Administration Center and Courthouse
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/30/87:
TO: Edwin M. Fry, Jr. DATE: March 30, 1987 FILE:
Finance Director
SUBJECT: Cables between Administration
Center and Courthouse.
FROM:Don Hylton,REFERENCES:
Director of nformation Systems
After receiving approval from the Board to install fiberoptic cables between
the Courthouse and the Administration Center, I contacted the vendor who had
given me the quote for the turnkey installation to tell them to procede with
the installation. Two days later I receive a call telling me they had made
a mistake in their bid and could not comply with the quote given. The mistake
amounted to over $9,000.00 higher than what was approved.
At this higher cost, the fiberoptic method would not be cost effective, so
I recommend that we go with the moving of our current cables at a cost of
$4,000.00 and make additions as needed.
Lam'
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the recommendation of staff to go with the moving of
our current cables at a cost of $4,000 and make
additions as needed, instead of installing fiberoptic
cables at a cost of $15,200, as previously approved at
the meeting of 3/24/87.
M. Interface Courthouse Video System and Recording System
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/7/87:
TO: Honorable Members of
the Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Josph A. Baird
OMB Director
DATE: April 7, 1987
SUBJECT: INTERFACE COURTHOUSE
VIDEO SYSTEM AND
RECORDING SYSTEM
ACCOUNT NUMBER ACCOUNT TITLE INCREASE DECREASE
106-909-516-066.39 Improvements Except Buildings $850
106-909-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency. $850"
EXPLANATION
Staff is requesting authorization from the Board of County
Commissionsers to appropriate funds in the amount of $85x.00 to
interface the video system with the Courthouse recordingisystem.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved the
above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB Director
Baird.
N. Budget Amendment -_ Unemployment _Compensation
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/7/87:
TO: Honorable Members of
the Board of County
Commissioners
FROM: Joseph A. Baird
OMB Director
ACCOUNT NUMBER
General Fund
001-210-513-012.15
DATE: April 7, 1987
SUBJECT: BUDGET AMENDMENT
FOR UNEMPLOYMENT
COMPENSATION
ACCOUNT TITLE
Unemployment Compensation
AP .14198? 13
INCREASE DECREASE
$47
BOOK 8 i U
BOOK
Building and Grounds
001-220-519-012.15 Unemployment Compensation $143
Detention
001-600-521-012.15 Unemployment.Compensation $1,625
Clerk of the Circuit Court
001-300-513-012.15 Unemployment Compensation $577
001-199-581-099.91 Reserve for Contingency
Explanation
8 PAcE 1
The above budget amendment is necessary to pay unemployment
compensation to the State of Florida. (See attached invoices)
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above budget amendment, as recommended by OMB
Director Baird.
0_ Final Assessment Rolls __Paving of 21st. Ave and 9th Drive
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/6187:
TO:THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: April 6, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County A r SUBJECT: 1)
Ral Bres is a, P.E.
County Engineer 2)
FROM: Michelle A. Terry
Civil Engineer REFERENCES.
$2,392
21 Ave. from 1st St. SW to
2nd St. and 2nd St. from
21st Ave. to 20th Ave.
9th Drive between 2nd St.
& South Relief Canal
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
The paving of 21st Avenue and 9th Drive is complete. The final
cost and preliminary estimate for the work was:
Final Cost/FF Prelim. Const/FF Final Cost Prelim. Est
21st Avenue $7.6226 $9.7197 $30,194.17 $38,501.38
9th Drive $6.9908 $8.0909 $12,670.67 $14,664.57
All construction cost are under the original estimate. 'The Final
Assessment Rolls have been prepared and are 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 12% established by the Board of County
Commissioners. The due date is 90 days after the final determination
of -the special assessments.
14
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS
Since the final assessments to the benefited owners will be less
than computed on the preliminary assessment rolls, the only alternative
presented is to approve the final assessment rolls.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that the Final Assessment Rolls lfor the paving
of 21st Avenue and 9th Drive be approved by the Board of County
Commissioners and that they be transferred to the Office of the Clerk
to the Board for collection.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the Final Assessment Rolls for the paving of'21st
Avenue and 9th Drive, and authorized the transmittal
to the Office of the Clerk to the Board for collection.
FINAL ASSESSMENT ROLLS ARE ON FILE 1N THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO
THE BOARD
P. Approval of Out -of -County Travel
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED bar
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
out -of -county travel for Chairman Scurlock and
appropriate staff to attend the AWWA Annual Conference
in Kansas City, Mo., on June 14-18, 1987.
Q. Release of Assessment Liens - County_ Impact_ Fees
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/2/87:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 2, 1987
RE: CONSENT AGENDA - BCC MEETING 4/14/87
ROUTINE RELEASE OF COUNTY LIENS
This office has processed the following matters and requests
permission for the Chairman to execute the standard release
forms:
15
15
APR 141987
BOOK 00
m M,
BOOK .PA -a 1
(1) Full Satisfaction on Impact Fee Lien
JAMES H. BAILEY & MARY ELLEN BAILEY
(2) Partial Release of Lien - Map #41
State Road 60 Wastewater/Release 1 ERU
Paid by REALCOR-VERO BEACH ASSOCIATES
Lot 45-S of COUNTRYSIDE MOBILE HOME PARK
(3) Partial Release of Lien - Map D-1
State Road 60 Water/Release 1 ERU
Paid by LYNNLEE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Unit 201 of PINE CREEK CONDO. It
(4) Partial Release of Lien - Map 15
State Road 60 Water/Release 1 ERU
Paid by LYNNLEE DEVELOPMENT CORP.
Unit 201 of PINE CREEK CONDO. II
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by --
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously approved
the above listed Satisfaction of Payment and Partial
Release of Assessment Liens.
SATISFACTION OF PAYMENT AND PARTIAL RELEASE OF ASSESSMENT LIENS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK TO THE BOARD
R. Vero Lakes Estates Drainage Study - Selection of Aerial
Photogrammetry Firm
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/8/87:
TO: The Honorable Members of the DATE: April 8, 1987 FILE:
Board of County Commissioners
THROUGH:
Charles Balczun,
County Administrator SUBJECT:
Vero Lake Estates Drainage
Study - Selection of Aerial
Photogrwmetry Firm
FROM:James W. Davis, P.E., REFERENCES:
Public Works Director
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
A selection committee recently was selected to interview photogrammetry
consultants for the Vero Lake Estates Drainage Study. The Selection
Committee was composed of:
Commissioner Margaret Bowman
Bill Messersmith, P.E., Beindorf & Assoc.
James W. Davis, P.E., Public Works Director
Carl Johnson, Vero Lake Estates
The committee met with four firms on March 31, 1987 to receive formal
presentations on the firm's ability to perform the work.
i 16
ALTERNATIVES AMID ANALYSIS
As a result of the Committee's discussion, the following prioritized list
of consultants is presented to begin formal contract negotiations for
aerial photograph and topographic mapping.
1) Bosworth Aerial Surveys, Inc.
2) Abrams Aerial Survey Corp.
3) Mayes, Sudderth, Etheredge, Inc.
RECOMMENDATION AND. FUNDING
The committee recommends that staff be authorized to negotiate a contract
for aerial survey work with the Number 1 firm (Bosworth Aerial Surveys) for
the Vero Lake Estates work. It is anticipated that approximately $22,000
will be adequate to fund the work, however, funding will be addressed in
the Contract. Funding to be from Vero Lake Estates MSTU.
Commissioner Wheeler wanted to make sure that the,
coordination on the photography of this project is better than
that during the beach study.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to negotiate a contract for aerial survey work
with the No. 1 firm (Bosworth Aerial Surveys) for the
Vero Lake Estates work, at an estimated cost of
$22,000; funding to be from Vero Lake Estates MSTU.
IRC HOUSING AUTHORITY REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE TO MAINTAIN PHASE 11
OF VICTORY PARK (tabled from 4/7/87 meeting)
Commissioner Wheeler explained that he asked for this item
to be tabled last week in order to obtain more information.
Although he has talked with Farmers Home Administration and the
Dept. of Community Affairs this past week and met with Daphne
Strickland and Guy Decker of the Housing Authority, he still felt
he needed further information before making a decision on this
issue. Commissioner Wheeler requested this item -to be tabled for
one more week.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously tabled
this matter until next week's meeting.
17
APR 14 1987
BOOK 6.8. PACE 17
BOOK PAGE 1
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS - JANUARY, 1987
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Publications
attached, to wit:
VERO BEACH PRESS -JOURNAL
Published Weekly 3
Vero Beach, Indian River County, Florida
'INDIAN RIVER:
PRIDA J
�v he urdersigrted authority permnally appeared J. J. Schumann, Jr. who on oatth
Business Manager of the Vero Beach Press-loumal, a weekly newspaper puol,shed
In Indian River County, Florida, that the attached copy of advertisement, being
I�
in the matter of 4" GI us'e
—in the Court, was i in the Issues of -q,Jnd 70 191-7 -
r soya that the said Vero Press -Journal Press-loual is a newspaper publisheo at
said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper has heretofore
, published in mid Indian River County, Florida, weekly and has been enterea
ail matter at the post office in Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, FI -5a
ne year nest preceeding the first publication of the attached copy of adver-
Rant further says that he has neither paid nor premised any person, firm or
liscount, rebate, comrnission or refund for the purpose of securing this adver.
cation In the mid newspaper.
scribed before me this /0 day of 4a-.* l A.D.1 ??-7
mess Managed
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, Indkn River County, Florida)
I
.1
@UWECT PROPERTY euarecT t+RO➢aRTV susim PROPLWY
e■� I C.
e Il 1
• • jz' r� S ` 1
t•
NOTICE OF CHANGE OF LAND USE
The Board of County Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida, proposes
to change the use of land within the areas shown in the maps in this
advertisement. A public hearing on the proposal will be held on Tuesday, April
14, 1987, at 9:05 am. in the County Commission Chambers of the County
Administration Building, located at 1840 25th St., Vero Beach, Florida. At this
public hearing the Board of County Commissioners will consider authorizing the
transmittal, of applications to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan to the State
for review. The proposed amendments are included in a proposed ordinance
entitled:
AN ORDINANCE OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND
USE AND TRANSPORTATION ELEMENTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN;
CREATING A THIRTEEN ACRE COMMERCIAL NODE ON THE NORTHSIDE OF
17TH STREET WEST OF INDIAN RIVER BOULEVARD, ENLARGING THE
COMMERCIAL NODE AT S.R. 60 AND KINGS HIGHWAY FROM 160 ACRES TO
165 ACRES, ESTABLISHING A MIXED USE DISTRICT ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S.
1 SOUTH OF 35TH STREET, ADDING SECONDARY COLLECTOR ROADS TO
THE COUNTY'S THOROUGHFARE PLAN IN THE AREA NORTH OF C.R. 512
AND EAST OF 1-95, DELETING 43RD AVENUE BETWEEN 57TH STREET AND
69TH STREET FROM THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND THE TRANSPORTATION
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS PROGRAM, RECLASSIFYING 43RD AVENUE AS A
SECONDARY COLLECTOR STREET BETWEEN 53RD STREET AND 57TH STREET;
AND PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION, SEVERABILITY AND EFFECTIVE DATE.
Interested parties may appear and be heard at the public hearing regarding
the transmittal of these proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments.
The plan amendment applications may be inspected by the public at the
Community Development Division offices located on the second floor of the
County Administration Building located at 1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida,
between the hours of 8:30 a.m, and 5:00 p.m. on weekdays.
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 proceeding is made
which includes the testimony and evidence upon which the appeal will be based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By: -s-Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
18
r`:
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/3/07:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 3, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: JANUARY 1987 COMPREHENSIVE
Obert M. Iea ing ICP PLAN AMENDMENT'APPLI-
Planning & De elopment Director CATIONS
FROM: SMS
Richard M. Shearer, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be q!iven formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Community Development Division received three Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications in January of 1987 and initiated one
amendment application at the request of the Public Works
Division.
The staff has reviewed these four amendment applications and made
recommendations to the Planning and Zoning Commission which,
sitting as the Local Planning Agency, held publicearings on
March 12, 1987, to consider making recommendations -on the
proposed amendments to the County's Comprehensive Plan.
In 1986, the State Legislature revised the local) government
comprehensive plan amendment procedure. The process now requires
the first public hearing by the Board of County Commissioners to
be held prior to the transmittal of each request to the State
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for a mandatory ninety -day
review period.
After all the comments from DCA are received, the Board of County
Commissioners will schedule a final public hearing o consider
the proposed amendments. At the close of the final hearing, the
Board may adopt all, part of, or none of the proposed amendments
to the Comprehensive Plan. The attached flow chart illustrates
the Comprehensive Plan Amendment process as amended by the 1986
state planning legislation.
It is necessary for the Board to vote on each of the
Comprehensive Plan amendment applications in order to authorize
transmittal of the applications to the State for review. Three
affirmative votes are required to authorize transmittal.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
The Planning Department feels that the best way to authorize the
transmittal of the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments to the
State for review is through the passage of a resolution authoriz-
ing the transmittal. Since a second public hearing must be held
prior to action being taken on each of the amendment applica-
tions, no final decision can be made on the applications at this
time. However, action is needed on the attached resolution in
order to comply with the plan amendment procedure.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends
attached transmittal resolution.
19
APS 14 i9V
approval of the
MOK S PAGE 1-9
APR 14 1987 20
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained the
revised procedure for local government comprehensive plan
amendments, which calls for proposed amendments to be transmitted
to the State Dept. of Community Affairs for a mandatory 90 -day
review period, after which a final public hearing would be held
by the Board of County Commissioners, probably in early August.
A majority vote of the full Commission is required on each
proposal in order to approve transmittal to Tallahassee.
Mr. Shearer also advised that the transmittal of these requests
requires the adoption of a resolution after all of the hearings
are completed today, and one resolution could cover all the
proposals that are approved for transmittal.
PUBLIC HEARING - FISCHER REQUEST TO REZONE 30 ACRES FROM
A-1 TO RS -1
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 err Beathat the attached copy weekly
advertisement,
bli�s add
at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
a ---
in the matter of�'
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the Issues of�� • a / (a 7
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published at
Vero
River
and ' the said adsat
been continuously Published in sadInd an River County, Florida, weekly has 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 is day of �' A.D. ��
C.
/n usiness Manager)
l�lr
(Clerk of the Circuit cow ,thwan River County, Florida)
(SEAQ
20
NOTICE — PUBLIC NEMINO
Notice of hearing tu,earelder the adoption
e Courcy ordinance rezoning lana from: A-1,
Agnouitural 4- to RS -1. Sxgle-Famdy Reel-
darftial Distrkt The auWed property W preeendy
owned by Nenuy A Fnlcher erW b located we81
of Roseland Road. is described as:
The subject property
Lots 80, 86, 88. g7, end those Darts of
=S8.=89 -M=
ots S8 dna 89Mn9 wast of Roseland
RosaSection 28. Fleming Groh, as
corded in Piet Book 1, Page 176, public
Records o1 SL Lyda County, Flalaa:
flow sift".. in
Wa, and also Deginnin9 at the
n!+oint o1
hdeniWbOn of the west line Of die south-
west quarter of the southeast quarter of
Seetlon 11, Township 31 South. Ran"
36 East and the aoutlmMfty fine o1 the
==11
lemingg Greet run east ro the west
rlght.of-way 11% of ,4 411tinere-Rose.
lead County road, on a hne parallel with
the n�pt line of said southwest quarter
of southeast quarter, thence run north-
wasteriy alonig said west right-of-way to
the aforementioned southeasterly fine of
the Fleming Grant thence run south -
UP�dnt o1�Beg'mnatg. Grant One to
A public hearing at which partied in tntmalt,
and dioses shall halm an opportunely to ce
heard, will be halo M the Boars of Cannry Cons
mi691oMM of Indian River County. Florida. W thtee]
CounAd ryigtr Commission
BuiIa Chdmows iota[e0 atg18z0 25th
Street. ty=ro Beach. Florida, On Tuesday. April
/*,1987 m 9:0.5 a.m.
The Board o1 County Cammlestonera may
grant a leas emeries zoning district man the dm.
trio requaste0 Provided
rl is within the tams
nwaluse
ca gor wish to appal any dadsioe
whlah may be made at ave meeting well need ro
armee that a verbatim recerd of the pro"SCI gs
is made which included the lessnrooy and err
dance upon which Me aPPOW Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Cammnisbrwa
B C. Scurlock Chairman
March ,lea.,
r
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/3/87:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 3, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
FISCHER REQUEST TO REZONE
SUBJECT: 30 ACRES FROM A-1, AGRI -
Robert M. Kdat1V'g4_"__Ar9PCULTURAL DISTRICT, TO
Community & Devlelopm46nt Director RS -1, SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
`FRCMkiccha d Shearer AICP REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
fischer request
curdev (vh)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Eric Fischer, an agent for Henry Fischer, the owner, is re-
questing to rezone approximately 30 acres located on the west
side of Roseland Road, east of the Sebastian River, and approxi-
mately one mile north of County Road 512 from A-1, Agricultural
District (up to 1 unit/5 acres) to RS -1, Single -Family Residen-
tial District (up to 1 unit/acre).
On February 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -0 to recommend approval of this request.
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 Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject
property are single-family dwellings on large tracts of land and
undeveloped land zoned RS -1. East of the subject property,
across Roseland Road, are single-family dwellings and vacant lots
zoned RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6 units/
acre), and duplexes and vacant lots zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre). South of the subject
property is undeveloped land zoned A-1. Further south, is a
single-family subdivision in the City of Sebastian. West of the
subject property is undeveloped land zoned A-1 and the Sebastian
River.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land north, south and west of it as RR -2, Rural Residential 2 (up
to 1 unit/acre). The land east of the subject property, across
Roseland Road, is designated as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2
(up to 6 units/acre). The proposed RS -1 zoning is in conformance
with the RR -2 land use designation and is consistent with the
RS -1 zoning to the north.
21
APR 14 1987 -
BOOK 6 8 PA0 2�
IF -
APR 14 1987
Transportation System
BOOK F -AGE 2
The subject property has direct access to Roseland Road (clas-
sified as a primary collector street on the Thoroughfare Plan).
The maximum development of the subject property could generate up
to 217 average annual daily trips (AADT) under the proposed RS -1
zoning. A maximum of 43 AADT would be generated under the
existing A-1 zoning. Roseland Road currently functions at
level -of -service "A".
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally sensi-
tive. Most of the subject property is in flood zone C indicating
areas outside of the 500 year floodplain. However, part of the
subject property is located in flood zone B indicating areas
within the 500 year floodplain and a small part of the subject
property is in an A8 flood zone indicating that it is within the
100 year floodplain.
TT+- , 1 i +- ; - -
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 recommendation, staff recommends approval.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained
that this rezoning request is separate from the Comprehensive
Land Use Amendment requests, and staff recommends approval.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing, and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this -matter. There being none, the
Chairman declared the Public Hearing closed.
F
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Ordinance 87-36, rezoning 30 acres from A-1 to RS -1,
as requested by Henry Fischer.
-- 22
ORDINANCE NO. 87-56
AN ORDINANCE 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 citizens were heard;
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:
Lots 80, 85, 86, 87, and those parts of Lots 88
and 89 lying west of Roseland Road, Section 28,
Fleming Grant, as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page
175, Public Records of St. Lucie County, Florida;
now situate in Indian River County, Florida, and
also beginning at the Point of intersection of , the
west line of the southwest quarter of the
southeast quarter of Section 11, Township 31
South, Range 38 East, and the southeasterly line
of the Fleming Grant, run east to the west
right-of-way line of the Fellsmere-Roseland County
road, on a line parallel with the north line of said
southwest quarter of southeast quarter; thence run
northwesterly along said west right-of-way to the
aforementioned southeasterly line of the Fleming Grant;
thence run southeasterly along said Fleming Grant line
to the Point of Beginning.
Be changed from A-1, Agricultural
Single -Family Residential District.
23
i L APR 14 1987
District, to RS -1,
�
BOOK 8 FAGS 2_2
Fr
APP 14 1987
ORDINANCE NO. 87-36
600K 8 PAGE 2
All with the meaning and intent and as set forth and
described in said Zoning Regulations.
Approved and adopted by the Board of County
Commissioners of Indian River County, Florida on this 14th
of April , 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
day
By G
Don C. Scu lock, J Chairman
ATTEST BY:— f
FREDA WRIGH C k
�� `may '
PUBLIC HEARING - SMITH REQUEST TO REZONE 20 ACRES FROM
RS -6 TO RM -6
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the Deputy
Clerk read the following Notice with Proof of Pubilcation
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 err Beathat the attached copy weekly
newspadveraper
published
at Vero Beach in Indian River County,
a - O
in the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
a� ,�S/F 7
lished in said newspaper In the issues of
Affiant further says that the said Vero Beach Press -Journal is a newspaper published
foal
re
Vero Beach, in said Indian River County, and that the said newspaper
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 -�/L1 /A.D.
�r
GBusiness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Coukrinclian River County. Florida)
(SEAQ
24
s
;B—pualletfenfett°
ring to tonaider tha adapaon of
ante rezomrrg land horn: R9.8.
eNdeneai Distrld to RM -8. Mal&
y1en DeVlttad , Ed*. Smrtn `=
Let -
and norm of 8is tocated west M=
"Street b Laf-
i props" m deaenbe0 u:
i the seam `/� of SStedn 4,
12 Soum. Range 39 East leas
1�fdi
mwgs� ttro west
V of Laterale-
The Board of County'n'emappeat
dart . pew neann9 rog u+g
tris epptx:ard of the oeeuimu bytt�ro rezoni g rhe•
Zoning Contmiaauon to deny
quest. The Welx: hearing, at wMeh paNes m u>_
"mat and otizens Shah have an 0000numly to
be heard, vnu a herd W me Boaro .0 Gantry
Conmusienars of Instant River rowdy. Fioida m
me county cdmmiswdn Chamtters m the c :
gdminiuratron Buud_F1 totaled u day. 23m.
Street. Yero Beach. Florida. on Tuesday. i14>m
14.1987 al 9 OS a.m.
The Board a County Commiamoners m+y
gram a rezoning to a fess mtenee zonuq dd<hKt
man 1M district teoussted prawded n a enmm
the same germgt use category
Anyone who may w.ah to appear my daerown
Ward, may be made a1 mus meeheg "I need to
is eneura mat a ver0ahm record of lure proesedmp
and av�
dence upon-hch me 901eat a
indNn R, Cou
nty
Beend of County CMmtonere
.,.Do. C. scurwx Crw nw
March 23.1987
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/2/87:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1987 PILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE: SMITH REQUESTTO REZONE
APPROXIMATELY 20 ACRES
SUBJECT: LOCATED WEST OF THE
Robert M. Keatirovnlme
A LATERAL "G" CANAL AND
Planning & Deve Director NORTH OF 69th STREET
Q0
FROMi hard M. Shearer
Chief, Long -Range
Planning
FROM RS -6 SINGLE-FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO
RM -6, MULTIPLE -FAMILY
REFERENCEESIDENTIAL: DISTRICT
smith request
CURDEV (vih)
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Edward Smith and Mary Marsha Lucas, the owners, are requesting to
rezone approximately 20.37 acres located on the north side of
69th Street (North Winter Beach Road) and west of the Lateral
"G" Canal from RS -6, Single -Family Residential District (up to 6
units/acre) to RM -6, Multiple -Family Residential District (up to
6 units/acre).
On February 26, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
2 -to -2 to deny this rezoning request. The Commission based their
decision on the fact that they felt a rezoning to a
multiple -family zoning district was inappropriate due to the
single-family residential character of the area. The: Commission
also felt that this request was premature. The applicants have
appealed this decision.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
In this section, an analysis of the reasonableness ofi 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 Use Pattern
The subject property currently consists of citrus groves zoned
RS -6, Single -Family Residential District. South of the subject
property, across 69th Street, is a single-family residential
subdivision zoned RS -3, Single -Family Residential District. The
land located north and west of the subject property, zoned A-1,
Agricultural District, contains Kiwanis-Hobart Park. A mining
operation, zoned A-1, is located northeast of the subject pro-
perty. East of the subject property, across the Lateral "G"
Canal, is a small, single-family residential subdivision and
several additional single-family residences zoned RS -3.
Future Land Use Pattern
The subject property is currently designated as LD -2, Low -Density
Residential 2 (up to 6 units/acre) on the County's Comprehensive
Plan. The land located to the south, between the Lateral "G"
Canal and 58th Avenue (King's Highway) and a strip of land
25
APR. 14 1987 1
r
BOOK 68 PAGE 26
approximately 600 feet deep located on the north side of 69th
Street and east of the Lateral "G" Canal was redesignated from
LD -2 to LD -1, Low -Density Residential 1 (up to 3 unitcia...--% ,.
February 17, 1987 by the Board of County Commissioners. The land
located to the west of the subject property is designated as
PARK. The land located to the north and northeast of the subject
property is designated as PARK and LD -2. (Please refer to the
attached map showing the area redesignated by the Board of County
Commissioners on February 17, 1987).
The Winter Beach Small Area Plan and Precise Land Use Map desig-
nates the subject property as single-family residential with a
maximum density of 6 units/acre. (Please refer to the attached
Precise Land Use Map for Winter Beach).
Transportation System
The subject property has frontage on 69th Street (N. Winter Beach
Road) which is classified as a primary collector on the Thorough-
fare Plan. The maximum development of the subject property under
RM -6 zoning could generate up to 915 average annual daily trips
(AADT). 69th Street is presently rated at Level -of -Service "A".
The additional traffic which could be generated under the pro-
posed RM -6 zoning would not diminish this level -of -service.
Environment
The subject property is located immediately west of the Coastal
Sand Ridge Primary Aquifer Recharge Area but it is characterized
by poorly drained soils.
TTi- i l i f- i a c
The subject property is not currently served by County water or
wastewater facilities. However, County water is scheduled to be
supplied to the area between 1988 and 1992. It should be empha-
sized that a maximum density of 2 units/acre can be realized
without either public water or sewer facilities.
RECOMMENDATION
The subject property is surrounded on two (2) sides by single-
family residential zoning and existing single-family residences.
The Winter Beach Precise Land Use Map also designates this
property as single-family residential and establishes a low-
density policy for residential development in this area of Winter
Beach. Based on these facts, the staff recommends that the
request to rezone the subject property be denied.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained
that this rezoning application is also independent of any Comp
Plan application and the Board can take action today. Staff is
recommending denial of this request in this particular area north
of South Winter Beach Road east of Kings Highway and west of the
Lateral Canal. In this 21 -acre area, this property and one other
are zoned RS -6; everything else is zoned RS -3.
26
The Chairman opened the Public Hearing and asked,if anyone
wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing Eddie Smith, the
applicant, believed the map included in today's backup material
indicates the real situation with this property. The property is
a peninsula bounded on 3 sides by the County golf course and the
other side by North Winter Beach Road (69th Street), which is a
primary collector under the transportation element of the
Comprehensive Land Use Plan. There are no neighbors; (whatever
Eddie Smith does with his property will not impact anyone in
anyway. His property is currently zoned RS -6 and he is asking
for RM -6; there is no change in density or use. The only reason
for the application is to provide more flexibility for designing
a residential use of the property in an attached rather than a
detached configuration. Attorney O'Haire pointed out that there
has never been anyone from the public who has opposed this
request at previous meetings. Mr. Smith has donated property off
this piece to the County golf course. Attorney O'Haire stated he
was not suggesting in any way that there is a quid pro quo, but
emphasized that Mr. Smith has been more than cooperative. In
conclusion, Attorney O'Haire urged the Board to approve the
rezoning request.
Commissioner Wheeler asked why this could not be
accomplished through a PRD instead of going with a request for
multiple -family zoning, and Attorney O'Haire said that it was
just easier this way as it is special exception to go PRD under
RS -6.
Raymond Scent, 1605 71st Court, speaking as a member of the
general public and not as a realtor, pointed out that there is no
multiple -family housing in that particular area, and failed to
see why the north county should be deprived of an opportunity to
live in multiple -family housing. He believed it to be a logical
request.
BOOK ' 68 mu 27
BOOK 68 p,1H 28
Commissioner Bird agreed that it is pretty well buffered by
the canal and the golf courses, and moved that the RM -6 zoning
request be approved.
The Motion by Commissioner Bird for approval of the rezoning
request died for lack of a second.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by
Commissioner Eggert, the Board, by a vote of 3-2,
Commissioners Scurlock and Bird dissenting, denied
the Smith request to rezone approximately 20 acres
to RM -6.
PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT TO THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 3/17/87:
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: March 17, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
' SUBJECT: AMENDMENT TO THE TRANS-
Ro ert M. Keats g, A PORTATION ELEMENT OF THE
Planning & bevelopmeqff Director COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POS THROUGH: Richard M. Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
FROM:Cherylene J. Boudreaux REFERENCES:
Staff Planner, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
The Public Works Division has requested an amendment to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan amending the
Thoroughfare Plan as follows:
(1) Deleting 43rd Avenue between 53rd Street and 69th
Street as a primary collector;
(2) Adding 43rd Avenue as a secondary collector between
53rd Street and 57th Street;
(3) Adding 45th Avenue as a north/south secondary collector
between 65th and 69th Streets east of Lateral "G" Canal
in the east half of Section 9, Township 32S, Range 39E.
28
In addition, the staff requests adding (3) three secondary
collector roads to the Thoroughfare Plan.
Specifically, these roads are as follows:
(1) Adding 98th Avenue as a secondary collector from 87th
Street north to the Fleming Grant line;
(2) Adding 106th Avenue as a secondary collector, from C.R.
512 north to the Fleming Grant line;
(3) Adding 102nd Terrace as a secondary collector from C.R.
512 north to the Hetra Computer and Telecommunications
Industries facility located in Section 26 of Fleming
Grant.
On March 11, 1987, the Transportation Planning Committee
voted 6 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendments as
presented.
On March 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of the proposed amendme,ents to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan amending the
Thoroughfare Plan.
ALTERNATIVES & ANALYSIS
These requested amendments are based upon accommodating traffic
demand generated by existing as well as future planned growth
located in these areas. In addition, the siting of the Bent Pine
development in the planned 43rd Avenue corridor north of 57th
Street warrants eliminating that road from the Thoroughfare Plan.
The requested addition to the Thoroughfare Plan of 102nd Terrace
as a secondary collector located next to Hetra Industries is
substantiated by the fact that eighty feet (801) of ight-of-way
exists and a portion of the road is already paved.
Also, the County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan designates a 650
acre Industrial/ Commercial Node at the intersection Of I-95 and
C.R. 512. These 650 acres are designated for future industrial
and commercial development in this area which will require.
additional major roads.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends approval of these
changes to the Thoroughfare Plan as an amendment to the
Transportation Element of the Comprehensive Plan.
Chairman Scurlock asked why staff is still recommending the
addition of 45th Avenue as a north/south secondary collector ,!hen
there are golf courses to the north and south; there is no
ability to have a through roadway; and it would have a major
impact on that property.
29
BOOK D rA'UL
_ _
APR 141987
1
BOOK 68 PAGE 30
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, explained
that east of 1-95 we try to have a major road every mile running
north and south. When you go north of 57th Street, you run into
the Bent Pine community, and since that is already developed, it
would be difficult to run the road through there. Public Works
has requested that a secondary collector street be established
between 65th and 69th Streets, the reason being that there is no
north/south collector between Old Dixie Highway and Kings
Highway.
Commissioner Scurlock wondered how there could be since it
dead ends.
Robert Keating, Director of Planning 6 Development,
explained that the original concept in the Comp Plan was to have
a collector roadway up there which would take the traffic from
residential development, and collect it on this type of roadway,
and bring it to an arterial. When the property subsequently
developed into golf courses, there wasn't a need for that. Due
to anticipated residential development in that area, staff sees
the need to have a north/south collector road way between 65th
and 69th Streets.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Mary Jane Goetzfried of CCL Consultants wished to discuss
the 43rd Avenue item. She stated that CCL is representing the
owners and developers of Sand Ridge Country Club Estates, which
is a 100 -acre subdivision located between North and South Winter
Beach Roads. She presented copies of maps to the Board showing
that an extension of 43rd Avenue would run right through the
center of their subdivision. Obviously, the extension of both
43rd and 45th Avenues would have serious impact on the
development. Another of their concerns is that the extension of
43rd Avenue is not listed in the Capital Improvements Plan, which
means that the developers would not receive credit towards the
traffic impact fees for the dedication of an 80 -ft. r/w for that
extension. The developers are requesting that the Board remove
_- � 30
43rd Avenue from the Thoroughfare Plan and not approve staff's
request to designate 45th Avenue as a north/south collector road.
Ted Herzog, Attorney representing the Sand Ridge Country
Club Estates, explained that the extension of 43rd Avenue was
originally designed to run right through the middle of this
development, and now they want to cut through the western edge.
He believed the extension of 43rd Avenue would not serve any
particular traffic purpose at this time, and pointed out that it
is not on the 20 -year plan. Attorney Herzog urged thelBoard to
delete the extension of 43rd Avenue.
Chairman Scurlock asked why staff didn't require a road
through the golf course in the first place if this road is so
important.
Mr. Shearer explained that the Thoroughfare Plan has always
indicated that 43rd Avenue would end at 69th Street, and pointed
out that Bent.Pine was approved prior to the establishment of the
Comp Plan in 1982.
Michael Orr, Traffic Engineer, felt that staff's
recommendation was a truly mild one, based on the spacing of the
other roadways within the county where the north/south roadways
are in a 1 -mile grid. He felt there maybe a problem spmetime in
the future because the only road connecting 65th and 6 t now is
61st Avenue which goes through a single-family residential area.
There being no others who wished to be heard in this matter,
the Chairman declared the Public Hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by
Commissioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
all of the recommended changes to the Thoroughfare
Plan, with the exception of Item i€3, which would have
added 45th Avenue as a north/south collector, and
authorized staff to transmit the Comp Plan amendment to
the Dept. of Community Affairs for their 90-Oay review.
BOOK 8 FLE 31
31 - -
APR 14 1987
BOOK 68
PnE 32
PUBLIC HEARING - SOSIN/WEST/INDIAN RIVER ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO
AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE 13 ACRES
The hour of 9:05 o'clock 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 Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
.
a Ar
in the matter of
In the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper In the issues of '�c—'�-� 7
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 hi aS7 day ofL4=_L A.D.
s
usiness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cou6,4ndiam River County, Florida)
(SEAQ
091c hearing at which parties In ante
Itan shad have an opportuNtY to
w2 M E oma. r—m.rewf F1�mItlH tcn
Street Vero Beach, Flalde, on
14 1087 a1 g:BS am.
ins uBOBd a cowls Commissioner` request
t at
moa mrel setlon an etas remnmg reQueet ri
Meeting -
Anyone wham may wish to appeal any e
Sial which may be made at this Matins
need to ensure tl+at a wubstim record of Ore
Ceedmge Is made which Includes the testis
wd qWdahca
Iudmn upon which River Cowes no appeal 4t Daae
Board of Cowty C0fftMt lanve
218g7 C. tiadlodk Chatrman
Mares
32
NOTICE—PUBLIC NEARING a
NotIG
of= to eoresider the adoption a
a Count' arezonmg land horn: RANO,
Multiple-Fatmy Residential District to CG. Gem
oral Commercial Diaekt The "so property is
located a" of lath Street and SM of am Al
nueThe suDjea propany b described as:
D� RIPTm PARCEL NO. 1: SEGIW
e nOTY _ rnawrp
�I
9
The Board reviewed the following memo dated 4/3/$7:
TO: '..'he Honorable Members DATE: April 3, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
aeze-g &W- 15K1ffd_W SUBJECT: SOSIN/WEST/INDIAN RIVER
Robert M. Keating ICP ASSOCIATES REQUEST TO
Planning & Development Director AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN AND REZONE 13 ACRES
FROM: Richard M. Shearer, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of -April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Stan Sosin, an agent for Brian West and Indian River Associates,
the applicants, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
creating a 13 acre commercial node north of 17th Street and west
of Indian River Boulevard and to rezone 13 acres from RM -10,
Multiple -Family Residential District (up to 10 units/acre), to
CG, General Commercial District.
The applicants are proposing to develop this property for a
200,000 square foot shopping center.
On March 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
4 -to -1 to recommend approval of these requests.
The rezoning part of this request was advertised for public
hearing for discussion purposes. However, final action cannot
occur until the Comprehensive Plan amendment app;ication is
considered in August.
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 Use Pattern
The subject property contains five single-family residences and
vacant land. North of the subject property, across 18th Street,
are condominiums in the City of Vero Beach zoned RM -10,
Multiple -Family (up to 10 units/acre). East of the subject
property is undeveloped property in the City of Vero Beach zoned
C-lA, Tourist Commercial. Further east, across Indian River
Boulevard, is the Vero Beach electrical power plant. South of
the subject property, across 17th Street, is a postal facility
zoned C-lA and the 17th Street Office Plaza zoned POS,
Professional Office Institutional District, which are located in
the City of Vero Beach, and single-family residences in the
County zoned RM -10. West of the subject property are
single-family residences zoned P.M -10.
33
33
BOOK PG&E
�r �03Boa� �r!,UL
Future Land Use Pattern
The County's Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property
and the land west and southwest of it as MD -2, Medium -Density
Residential 2 (up to 10 units/acre). The City of Vero Beach's
Comprehensive Plan designates the land north of the subject
property as Medium -Density Residential, the land east of the
subject property as Commercial, and the land south of the subject
property as Medium -Density Residential.
The Planning Department is concerned with the increasing pressure
to strip zone arterial streets in the County for commercial
development which is contrary to the policies of the
Comprehensive Plan and damages the effectiveness of the arterial
streets in moving traffic. While this pressure has been evident
along U.S. 1, State Road 60, and Oslo Road in the past, the
County will see considerable interest in strip commercial
development along 17th Street and the Indian River Boulevard
Extensions with spillovers onto 12th Street and 8th Street in the
near future. This pressure resulted in property on the south
side of 17th Street approximately across the street from the
subject property being annexed by the City of Vero Beach and
being rezoned to the City's Professional Office District.
As an alternative to strip commercial zoning, the south half of
the subject property could be rezoned to the new PRO district.
While the planning staff would be amenable to professional office
development of the subject property, the proposed CG zoning
district would allow a broad range of commercial uses which could
encourage further strip commercial development along 17th Street
and Indian River Boulevard.
Transportation System
The subject property has frontage on 17th Street (classified as
an arterial street on the Thoroughfare Plan) and to 18th Street
(classified as a local street). The maximum development of the
subject property under the existing RM -10 zoning could generate
up to 941 AADT. Currently 17th Street carries 22,700 AADT at
level -of -service "A" during the peak season. In order to
determine the amount of traffic that could be generated by the
site under CG zoning, staff considered three sources of
information and two different development scenarios.
The applicants are proposing a- 200,000 square foot shopping
center. Based on this proposal, staff consulted three sources to
determine an appropriate trip generation rate. The sources
consulted were the Trip Generation report prepared by the
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE hereafter), the Quick
Response report prepared by the Transportation Research Board
(TRB hereafter), and the work done by Barton-Aschman Associates
(BAA hereafter) for the County in 1984 and 1985. The trip
generation rates are summarized below.
SHOPPING CENTER TRIP GENERATION RATES*
Size of Shopping Center
100,000- 200,000-
500,000 sq.ft. 299,000 sq. it. 200,000+
Source of Min. Ave. Max
Information Rate Rate Rate
ITE 12.5 50.6 91.9
TRB 45.9
BAA 49.7
t All trip generation rates are
per 1,000 square feet of retail
space.
34
Based on these figures, staff feels that a trip generation rate
between 45.9 and 50.6 trips per 1,000 square feet resulting in a
total of between 9,180 and 10,120 average annual daily trips
(AADT) could be expected from a 200,000 square foot shopping
center on this site. However, staff must also note that rezoning
the subject property to commercial could result in OL different
type of development than a 200,000 square foot shopping center.
The individual parcels making up the subject property could be
developed individually for retail uses that could generate more..
than 10,120 AADT.
Based on the existing 22,700 AADT on 17th Steet, an additional
9,180 to 10,120 AADT would lower 17th Street to level -of -service
"C" on an annual basis and level -of -service "D" during the peak
season if all traffic utilizes 17th Street. The Comprehensive
Plan establishes level -of -service "C" as the standard for annual
traffic and level -of -service "D" as the standard for peak season
traffic.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive. However, the subject property is located in an A9
flood zone indicating that it is within a 100 year flood plain.
utilities
A six-inch watermain is located on 17th Street. County
wastewater facilities are not available.
RECOMMENDATION
The Planning and Zoning Commission voted 4 -to -1 to recommend
approval of these requests. The staff respects their opinion;
however, based on the above analysis, particularly the fact that
rezoning the subject property to commercial would encourage
further strip commercial development along 17th Street contrary
to the policies of the Comprehensive Plan, staff recommends that
these requests be denied.
Chairman Scurlock explained the procedures follow�d in a
Public Hearing, and Commissioner Eggert emphasized once again
that the Board cannot approve or disapprove the rezoning today;
all that can be done today is to decide whether or not to forward
the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to the State
Dept. of Community Affairs for their 90 -day review.
In response to some interest in having a public library on
the property fronting Indian River Boulevard, Commissioner Eggert
reported that site is considered too small.
Richard Shearer, Chief of Long -Range Planning, presented
staff's recommendation for denial of general commercial zoning
35
APR 14 1987 BOOK U8 PAGE 35
BOOK �� PhCE �
ARR,14 ,1997
for the subject property, and further recommended that the south
part of the subject property be rezoned to Professional Office
District which is compatible. Mr. Shearer felt the bottom line
is that if this property is included in a node and rezoned to
commercial, there is no assurance that a Promenade would be
built.
Chairman Scurlock realized that the idea of a Promenade is
somewhat attractive to many people, but agreed that the basic
concern is the rezoning of a piece of property without any real
assurances that the proposed development would happen. Another
major concern is the traffic impact. The City -owned piece of
property east of the subject property has a 200 -ft. right-of-way
on Indian River Boulevard, but he understood that the City of
Vero Beach is in the process of limiting the number of uses
allowed in general commercial zoning. Chairman Scurlock stressed
that all the Commissioners have given this matter a great deal of
consideration, but he personally felt he could not vote for a
development that would access either 18th Street or 5th Avenue,
or have its sole access on 17th Street. He believed that Indian
River Boulevard is very critical because deceleration lanes and
another traffic lane could be installed in that 200 -ft. of
right-of-way to accommodate the transportation element. Chairman
Scurlock understood that the City Council will not be discussing
this issue until May 5th, and without that key piece of
information, he would have a hard time voting for this request in
a positive way. if the City decides not to sell the land, then
this development would be looking to 18th Street and maybe 17th
Street for access, and he does not see that as proper ingress or
egress. If we had some way of making sure that what we see is
what we get, then he would be more receptive to the proposal;
however, we don't have a vehicle available at present for that to
take place.
36
7-1
Commissioner Bird felt that a development of this size needs
to have access onto Indian River Boulevard, but he did not know
how -we can get the chicken before the egg since the issue seems
to be bouncing back and forth between the County and the City.
He felt it would help significantly if the developers already had
the property or we could be assured that they would be able to
purchase it and include it in their development.
Chairman Scurlock noted that Vero Beach Mayor John Acor was
in attendance today, and asked if he had any idea of what the
City intends to do, but Mayor Acor did not wish to comment on it
beforehand.
Commissioner Eggert felt we had two decisions today:
Whether or not there should be a commercial node, and if so, what
kind of zoning would be most appropriate. She pointed out that
if the Board decides to send this on to the State, we would have
enough time to review the City's actions before making a final
decision.
Mr. Shearer confirmed that if the Board votes to send this
proposal to the State as is, it would keep all options open;
however, if the Board decides not to transmit the proposal today,
that would be the end of it and it would not go to a public
hearing in 90 days.
Chairman Scurlock opened the Public Hearing and asked if
anyone wished to be heard in this matter.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, representing the applicants,
emphasized that if the Board decides not to transmit the request
to the State, they would be closing off all options, and it would
be 6 months before the applicants could come in with another
rezoning request. In that case, he felt the issue would probably
die on the vine. Attorney O'Haire suggested that a node already
exists in that location and pointed out that the subject property
is surrounded by the power plant, the sewer plant and the new
post office distribution center that is under construction.
B00K uS F,v E 37
A P R 141997 37
L
BOOK 68 FACE 3-8
Immediately to the east of the subject property is the small
piece owned by the City which was rezoned to CI -A a few years
ago. It happens that the City and County's jurisdictions come
together there, but it comports in every way with the nodal
concept of development. Attorney O'Haire stressed that this area
has changed radically since the completion of the 17th Street
Bridge, and did not believe this area will remain residential.
The subject property represents an assemblage of 11 separate
ownerships, every one of which is entitled to access and the
right to use the property in the highest and best use. This
single application is an opportunity to address the access of the
entire parcel instead of having to consider access for 11
separate properties, some of which run from one street to
another. He stressed that we are not talking strip zoning here
-- we are talking about 13 acres with 200-300 feet frontage along
a roadway.
Attorney O'Haire felt that there are really only two issues
involved in this matter, traffic and access, and the rest by and
large are paper tigers. He distributed maps of the area, and
noted that 17th Street east of Albertson's all the way to the
subject property is built out and in place; therefore, there
cannot be a domino effect for commercial zoning. It is
unfortunate that we do not have the machinery in place to do a
site plan and rezoning in•tandem, but he stressed that the
applicants are ready to do it if it could be done.
Chairman Scurlock asked staff if it is possible to create
such a vehicle so that we can consider a site plan when
determining zoning, and Mr. Shearer advised that we don't have
that mechanism under our current ordinances, but believed it
would be possible to devise such an ordinance.
Attorney O'Haire believed they would be perfectly happy with
such a vehicle, which in a sense, would be a PRD for commercial.
He believed the applicants could come up with a site plan in 90
days while the proposed Comp Plan amendment is under review by
the State.
_ ®8
Attorney O'Haire returned to discussing the residential use
in the subject area, and pointed out that a photograph on Page 3
of his presentation shows that foundations next to Pinetree
Village have been standing there for years. He believed that
either somebody is probably trying to keep a site plan alive or
has found out that the residential project they have planned is
not selling. Basically, this property is not feasible for
residential. He admitted that professional office use is a
possibility, but pointed out that there is a glut of office space
in the county at present.
Chairman Scurlock did not want to hear that as anjargument,
because there is an excess of everything in this county, and on
the strength of that argument, everything would have to be zoned
Agricultural.
Attorney O'Haire stated that all he is asking is that the
Board leave the market decisions to the private sector. With
regard to access, he realizes there is concern on the part of the
nearby residents that 18th Street will be used to access the
development. His clients have no desire to have 18th Street used
as access. If this assemblage is kept in place, and if the Comp
Plan is changed as they are requesting, they are in the position
with one of the adjacent owners on 18th Street, Oakmont Terrace
for instance, to ask for a partial abandonment of 18th Street,
which would make it a cul-de-sac from each way and prohibit
through traffic. They are also prepared, through signage and
physical barriers, to make sure that 18th Street does not become
a through street. Attorney O'Haire indicated that his clients'
interest in the City -owned property on the corner is for exposure
of the project and to make sure that nothing goes between their
°., development and the line of sight from 18th Street and the
bridge. It seemed to him that from a traffic design point of
view, access on 18th Street is preferable.
Attorney O'Haire realized that there is a lot of opposition
from the people living in the area, and that this is an emotional
thing, but felt that nothing he could say or the traffic
consultants could say could change people's emotions.
39
APR 14 1987 -
BOOK
He
APR 14197
BOOK 6 8 F,q IE 4 0
emphasized that they don't want to give the community another
Ryanwood, they want to give the people what they see. Attorney
O'Haire felt that staff has painted the worst case scenario with
regard to traffic impact, and noted that Steve Godfrey of
Kimberly -Horne is here today to explain the traffic that will be
generated by the development of the Promenade.
Steve Godfrey, professional engineer of Kimberly -Horne,
stated that they agree with staff's memo which indicates that the
existing peak season traffic on 17th Street is 22,700 vehicles
per day, and they also agree with staff's assessment of the
traffic generation of the site, which will be in the neighborhood
of. 10,000 trips per day. However, it is a different matter when
you go into a little more detailed analysis and allocate those
trips to the actual transportation network.
Chairman Scurlock understood that the County was using
Kimberly -Horne for the design engineering of the extension of
Indian River Boulevard, but Mr. Godfrey believed that assignment
has been completed. Referring to a map of the area, Mr. Godfrey
pointed out that the 10,000 trips generated by the proposed
development will be distributed to the transportation network to
the east and west on 17th Street, and in the immediate future, to
the south on Indian River Boulevard, and to the north when the
extension of Indian River Boulevard is completed. Mr. Godfrey
noted that as you look at the actual detailed application of
those trips to the transportation system, the maximum impact on
any length of roadway is estimated at 4500 trips per day, which
will occur to the west on 17th Street. That is the total trip
travel associated with the site. He noted that shopping centers
have a phenomena called "capture", because many trips are the
result of people stopping to buy something when they really are
on their way to some other place. Mr. Godfrey felt it was safe
to say that the additional trips that can be expected as a result
of this project on the most heavily impacted length of 17th
Street will be between 3300-4500 trips per day. This, of course,
when added to existing volumes provides a level of service B, and
40
there will be other development which will put those figures
higher than that. The point is that the transportation system,
as Ut currently exists and is planned, will be more than adequate
to accommodate the impact of this project. He felt the more
appropriate question regarding this project is that of access.
They feel that access does need to occur via 17th Street as well
as 18th Street. Indian River Boulevard is being designed as a
high type arterial with limitations on access, but that is not to
say that access could not be provided in the form of right turns
in and out. However, if the City property is acquired, he felt
it is unlikely that County staff would make that recommendation.
Based on the firm's experience, Mr. Godfrey felt the intent is to
try to minimize the number of access points to optimize the
carrying capacity of the roadway. Therefore, the 18th Street
connection to Indian River Bou-levard will be important to the
project. To ease the concerns of the residents in the area
about access through 18th Street, there are two ways to solve the
perceived problem of traffic loading in this area: 1) Through
geometric controls, which would be some kind of a physical
structure; and, 2) by severing 18th Street in such a way that a
cul-de-sac would be developed and you would have access to Indian
River Boulevard only. This also would have an effect on limiting
Indian River Boulevard access to the residential area. i He
believed that these are things that can be worked out in the
development of a specific site plan and access plan.
Chairman Scurlock felt that stacking lines are very
important, and pointed out that the stacking line on 6th Avenue
is inadequate during busy times of the day. He also pointed out
that 17th Street cannot be widened, except at the corner site
where there is a 200 -ft. right-of-way on Indian River Boulevard.
Commissioner Bowman asked if the consultants had considered
the amount of traffic that Grand Harbor will be generating, and
Mr. Godfrey explained that they did some preliminary analysis for
1989 and 1995 and identified an adequacy of the transportation
BOOK '8f'A�E
41 r ---
`b�
BOOK 68 PAGE 42
network in 1989. There will be some turn lane improvements
required in the 1995 timeframe, and these have been identified in
the DRI application for the Grand Harbor project.
Chairman Scurlock asked if they had done an analysis on the
truck traffic that will be generated by the post office
distribution center, and Mr. Godfrey replied that they would be
very happy to took into the situation of semi -trucks coming and
going.
Commissioner Bowman was convinced that the traffic problems
in'West Palm Beach were due to the fact that no one ever looked
at traffic at buildout.
Raymond Scent, 1605 71st Court, explained that he was in
favor of the commercial zoning, even though he is in the real
estate business and would benefit more if the property were to
remain residential. He pointed out that this property has had
every opportunity to develop at residential, but hasn't due to
the proximity of the sewer plant, the power plant, and the new
post office distribution center being constructed. Mr. Scent
recalled that the City of Vero Beach addressed this property 3
years ago when they took it to the State for a Comp Plan change
and rezoned it to C1 -A.
Andy Beindorf, 1916 39th Avenue, Vice President of the Vero
Beach Chamber of Commerce, stated that the Chamber's decision to
favor the proposed commercial rezoning is based on the many
economic benefits that this project wilt bring into the community
-- mainly jobs and money. Mr. Beindorf stated that the Chamber
of Commerce is asking the Board to support this rezoning request.
John Acor stressed that he was speaking as a resident, voter
and concerned citizen, not as the Mayor of Vero Beach. He felt
that the Board should consider only the issues of the amendment
to the Comp Plan and the rezoning and not the grandiose site plan
that may or may not be forthcoming. He urged the Board to deny
this rezoning request because once the zoning is changed,
i
42
anything allowed in the general commercial district can be put
there and asked the Board to respect the City's objection to this
rezoning request.
Nancy Offutt, 686 Date Palm Road, admitted that she has
somewhat of an interest in the subject property and wished to
make it clear that she is not speaking on behalf of any organi-
zation. She wondered why Mr. Acor voted in favor of rezoning the
City -owned parcel to commercial when, in effect, it had been
multiple family. She pointed out that the City Planning staff
offered recommendations in favor of the project, and that it is
compatible transition between commercial, multiple family and
single family. Referring to Mr. Acor's comment that the County
should respect the City's objection to the rezoning request, Mrs.
Offutt pointed out that when the City was requesting the rezoning
of that piece, the County offered an objection which was ignored
by the City.
Robert Clark, Attorney representing the residents of Vero
isles, who are opposed to the rezoning of the subject property,
pointed out that there are residents here from 7 different
residential communities in the area of the proposed rezoning, and
asked those people to stand. Approximately two-thirds of those
in attendance stood up. Attorney Clark presented i7 pages of
petitions signed by the residents in Vero Isles who are in
opposition to the proposed rezoning. (Those petitions have been
placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Board.)
Attorney Clark continued, stressing the lack of need for more
commercial and pointed out that 18 out of 23 stores are
unoccupied in Perkins Plaza; Luria's has 36 units unoccupied, and
Ryanwood is 80a empty. He advised that when this came before the
City's Planning 8 Zoning Board, they voted against it 7-2.
Attorney Clark noted that County staff spoke against this
rezoning from the very beginning, but the proposal persists. it
seems that at every public hearing, the crowd has grown, which he
did not feel was organized opposition but rather from (people in
9
43
APP 14 1987 BOOK.
a
Boa 68 PacF 44
the community who are outraged by this proposal. A notice has
been running in the newspaper and Vero Isles has retained him,
but the majority of the people in opposition have come in on
their own because they are concerned and do not want this
rezoning. Based on the County's Comp Plan, they believed they
were living in a residential neighborhood and they want to keep
it that way. Attorney Clark believed the people in the community
overwhelmingly oppose this commercial zoning, and wondered who is
more important, the people or a couple of out-of-town developers.
Bob Flett, President of Pinetree Homeowner's Association,
felt that the notice that appeared in the newspapers several
times leads one to believe that everyone in Pinetree is opposed
to this project. He felt that was not the case. He pointed out
that no one has been authorized to speak for Pinetree, and felt
this is an issue that should be put to the individual voters.
Mr. Flett did not know how many people who stood up a few moments
ago are against the rezoning, but knew that a few of them were in
favor of the Promenade being built there.
Hoyt Howard, speaking as a resident of Vero Beach and not as
a Vero Beach Councilman, preferred to wait until this issue comes
back from the State's review.before making any commitment. After
the comments are back from the State, he hoped this issue would
move along speedily, one way or another. He urged the Board to
transmit the proposal to the State.
Joyce Smith, 906 Pebble Lane in Indian River Shores, stated
that she and her family moved here 9 years ago, and her first
impression of Indian River County was that it is the most
beautiful spot in the country. She felt that this county offers
many benefits, but does lack good shopping. She has to drive to
Melbourne and other cities to get appropriate shopping, and had
considered bringing all her sales receipts for the items that she
has purchased this past year from shops in other cities. Mrs.
Smith stressed that we also need to provide jobs for our young
people and keep our money in our county.
44
John Brenner, resident of Rockridge, directly across 17th
Street, noted that he was one of those who stood up a 'few minutes
ago; and agreed that not all of the people who stood up are
against this rezoning. He did not believe this would be strip
zoning because it is a major piece of property. He felt that if
commercial is not allowed here, then perhaps the Board will
support the alternative mentioned earlier of creating a special
exception zoning restriction to be applied at site plan level.
Mr. Brenner wished to see this rezoning request transmlitted to
the State in order to allow more time for the City and County to
review the alternative.
Frank Kahn, 7000 20th Street, stated that he does not have
any affiliation with the proposed development, but is in favor of
the Promenade because he believes in the future controlled growth
of this community. Having been a merchant all of his life, he
felt that the proposed development has several important points
for its success: Location, shoppers who are interested in
quality and selection, and a- good mix of tenants in the
Promenade. The proposed development will turn 13 acres of land
from a huge, ugly eyesore into a beautiful, income-producing
piece of property that will increase employment and bring
revenues into the county. Mr. Kahn hoped all of the
Commissioners would put their stamp of approval on this project.
Charles Davis, 2732 Cardinal Drive, stated that he sent each
of the Commissioners a letter detailing his reasons for being in
favor of this project. He did not want to belabor those points
again, but wished to point out that if this project goes through,
we can deal with the property as a single unit. During his 22
years as a local realtor, he has always felt that we need a
mechanism to deal with these projects as a unit. Basically, he
has no objection to contract zoning, which he understands is
illegal. Contract zoning allows you to rezone the property based
on the representations of the developer and then hold him to it.
Mr. Davis wished to see a vehicle developed so that this project
i
45 BOOK PAGE ��
APR 14, 1987
600K 68 F'r1GE 46
pointed out that during could be treated in that way. He 9 the
time this proposal is being reviewed by the State, we could
explore all options, one of which is to create a vehicle that
would allow commercial site plans to be considered at the same
time as a rezoning request.
Georgena Fallon, 400 18th Street, Oak Park Terrace, spoke in
opposition due mainly to the domino theory, and wished for the
community to grow in a gracious manner.
Joseph Barnett, Jr., 617 Tulip Lane, felt we have a problem
area more than anything else and that it is the Board's job to
solve this problem. He stated that he is very definitely in
favor of this Promenade.
Gene Lieberman, a retired real estate broker from New
Jersey, felt that the people who are developing this really don't
care. They are in this for the buck. Mr. Lieberman did not feel
the developers are going to get any A-1 stores in a development
of this size, and felt there is no need for this development as
there are plenty of stores within walking distance. With regard
to employment, he pointed out that there are many job
opportunities in this county, because even at his age, he can get
a job and has. Mr. Lieberman believed that if this area is
rezoned to commercial, the developers will build and finance it
out to a financial institution which will not have a dime in it.
Once they get the development rolling along, they will either
resell it at a fancy profit or go bankrupt, in which case the
lending institution will pick up the tab and sell it again.
Peter Beuttell personally believed in the free enterprise
system and the capitalistic way of life and felt the developers
should have the opportunity of having their rezoning request
transmitted to the State. He pointed out that the final decision
would be made in a public hearing after the State has reviewed
the proposal.
J. B. Norton, representing the newly -formed "Council of
100", which is housed at 1216 21st Street in Vero Beach, read the
46
following letter in support of the Promenade that was addressed
to Chairman Tippins of the Planning & Zoning Commission:
,ero beach-
indian river
county
ember of
ommerce 1216 21 STREET P.O. BOX 2947 VERO BEACH, FL 32961 "'005-567-3491
March 10, 1987
The Honorable John Tippin, Chairman
Planning and Zoning Commission
1840 -25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
Dear Chairman `Pippin and Planning Board Members:
As you are aware, the Council of 100 has recently been formed to
"promote and attract corporations and companies to Indian River
County which would enhance and improve the economic balance o;
the community and would contribute to, enhance, and improve the
quality of life, and assist expansion and extension of existing
businesses and industry in Indian River County."
The Council of 100 has established a positive rapport with the
county government which has committed itself �to the same
objectives by recently adding an Economic Development Element to
the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.
The Council of 100 has reviewed the development proposed by
Indian River Associates from the standpoint of economic
development and concludes that it will beneficially expand the
outreach of the non-polluting service industry, provide stable
employment opportunities to a broad base of the polpulation and
recapture outgoing revenues and payroll dollars spent outside the
community.
For these reasons, the Council of 100 supports the request of
Indian River Promenade. We respectfully urge the members of the
Planning and Zoning Board to consider the many economic benefits
of this project and offer a positive recommendation to the Board
of County Commissioners.
Sincerely,
AaKrJV� th 'He
P
47
APP 14-.°98-7
BOOK 6S F'AUE 47
APR 14, IM
BOOK 68 f'AGr 48
Mr. Norton stated that they are in favor of this development
because it would enhance and improve the economical balance of
this community, and urged the Commissioners to authorize the
transmittal to Tallahassee.
Thomas Myers, resident of Oak Park Terrace, suggested that a
shopping center be built in Indian River Shores for those people
on the beach who feel they have to go to other cities to get
quality shopping, rather than building a center at this location
and dumping all the traffic on the west side of the bridge. He
pointed out that the developers and the traffic consultants have
said that 18th Street will not become a through street, but felt
the nearby residents were getting a snow job.
Dan Chastain, 751 South AIA, stated that he has been a
resident of this area for 25 years and is very much in favor of
the Promenade. He hoped that the fine people who are the
principals in this development, especially Harry Offutt, have not
been too deeply offended by being compared to Luria's and other
local shopping malls. He felt this property should be put to its
highest and best use, and that the proposed Promenade would be a
benefit to this community. Mr. Chastain cautioned that if this
quality development is not approved, we do not know what we could
get there in the future. Opportunities to have a project of this
quality do not come along everyday. In addition, he knew several
people in Fairlane Harbor who are looking forward to the shopping
promenade and who feel it will increase the value of their homes.
Mr. Chastain concluded by stating he is in favor of transmitting
the development to the State as it is proposed.
Glenn Pardee, 1124 Capitanilla Drive, expressed his
opposition to the proposed project and his concern about
retaining the integrity of zoning. He also questioned the need
for additional commercial areas, and wondered what was wrong with
Lurias or K -Mart. Mr. Pardee pointed out that new malls are being
proposed for the west side of town where they are really needed.
He also wondered what effect this Promenade would have on the
48
1
shops on the beach. With regard to the traffic that will be
generated by this project, when you divide 10,000 trips into a
10 -hour shopping day, that is 1,000 cars per hour. Add that to
the existing traffic, plus the future traffic on Indian River
Boulevard for those wishing to duck the traffic on U.S.#1, and
there is going to be such a mess it will be unbelievable. He
urged the Board to make a decision today and deny transmittal of
this proposal to the State.
Karl Zimmerman, 3939 Ocean Drive, emphasized that this is a
question of either retaining the multiple -family zoning or
changing it to commercial. If we were asked whether we would
want to live there with its present zoning, he felt we would know
the answer to that. Mr. Zimmerman believed there is a,great deal
of emotionalism involved in this project, but pointed out that
the County is charged with the responsibility of good planning
and zoning. He urged the Board to transmit the proposal to the
State for review, and hopefully, when it comes back, the matter
of the City -owned property fronting Indian River Boulevard will
be decided, which will allow the total package of site plan and
zoning to be considered.
William Koolage, 815 26th Avenue, stated he has lived here
since 1971 and has not found it necessary to shop out of the city
or out of the county in order to purchase his family's
requirements. He stressed that a man's home is his castle
whether it is valued at $25,000 or $250,000. A man has the right
to protect his home, but it seems that there is no protection
when local government rezones surrounding property to commercial.
Mr. Koolage urged the Board not to transmit the proposal to the
State.
Ned Gartner, 651 16th Street, stated he is in favor of the
development. As a member of the Economic Development Council,
the Chamber of Commerce and the "Council of 100", he felt this
project would be of great benefit to this community.
49
APR 14 1981aoo� '8 pv'F49
r-
APR 14 T98.7
6001[ f'A'L 5 0
Lomax Gwathmey, 23 Sea Horse Lane, read into the record the
following letter of opposition by the Civic Association:
THE TH`. ' CIVIC A SSOCIATIOINT it,\ 1.
CIVIC ,t}'_to CO,
ASSN.Vero Beach -and Tndian `River County
CO,
'Since 1.-;6S, presersynz lbstmin, and promotlnir the beauty, natural resources anu
400dgovemmentofVt Beach andlnciianPtver County"
DISTRIBUTION LIST
Commissioners
P. o. Pox 3391 Administrator
Vero Beach, FL Attorney
32964:1^1381 April 6, 1987 - ersonnel
The Honorable Don Scurlock P10lic Works
& Members of the Indian River County Commission ,,cmmunity Dev.
1840 25th Street �l:ilities
Vero Beach, FL 32960 F=inance
Re: Rezoning Request for 13+ Acres Between 17th & 18th Streets and 5th
Avenue & Indian River Boulevard by Sosan/West & Associates.
Dear Commissioners:
The subject rezoning request, which was approved by your Planning &
Zoning Board by a 4 to 1 vote on March 12th, 1987, contrary to the
recommendation of the planning staff, has been of great concern to this
Association.
Our Board of Directors is unanimously opposed to the granting of
this request based on the following primary considerations:
1. Incompatibility with the Comprehensive Land Use Plan
2. Traffic impaction
3. Drainage
4. Rezoning does not insure the construction of the proposed
",Promenade."
C:L.U.P.
The area is predominantly residential. The abutment of subject
land to residential properties does not provide for a gradual
transition. There is insufficient space to accomplish effective
buffering and the use of berms along the north boundary would only
serve to direct noise to the second floor condominiums existing along
18th Street. Commercial zoning of this tract would be contrary to both
the spirit and letter of the principles stated in the Comprehensive
Land Use Plan.
While a goodly portion (primarily the south half) of this land
undoubtedly will not be suitable for residential and may properly
require rezoning in the near future, we would suggest a designation of
"Professional, -Office & Institutions" (P.R.O.) as a more suitable
zoning.
Since the land in question is practically an enclave within the
City of Vero Beach, and the City Planning & Zoning Commission has voted
7 to 2 against rezoning to commercial if annexed into the city, it
appears that the county should, as a good neighbor, honor the city's
Position in the matter.
I 50
Traf f is
The intersection of 17th Street and Indian River Boulevard is
presently heavily traveled at certain times of the day. This traffic
is destined to continue to increase when:
1. Indian River Boulevard is extended, first to the south, then
north to the hospital and eventually by Grand Harbor and back
into U.S. 1 --an effective by-pass of the city, an arterial
road.
2. Beach population increases and the Barber Bridge over capacity
and delays increase.
3. The Twin Pair, east -west thoroughfare is terminated at its
east end in Indian River Boulevard.
4. Grand Harbor development matures, which at build -out could
produce a 7000+ population increase, heavily dependent on
Indian River Boulevard.
Traffic studies are at best an imprecise science. With the
inevitability of the above events, common sense tells us that acute
traffic congestion is destined for this intersection. zoning of
subject land to "Commercial" would only make a bad situation worse.
Drainage
The intensified use of this land through commercial zoning would
increase the run-off tremendously and require a sizable retention
facility to prevent river pollution. It is questionable that such a
facility could be provided, due to space limitations and the very low
elevation of the land in question.
There are no county waste water facilities to serve this land.
Whether the city is obligated to provide such appears problematic and,
therefore, another reason not to rezone it.
"Promenade" J
The basic question is the advisability of rezoning. Regardless of
the integrity, honesty and all good intentions of the developer
requesting this rezoning many things can happen to cause his proposed
use of the land to fall through.
Rezoning of this land must be considered in the light of the
developer's possible inability to carry out the plan as outlined.
These comments and observations are submitted as constructive and
supportive of what seems to us, as best maintaining the fine character
of our community, its ambiance, and charm.
We wish to make it clear that we are not against this or any
proposal for a high class mall for Vero Beach, but are adamantly
opposed to the proposed location.
We strongly recommend against this rezoning request.
For the Board of irectors
Marion P. Newton, President��
Mr. Gwathmey differed with the gentleman who said that the
newspaper notice was misleading, as he believed the ad'was
accurate.
51
'APR 14 1987 Boos n8 ����.
Fr-
APR 14 1987
BOOK 68 PA,UF 52
Chairman Scurlock asked Mr. Gwathmey if he felt they would
still be opposed to the development if a legal mechanism could be
created for a planned commercial development which would allow
the site plan to be considered at the same time as the zoning,
and Mr. Gwathmey believed that they would still prefer another
location for the Promenade.
Judy Hargarten, stated that she works and lives in The
Moorings and felt that quality development is what we have today.
She urged the Board to consider that and keep Vero Beach looking
good. She felt the subject property is presently an eyesore, and
felt we should take the opportunity of having something of
quality built at that location.
Cynthia Peterson, a 26 -year resident of Vero Beach, stated
that she has watched Vero Beach grow in a very orderly manner,
and felt that the proposed development would enhance the
surrounding area. She has several friends living nearby who
believe this development will add to the value of their property.
Mrs. Peterson urged the Board to transmit the proposal to the
State.
Bill Stegkemper, 3030 18th Street, stated he has no
financial interest in this matter whatsoever. He felt that
changing the Comp Plan and granting commercial use for this
property would have a tremendous upward effect on its value.
However, there is another side to the issue. Because it
increases the uses in commercial zoning, the neighborhood homes
will suffer a downward change in value. With regard to the lack
of quality shopping in Vero Beach, he felt that people like to
take an occasional drive to Palm Beach or Melbourne and make it a
day's outing. Mr. Stegkemper urged the Board to follow the
recommendation of staff to deny the rezoning.
Herndon Williams, 27 Forest Park Drive, agreed with most of
the comments made by the proponents of this rezoning. He felt
that we need to establish a vehicle whereby we can be assured
that the developer will build what he says will be built. Mr.
52
Williams felt this project could be nicely buffered from the
surrounding residential area through the site plan process, and
pointed out that many of the people in attendance today are not
in opposition to the Promenade. He emphasized that there are a
large number of senior citizens who are concerned with the
economics of this community. Mr. Williams believed that Vero
Beach is the result of developers who have the community at
heart, and urged the Board to consider the good of the overall
community when making their decision.
James Neal, 400 18th Street, Oak Park Terrace, wanted to
point out that they are concerned with the safety and isolation
from commercial areas, and feel they have enough troubl,le now with
crime and vandalism in the area. Mr. Neal emphasized that if
ll
this goes through, Oak Park Terrace will be right next to
commercial. He stated that when he bought there two yiears ago,
he was surrounded by residential zoning and expected 1t to stay
that way. He hoped the Board would decide to deny thejcommercial
zoning.
John Bowman, a resident of Oak Park Terrace, commented that
although he has an emotional attachment to this issue, he will
put that aside and deal with two points: 1) Multiple -family is
an appropriate use for this property, and 2) If multiple -family
is not correct, then commercial use in certainly not the answer.
He listed the number of families in the nearby residential
developments:
Tarpon Beach Club
64
families
Treasure Coast Isles
100
rr
Vero Isles
135
It
Pinetree Village 1
69
it
Pinetree Village 11
32
if
Oakmont Park
75
it
Oak Park Terrace
135
If
Sunquest Apts.
80
it
Marlowe Apts.
10
tt
Plantation Apts.
33
it
Rockridge Sub.
348
it
Fairlane Harbor
232
it
—T15T7KC= 1'3T3 Tami I i es
53
APR 14 1987
L�
BOOK 68 IL -AU 5,111
IF -
APR 14 797
BOOK ® F'A�E 54
Mr. Bowman emphasized that this is indeed a residential
area, and felt the the remainder of the area will develop at
residential if it is given a chance. With regard to integrity of
zoning, commercial zoning should not come right up against
single-family housing. Mr. Bowman recalled that two or three
months ago the Board turned down an application for commercial
zoning at the corner of 6th Avenue and 17th Street because of
their concern for transition from residential to commercial. He
understood that the Board did not have the option of zoning that
corner to Professional Office District at that time or they would
have done so. In conclusion Mr. Bowman maintained that if the
property is allowed to develop residential, there will be about
130 units built in there, which will bring in families from other
parts of the country and state who will being their money with
them, but if the property is rezoned to shopping, such as Lord &
Taylors or Jordan Marsh, money will -be leaving the community and
going to the stockholders of those firms. Off the subject, Mr.
Bowman noted that in several meetings he has attended, material
is presented only to the Commissioners and the audience does not
know what is being discussed and cannot participate.
Commissioner Bowman suggested that we need to purchase an
opaque projector to show that type of material up on a screen for
all to see.
Ross Bell, 1855 Bay Road, stated he has an interest in the
subject property and has been an investor in this area since
1975. He presently owns 4 lots in the Maroon Subdivision back of
the Village Shops on the barrier island, and felt that the nearby
shopping center is a definite advantage to the adjacent homes.
He pointed out that his properties have tripled in value since
1975. Mr. Bell felt that it is very interesting during these
public hearings to hear what people would do with other people's
money. He held up a copy of an artist's rendering of the
proposed development and informed the Board that when they handed
54
out copies of this rendering at the Planning S Zoningimeeting, a
woman got up and pulled all of these copies away from the people
who were sitting on the aisles. He stressed that anyone who
feels that traffic will not increase in this county in the future
still believes in the tooth fairy. Traffic will increase as more
and more families move it. Mr. Bell explained that they have
held that property for over 5 years on the advice of Harry
Offutt, and if this zoning is approved today, he intends to use
the option he has on this property. He urged the Board to give
this issue their fair and honest consideration.
Attorney William Collins, 601 21st Street, representing a
group of property owners in the area who call themselves
"Citizens for Responsible Zoning", read aloud the following
Written Comments, noting that everything that is shown in bold
print is a direct referral to the County's Comprehensive Land Use
Plan. In addition, he stressed that the DCA is going to be
reviewing the plan for compliance and he would like to focus on
whether or not this amendment is consistent with the Comp Plan:
BOOK f'�GEe
55
APR 14 198
RPR 14 1987
To:
BOOK 68 FAGc 56
WRITTEN COMMENTS
Board of County Commissioners of Indian River
County
From: "Citizens for Responsible Zoning", an association
of persons owning property, residing, or owning or
operating businesses within the boundaries of Indian
River County (See Appendix A for names and addresses).
Re: Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment by an ordinance
of Indian River County, Florida, amending the Land Use
Element of the Comprehensive Plan by creating a thirteen
acre commercial node on the northside of 17th Street west
of Indian River Boulevard.
Date: April 14, 1987 publicly advertised transmittal hearing.
Introduction
The "Citizens for Responsible Zoning" submit the following written
comments on the above Plan Amendment for review by Indian River
County prior to the adoption hearing on the Plan Amendment, pursuant
to Florida Statute 163.3184(7). Consideration of and response to
these public comments is required as a minimum criteria for
compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes under Rule 9J-5.004
(2)(d), Florida Administrative Code.
Since F.S. 163.3187(2) states "comprehensive plans may only be
amended in such a way -to preserve the internal consistency of the
plan pursuant to s. 163.3177(2)", the primary focus of these
written comments shall be on whether this proposed amendment is
consistent with the Indian River County Comprehensive Plan of
June 12, 1985. Additional consideration will be given to compli-
ance of the plan amendment to Rule 9J-5, F.A.C., the minimum
criteria for review of local government comprehensive plans by
the State Department of Community Affairs. The language of the
Plan and the Rule may be somewhat paraphrased herein to enhance
readability, but the substance is maintained in all cases and
footnotes are provided for reference to the express language of
the Plan and the Rule.
AMENDMENT'S INTERNAL CONSISTENCY WITH PLAN
1. The Plan states "Commercial uses...appear to be adequate
for current needs."1 "The amount of commercial land outside
the City is generally sufficient to accomodate the outlying
population."
Comment: Page 15 of the Plan contains an inventory of lands
in Indian River County as of 1982. At that time there was one
(1) acre of commercially developed land for every sixteen (16)
acres of residentially developed land. However, for every
eight and two thirds (8 2/3) acres of vacant residential
land there was one (1) acre of.vacant commercial land. This
means that there is currently enough vacant commercially
zoned land to service double the historically demonstrated
need for commercial zoning. This proposed plan amendment
would change thirteen acres from Medium Density Residential .
(10 units/acre) to General Commercial. In a recent case,
the Fourth District Court of Appeals stated that "where the
zoning authority approves a use more intensive than that
proposed by the plan,...the decision should be subject to
stricter scrutiny then the fairly debatable standard contem-
plates".3
-I 56
2. Land Use Objective #2 of the Land Use Element of the Plan
is that "Incompatible uses should be separated from one.
another. Where they do abut, appropriate physical or
natural buffers will be established."4
Comment: Residential and Commercial uses are not necessarily
incompatible with each other. However, in the case of this
plan amendment there is great potential for incompatability.
In the worst case, eleven separate parcels within this node
could develop as general commercial uses, and five of these
parcels front only on 18th Street, a two-lane residential
street. At best, the node would develop under a unified plan,
but the spillover of shopping center car and truck traffic,
noise and debris would still impact the residential areas
adjacent, especially if the lack of barriers allowed access
to 18th Street. Even if no direct access was provided,
shoppers returning to the beach would be tempted'to shortcut
through residential neighborhoods to avoid circling around
an extra mile on the major street system, or to avoid
dangerous U-turns on 17th Street.
3. The Plan's general commercial land use policy is that all
areas of commercial development shall be located;to discourage
strip development patterns which negatively affect safety,
land use patterns and the traffic handling capacity of the
transportation system.5
Comment: Changing the plan in this location to general
commercial will create additional pressure to convert the
existing, stable and well-maintained residentialineighborhoods
between 6th Avenue and Indian River Boulevard to commercial
uses. Instantly increasing the trip generation characteristics
of the subject property by ten (10) times6 cannot add to the
safety, stability or property values of the nearby residen-
tial areas. Adding the estimated 9450 average annual daily
trips from this general commercial parcel to 17th Street would
utilize 300 of this arterial's Level of Service C capacity of
31,000 average annual daily trips.? This is a decidedly
negative impact on the traffic handling capacity of the road
system from one small area change in land use. While 17th
Street might still operate within its design capacity, the
spillover affect on adjacent residential streets might
immediately push those streets above their design,•capacity
to handle traffic.
4. The Plan's residential land use policy #3 is that!"Residential
development shall be encouraged to locate in areas easily
accessible to employment and service centers."8
Comment: The area of the proposed plan amendment is located
in an area accessible to employment and service centers
within one mile, such as Miracle Plaza, Treasure Coast Plaza,
the U.S. Highway 1 commercial strip, and numerous banks and
office buildings. The accessibility of this land, parcel, and
its residential environs no doubt had some bearing on its
Plan designation as Medium Density Residential.
57
i�
f
BOOK V FADE 57
APP 14 1937
BOOK 6 8 f',�Gr 58
5. An objective of the Plan is to "Maintain level -of -service
C, or better, on all major thoroughfares in the County."9
Comment: Although the proposed amendment would leave
the adjacent thoroughfares at level -of -service C on an
annual basis, and at level -of -service D in peak season,
those are "minimum standards" under the Plan.10 It would
seem more desirable to not amend the plan, thereby aiding
in meeting Plan objectives, rather than amending the Plan,
and having road service drop to a minimum standard.
6. Plan performance standards for medium density residential
locations say that such uses "shall be located... where
governmental services can be provided in a cost effective
manner."11 Plan design performance standards include
"buffering living units.. -.from commercial uses ... utility
plants and principal streets near the site."12
Comment: This parcel, as planned for medium density
residential, is proximate to public power, wastewater
treatment, major roads, employment and service centers.
It could be served very efficiently by government, were
it to develop residentially as planned. The Plan -design
performance standards mandate buffering. This could be
accomplished by berming, landscaping, physical barriers
or some combination of all three. The effectiveness of
this technique is apparent to anyone driving north on
A -1-A through Johns Island, a developed area that'�appears
undeveloped from the road.
7. The Plan's strategies for commercial development mandate
"Future sites shall locate in specified nodal areas."13
The pperformance standards for retail and service commercial
uses14 state that "Traffic generated should not pass thru
residential neighborhoods" and "traffic ingress and egress
should not disrupt through traffic."
Comment: The parcel proposed for Plan amendment is not
within a specified node. Because the site is adjacent
to the Vero Beach City limits, consideration should be
given to the commercial areas nearby in the City before
a new commercial node is created. Hundreds of acres of
vacant commercial sites already exist within nodes.
If the performance standard of not having commercial traffic
pass through residential neighborhoods is to be accomplished
this parcel's access would have to be restricted to 17th
Street. The other performance standard of not disrupting
through traffic on 17th Street can be accomplished through
acceleration and deceleration lanes mixing site and 17th
Street traffic. However, if traffic accelerating west onto
17th Street wanted to return east to the barrier island,
there is a great likelihood that traffic would loop through
residential streets rather than driving several extra miles
around the major street system.
8. The Plan's special policy regulating nodal areas #4 states
"Commercial centers within all nodes shall have 4.5 square
feet of land area to everone (1) square foot of building
space whenever possible."y 5
-3
Comment: According to this policy, a 13 acre site within
a commercial node could support 102,960 square feet of building
space. This policy is likely related to the Plan's Drainage
Policy #lal6 "The first inch of stormwater runoff shall be
absorbed or retained on-site as a minimum." The proponent
of plan amendment is suggesting a 200,000 square foot
shopping center. These policies raise some doubts about
the suitability of the site for such intensive use.
9. The Plan's Transportation Element as it relates to the
Intergovernmental Coordination Element states "The provision
of adequate transportation is a respponsibility shared by state,
county, and municipal governments."17
Comment: The City of Vero Beach Planning and Zoning Board
was presented the same proposal for Plan Amendment on December
18, 1986, and rejected the amendment by vote of 7-2, partially
based on traffic concerns. A certified copy of the minutes of
that meeting is submitted and incorporated by reference into
these comments.
D.O.T. approved curb -cuts in the 17th Street median and
further signals required by a commercial use would diminish
.good traffic flow on 17th Street.
10. The Plan's traffic service and demand policy statement #3
calls for additional north -south thoroughfares west of the
Indian River to alleviate unstable traffic flow conditions
on U.S. Highway 1.19 Traffic service and demand policy state-
ment #6 says design standards should provide sufficient
carrying capacity so that at least 40 MPH can be maintained
on arterials in urban areas.19
Comment: Indian River Boulevard is the only north -south
arterial west of the Indian River shown on the Count 's Year
20U0 thoroughfare plan, other than U.S. 1 and I-95.2 It is
apparent that policy statement #3 relief to U.S. 1 can only
be provided by Indian River Boulevard, and the 40 MPH speed
recommended in policy statement #6 is more likelylto be
achieved if Indian River Boulevard functions as a bypass
with limited access and frontage roads. Its bypass function
would be diminished if it were required to provide access
to shopping centers. Rather than alleviating congested
U.S. 1, a new area of congestion might arise.
"11. Transportation safety policy statement #3 calls f9r marginal
access (frontage) roads as parts of developments located
along arterials with points of access spaced at quarter
mile intervals.L
Comment: An example of such a "safety" road segregating arterial
and development traffic can be seen along Indian River Boule-
vard and Royal Palm Boulevard, west and north of Vero Isles.
Such a frontage road along 17th Street would increase safety
at the site of the proposed amendment for commercial use, but
diminish the site size, and would be difficult to integrate
with existing residential development to the west of the site.
Were the parcel to develop Medium Density Residential as
planned, access could be off a residential street (18th Street).
-4-
59
BOOK FADE
_ -
PR 1A 1987
BOD)( F'1;E
12. The Plan's Transportation development impact policy statement
#1 says that for assessing the impact of additional proposed
development, the road design capacity of a four -lane divided
road is 24,000.22
Comment: Adding the estimated 9450 additional trips generated
by the proposed general commercial use of this parcel to the
current 22,700 AADT23 would put 17th Street not only above
the Plan's design capacity, but above the level -of -service C
design capacity of 31,000 as set out in the 1986 Barton-Aschman
Study.24
13. The Plan's Housing Element Objective is to encourage the
development of a safe and convenient housing supply which
is accessible to public services and facilities.—to satisfy
the needs of all income levels within the community.25
Comment: A plan amendment which deletes property suitably
planned for Medium Density Residential development (up to
10 units/acre) does not further, but hinders the Housing
Element objectives.
14. The Plan's Intergovernmental Coordination element says the
County should establish an advisory committee representing all
governmental entities ... to interface plans.26
Comment: Such coordination with Vero Beach would,show the
property adjacent to be residential, as the County.Plan
currently has the parcel proposed for amendment designated.
RULE 9 J-5 COMPLIANCE
15. Rule 9J-5.005(4) requires internal consistency between
plan elements.
Comment: Since this proposed plan amendment appears incon-
sistent with at least a dozen of the Comprehensive Plan's
statements, policies, objectives, etc., it is questionable
whether this minimum criteria can be achieved.
16. Rule 9J -5.006(2)(C) requires a Land Use Analysis of the
character of vacant or undeveloped land to.determine its
suitability for use.
Comment: An analysis of this site against the performance
standards of the Plan for medium density residential would
show the site suitable for that use.27
17. Rule 9J-5.006(3) requires statements of goals and objectives.
Comment: We are unaware of this proposed plan amendment
furthering any of the Plan's stated goals and objectives.
In view of the inventory of vacant sites planned for commercial
use,28 we suggest no public goals or objectives would.be
furthered by this proposed plan amendment.
18. Rule 9J -5.007(3)(b)(2) requires coordination of the traffic
circulation system with the future land uses shown on the
future land use map.
Comment: Rather than coordinating land uses with the traffic
system objectives,29, this proposed amendment would result
in the gobbling up of great chunks of road capacity by in-
creasing trip generations by 10 times over currently planned.
uses (multiple residential) or other alternative uses
(professional offices) for this parcel.
t'
5-
19. Rule 9J -5.010(3)(b)(3) requires adequate sites for housing
for low and moderate income families.
Comment: The immediate vicinity of this propose �1 amendment is
comprised of several established, well-maintaineld, moderate
income residential neighborhoods. The site of the proposed
amendment could easily develop in a similar manner if the
plan is not amended. ,
20. Rule 9J -5.015(3)(b) requires an intergovernmental coordi-
nation element with objectives to coordinate the County plan
with the plan of a City which provides service but has no
regulatory authority over the use of the land, and to address
the impacts of developments on adjacent municipalities.
Comment: "Coordination of the local comprehensive plan with
the plans of adjacent municipalities ... shall be a major
objective of the local comprehensive planning process."
F.S. 163.3177(4)(a). Taking this legislative mandate seriously
would result in careful consideration of the impact of this
proposed amendment on nearby stable residential neighborhoods.
Additional traffic and safety problems, delivery trucks and
garbage pickup noise and changing neighborhood character are
all likely impacts. The City Planning and Zoning Board rejected
this proposed amendment 7-2, and the City will be the provider
of wastewater service to this site.
CONCLUSION
From the above analysis, Citizens for Responsible Zonling conclude
that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is not
consistent with the overall provisions and purposes of the
Comprehensive Plan. Since the internal consistency requirement for
plan amendments under F.S. 163.3187(2) are not met, this proposed
plan amendment should be denied by the Board of County Commissioners.
The pertinent documents cited to in these comments are attached
as exhibits and/or incorporated by reference.
-6-
Prepared by:
WILLIAM G. COLLINS II,ATTORNEY AT LAW. SUITE 408/ BARNETT BANK BLDG./ 601 TWENTY FIRST STREET f VERO BEACH FLORIDA 329601 TELEPHONE 13051 562 -WW
Attorney Collins entered into the record a certified copy of
the Minutes of the December 18, 1986, meeting of the Planning and
Zoning Board of the City of Vero Beach. (Those minutes have been
placed on file in the Office of the Clerk to the Court.)
Attorney Collins concluded his presentation by emphasizing that
the Citizens for Responsible Zoning conclude that the proposed
amendment to the Comprehensive Land Use Plan is not consistent
with the overall provisions and purposes of the Comp Plan, and
since 12 requirements for consistency are not met under Florida
Statute, feet this proposed Comp Plan amendment should be denied
by the Board of County Commissioners.
Commissioner Eggert asked staff if the County is still
functioning under the 9J.5 requirements, and Robert Keating,
61 BOOK FAG -
APR 14.987
APR 1411997
FAGE
Director of Planning & Development, advised that some of the 9.1.5
criteria are applicable in review of Comp Plan amendments, but
most of these characteristics that Attorney Collins mentioned
would be addressed in the new Comp Plan that is going to be
developed.
Ron Bell, 2636 Laurel Drive, speaking as a private
individual, stated he is a proponent of the proposed development.
Professionally, he is a marketing consultant and would like to
take issue with a statement made by Mr. Bowman in regard to the
subject property developing as residential if left alone. Three
years ago his firm was asked to do an extensive marketing study
on the proposed site and they reached the conclusion that due to
the functional obsolescence of the site and the proximity of the
power and sewer plants, that location was unmarketable as
residential. Mr. Bell did not feel that particular site is an
acceptable site for residential development because of the
surrounding industrial atmosphere. He believed the proposed
commercial development of a high quality and character shopping
facility would be a definite benefit to the overall area.
Chairman Scurlock asked why would people want to shop there
if they didn't want to live there, and Mr. Bell pointed out that
they would be shopping in an air-conditioned environment, they
would be in and out of there briefly, but living there is a
different matter.
Richard Rice, resident of Tarpon Island Club, wanted to go
on record as opposing the zoning change from residential to
commercial and supported the comments made by Mayor Acor.
Bill Nelson, 230 14th Street, asked if this wasn't contract
zoning in a round -about way, and wondered if this property would
be rezoned if the developer had chosen another location for the
Promenade. He explained that he lives on 14th Street which.is
opposite from the Strazzulla Brothers' property, which is all
cleared and just waiting to see what happens today. If 17th
Street is rezoned to commercial, how could the County refuse
62
commercial to the Strazzutla Brothers and all the other property
owners along Indian River Boulevard from 4th Street to 34th
Street. Mr. Nelson felt it was not necessary for this
$23 -million shopping to be built in his backyard. He compared it
to being given a $23 -million boat; he could look at it, but
couldn't afford to use it.
Ed Llerena, 924 Riomar Driver, speaking as a private citizen
and not as a member of the City's Planning & Zoning Board, stated
he is in favor of the Promenade, but in another location. He
believed that traffic and the destabilization of a residential
area are the two key points in this issue. He suggested that
before this proposal is sent to Tallahassee, the City and County
sit down and consider all the problems and alternatives.
Attorney Michael O'Haire, making his closing remarks in
favor of the rezoning, referred to Chairman Scurlock's question
of why people.would want to shop there when they did not want to
live there. He explained that the whole purpose of the promenade
concept is an inter -directed shopping facility, so that the
shoppers' attention is concentrated on what is going on inside.
He stressed that 900 of what we have heard in this lengthy public
hearing has been site plan considerations, and believed all of
these concerns could be addressed through a mechanism that was
suggested earlier whereby a site plan and zoning could be
considered in tandem. Attorney O'Haire could not understand why
the Board would drop any of the options in this matter, and urged
the Board to transmit the proposal to the State for review.
After four hours of discussion, there being no others who
wished to be heard, the Chairman declared the Public Hearing
closed.
Commissioner Eggert felt that in all fairness to the
community this proposal should be transmitted to the State for
review, which would allow more time to look at additional traffic
information and consider all alternatives.
X
APR 14 1987
BOOK FADE 6Py
BOOK 68 PA -GE 64
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bird, that the Board authorize transmittal
of the proposal to the State for a 90 -day review, with
the understanding that in the meantime, after receiving
further traffic data, full consideration would be given
to all alternatives.
Under discussion, Commissioner Bird explained that he
seconded the Motion because he feels that the property owner has
the right to use his property at the highest and best use if it
does not negatively impact the surrounding property. From what
he has heard today, he does not feel that the negatives offset
the benefits, and believed we have a unique situation here and an
ability to tie a fragmented piece of property together that holds
more threat to the residents in the area in its fragmented
condition than it does in a consolidated development. Further,
during the time the proposal is in Tallahassee, the County can
establish a vehicle to allow site plans and zoning to be
considered in tandem. Commissioner Bird stated that he owns a
multiple -family unit in that area and the value has gone down in
the last few years because there is a glut of multiple -family
units available. He felt the proposed Promenade done with the
proper restrictions with agreements would really be in the best
interests of everyone concerned.
Commissioner Wheeler asked for clarification on what is
included in the recommendation that we would be sending to the
State, and Commissioner Eggert explained that we are simply
approving transmittal.
Director Keating advised that if transmittal is approved,
the proposal would be sent to Tallahassee with the backup
material included in today's Agenda.
Chairman Scurlock admitted that since this issue first came
up, he has been on both sides and in between. He felt the
Promenade is a very positive concept. In fact, he encouraged the
I
64
existing developer to come through the County process,so that we
could take a look at it with no assurances that he would vote one
way -or the other. The Chairman felt that it was inappropriate
that this matter was being considered by the City of Vero Beach
when the property had not been annexed as yet. He believed that
the County was the place to begin. He reported that he walked
that property and realizes it is a very difficult piece of
property to deal with, but felt that his main concern should be
what is best for the County. He intended to vote against the
Motion because of the 13,000 daily trips that would be generated
under the best scenario. He reported that he called all the
various entities that have considered the site, Jordan'Marsh,
Burdines, Jacobson's, etc., and the bottom line is that they do
not plan on locating here until we reach 150,000 in population.
Commissioner Eggert understood that if transmittal is denied
today, it would be 6 months before another rezoning request could
be submitted, and stressed that the intent behind her Motion was
that all alternatives could be explored during the 90 -day review
by the State.
Commissioner Bowman wanted to put this issue to bed today,
and stated she will vote against the Motion because she feels
that 13 acres is not large enough for the proposed development.
She would like to see a Promenade, but certainly not where it is
being proposed, and until we are big enough to accommodate a
large store, she felt we would be making a mistake to load up
17th Street.
Commissioner Wheeler felt we should stay consistent with the
past action we have taken on 17th Street. In addition, he felt
there is a lot of other commercial property that can be developed
with this type of concept, and would like to see something like
that happen in the County. However, the best he would go for is
a PRO on the front of the property with a 2-1/2 acres as a buffer
to multiple family within the area.
�i
BOOK
65
APR 14 1987
BOOK 68 F1'UE 8
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION. The Motion
was voted on and failed by a vote of 2-3, Commissioners
Scurlock, Bowman, and Wheeler voting in dissent.
MINUTES OF THE AFTERNOON SESSION FOLLOW,
with Deputy Clerk Virginia Hargreaves taking over
from Deputy Clerk Barbara Bonnah for the remainder
of the meeting.
66
The Board of County Commissioners recessed at 1:20 o'clock
P.M. for lunch and reconvened at 2:00 P.M. with all members
present.
PUBLIC HEARING - DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS REQUEST TO AMEND CP &
REZONE 4.4 ACRES
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 Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
a
in the ' Court, 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 be rem this day ofA.D.31)
._L__
/ Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cou , Indian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
WAY OF RECORD.
A publro' hearing jet: which parties in In
and aitizenUshall have an opportunity
heard, will be held by the Board of County
missioners of Indian River County, Florida,
County Commission Chambers of the C
Street, Vero Beach; Florida; on Tuesday, Aprl
14,1987 at 9:05 a.m.
The Board of County CommisslonerS will
take flnal.action on this rezoning request et !h
meeting..,
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decision.
which maybe made at this meeting will need to
ensure thataxerbatim record of the proceedings
Is made which includes the testimony and
dance upon. which the appeal Is based.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Chairman
March 25, 1987 „ , .
Chief Planner Shearer made the following presentation:
67
BOOK O PAGE 67
APP 14 1987
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS,
Robert M. Keatig, P INC. REQUEST TO AMEND THE
Planning & Developm&fit Director COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
AND REZONE APPROXIMATELY
4.4 ACRES
FROM: Richard M. Shearer REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Development Partners, Inc., an agent for the Beach Bank, the
trustee, is requesting to amend the Comprehensive Plan by
redesignating 4.4 acres from LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up
to 6 units/acre), to Commercial, and to rezone from RM -6,
Multiple -Family Residential District, to CG, General Commercial
District. The applicants intend to develop the subject property,
and 18 contiguous acres to the south, for a shopping center. The
applicants are making this request so that they can align their
entranceway on the westside of Kings Highway with the existing
entranceway to Ryanwood on the eastside of Kings Highway.
Because the County's Comprehensive Plan is structured to
concentrate commercial development in nodes, and because of the
subject property's location adjacent to the existing Kings
Highway and State Road 60 node, this application is considered a
request to enlarge the existing node from 160 to,'165 acres.
On March 6, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners enlarged the
Kings Highway and State Road 60 node from 140 to 160 acres.
On April 10, 1985, the Board of County Commissioners adopted an
ordinance establishing boundaries for the 160.acre Kings Highway
and State Road 60 node.
On March 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
3 -to -2 to recommend approval of these requests.
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 Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject
property is a 10 acre parcel o= land which is undeveloped and
zoned RM -6. Nrth@f ftorth, approximately 350 feet north of the
subject pr8Ptftyj ie Rivera Estates, a single-family subdivision
zoned RJ=6; gingle-Family Residential District (up to 6
units/adf@): bagt of the subject property, across Kings Highway,
is Ayanwadd Shopping Center zoned CG. South of the subject
property is undeveloped land and a bank zoned CG. Further south,
across State Road 60, is undeveloped land, a fruit stand, a
single-family residence and a water tower zoned CG. West of the
subject property is undeveloped land zoned RM -6, Multiple -Family
Residential District (up to 6 units/acre).
68
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land north and west of it as LD -2, Low -Density Residential 2 (up
to 6 units/acre). The land east and south of the subject
property is included in the Kings Highway and State Road 60
commercial node.
In analyzing this request, staff looked at
commercial acreage available in this node anc
applicant's request from the aspect of aligning
the proposed commercial development on the west
Highway with the existing entrance to Ryanwood on
Kings Highway. Currently, this node contains 160
acreage broken down as follows:
1) Winn-Dixie Shopping Center and adjacent
commercial uses west of 43rd Avenue
2) Indian River Farms Drainage District
office and Mobil Service Station
3) Ed Schlitt Agency
4) First Union West Side Banking Facility
5) Ryanwood Shopping Center
6) Oak Terrace Restaurant Site
7) Vacant Commercial property located east
of Kings Highway
8) County water tower & City power
substation
9) Florida National Bank
10) Vacant Commercial property located west
of Kings Highway
the amount of.
l analyzed the
:he entrance to
side of Kings
the eastside of
acres with the
6.38 acres
.59
acres
.19
acres
1.79
acres
18.68
acres
2.1
acres
70.81 acres
1.53 acres
2.0 acres
55.94 acres
Based on this acreage breakdown, there are 33.26 acres of land in
the node which are developed in commercial uses, and 126.75 acres
which could be developed for commercial use. The existing
commercial development represents approximately 21 percent of the
acreage of the node. In August of 1985, the existing commercial
development in the node accounted for 11.05 acres or 7 percent of
the acreage of the node. While there is still a large amount of
land in the node available for development, the percentage
devoted to commercial use has increased rapidly and is
anticipated to continue to increase as the State Road 60 corridor
continues to develop.
In analyzing the applicant's desire to align their entranceway
with Ryanwood's entrance on Kings Highway, staff notes,that it is
desirable to align such entranceways from a traffic circulation
standpoint and that the alternative is to have an entranceway to
the property on the westside of Kings Highway located closer to
State Road 60. Staff also notes that _if the subject property is
included in the node and rezoned commercial there would be a ten
acre parcel of land left between the subject property and the
single-family subdivision to the north which could be developed
for multiple -family residences to create a land use buffer.
Transportation
The subject property has direct access to Kings Highway
(classified as an arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare
Plan). If developed with the property to the south, direct
access would also be available to State Road 60 (also classified
as an arterial street). Development of the subject property and
the adjoining 18 acre parcel of land for a shopping center could
generate up to 9,868 average annual daily trips (AADT). State
Road 60 currently carries approximately 14,000 AADT at
K.
BOOK 6 F,,Ut 69
Soot 68 Fvcr 7
level -of -service "A". Kings Highway currently carries 5,100 AADT
at level -of -service "A". This additional traffic would not lower
the level -of -service on State Road 60 or Kings Highway.
Moreover, Kings Highway is scheduled to be rebuilt as a four -lane
divided road with left turn lanes during 1987 which will improve
traffic conditions in this area.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
Utilities
County water and wastewater facilities are available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, staff recommends that the Board of
County Commissioners authorize the staff to transmit this
Comprehensive Plan amendment request to the State for review.
Commissioner Bowman asked what assurance we have that the
350' buffer will stay there, and Chief Planner Shearer noted that
it is zoned multiple family now, and in order to change that to
commercial, the Board would have to amend the Comprehensive Plan
and rezone the property.
Discussion ensued regarding the proposed road alignment, and
Planner Shearer pointed out that the commercial zoning is south
of Ryanwood's entrance on the west side. The alignment is about
750' north of SR60 which provides a good distance. On the west
side of King's Highway the commercial zoning only goes back 600'
whereas on the east side it goes back 114 mile. Originally, two
years ago, they proposed going back all the way to the residen-
tial area, but they withdrew that request and now are proposing
to go back 150' to align their entranceway with the road that
goes into Ryanwood.
Commissioner Eggert asked if a light would be put there, and
Planner Shearer stated that would be a possibility if traffic
warranted it, but it is not warranted now. In staff's analysis
and based on the fact the King's Highway is being improved,.both
King's Highway and SR60 would be able to maintain level of
Service "A".
70
1
Commissioner Wheeler inquired about Development Partners
immediate plans, and Planner Shearer was not sure, but stated
they have had a interest in this site for some time.
Commissioner Bird inquired how much of a strip will be left
between there and the single family, and Planner Shearer stated
there will be 3591, which is now zoned multi -family RM -6.
Commissioner Bowman asked if there is a possibility this
would be used as access to the DeBartolo mall when and if it is
built.
Chairman Scurlock did not believe it would connect, and
Planner Shearer did not know if it does or not, but noted that
DeBartolo is looking at three sites.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing
Development Partners. He stated that the sole purpose of this
request is to align the entry of this property with the entry of
Ryanwood, and both the Planning staff and the Planning & Zoning
Commission have made a recommendation in favor of that. Attorney
O'Haire believed the design for King's Highway has been
completed, construction is underway, and there is a turn lane
designed and going into place here, and that is why they are
asking for this. The property to the north is a little in excess
of 10 acres of multiple family. The question is where does it
stop, and the answer is that it stops when the stopping makes
sense, and he would suggest that aligning the entryways rather
than staggering them makes a lot of sense. Attorney O'Haire
further stated that if DeBartolo is planning to go in that
vicinity, they have not been in touch with his clients.
Barbara Bonnah, resident of Rivera Estates, stated that this
is the second time they have been on the agenda following lengthy
discussions of the Promenade, and unfortunately, they have lost a
few of the people from Rivera Estates who had been at the meeting
this morning. Mrs. Bonnah noted that at the Planning Zoning
Commission meeting, they submitted a petition with signatures of
71 BOOK 68 WAGE 71
AIPR 14 IW -7
r APR 14 197 1
BOOK 68 7
69 who strongly oppose the request of Development Partners, and
she could not understand why the Planning and Engineering staff
seem to like the idea of lining up these two driveways. It is a
mess for those who live there to get in and out now when 33 of
the stores in Ryanwood are still unoccupied, and apparently a
Burger King is going to come in and use their access also. She
wished to be assured a traffic light will be installed if one is
needed, and she believed that one is needed because just those
few stores that are open in Ryanwood generate a lot of traffic,
and they see near misses every day. Mrs. Bonnah also was afraid
of having commercial coming right up to their back yards. Rivera
Estates is an area of nice homes; it is 1/4 of a mile back from
SR60, and the residents should not have to worry about having
commercial encroaching on their back yards. She noted that many
have their life savings invested there, and she personally will
move if the commercial is allowed to abut them because she does
not want to spend her life looking at the back of a super market.
Mrs. Bonnah asked that the Board consider why it is necessary to
increase the node just because somebody wants to align their
driveway so.they have a little nicer site to offer someone.
Commissioner Bowman asked how else they would get in there.
It was noted there is a driveway further south, but Commissioner
Bowman believed that is Barnett Bank and asked if it is all the
same owner.
Chief Planner Shearer explained that Florida National Bank
has 2 acres on the northwest corner of the intersection, and they
are surrounded by property that the Beach Bank is Trustee for.
Commissioner Eggert believed that is two different owners;
so, there is potential for two different entrances.
Mrs. Bonnah commented that they cannot seem to find out
whether Development Partners owns what they already have zoned
commercial in the front or if they just have an option on the
piece in question today. She noted that she was told Wallace and
Chinn own that whole remaining parcel of multiple family.
72
Planner Shearer advised there has been a 36 acre piece of
property there for a number of years under the ownership of Beach
Bank as Trustee, and there are 4 and 5 owners including Chinn.
The Beach Bank is listed as the owner on the application, and
Development Partners is the applicant and has proper
authorization to apply for the rezoning.
Commissioner Eggert asked who owns the commercial property
directly to the south, and was advised that it is Beach Bank as
Trustee.
Mrs. Bonnah felt that Development Partners apparently only
has an option then, but Attorney O'Haire stated that they have a
contract.
Commissioner Bird asked, assuming that people are going to
cross shop, does it make sense from a planning perspective to
have the entranceways aligned.
In the following discussion, Commissioner Eggert believed
from the standpoint of safety, it is better to have them aligned,
and Commissioner Bowman noted that if there is going to be a
traffic light, it is certainly better to have them aligned at the
light.
Planner Shearer advised that if the entrances are offset, we
have an ordinance requiring that they be offset a minimum of
2501. That would result in having an entranceway within 500' of
SR60, and both Traffic Engineering and Planning staff feels that
from the safety aspect, having the entranceways aligned would be
better.
Mrs. Bonnah wished to suggest that there be a little road in
from SR60 and running parallel to it (a service road) which
wouldn't impact King's Highway. She commented that the residents
of Rivera Estates realize that growth is coming and they can't
stop it, but they are using the traffic argument so they don't
have commercial in their back yards.
Planning Director Keating noted that even if the property in
question eras under separate ownerships, if it and the property to
73
BOOF 73,
APR 1'
APR 14.1987
BOOK 6 8 f'AGE 74
the south were both developed commercially, it would be a
condition of site plan approval that they would need to connect
through marginal access roads.
Commissioner Eggert felt you couldn't just have access to
SR60, and Director Keating agreed that the property is large
enough there definitely would have to be more than one access
point, and there would have to be marginal access roads running
parallel to both SR60 and Kings Highway.
Commissioner Bird was aware that the residents' main concern
is'having Commercial butting up to their subdivision. He did ,not
blame them for worrying about a domino effect if this property is
rezoned commercial, but emphasized that he certainly today would
not favor putting commercial immediately abutting Rivera Estates.
He did feel there needs to be a buffer or transition zone there,
and whether or not 359' is a sufficient buffer may be a matter of
opinion, but there still is a buffer there.
Mrs. Bonnah contended that now there is enough property for
a nice multiple family development as a buffer, but Commissioner
Eggert noted that if the subject piece were subtracted, there
still would.be 10 acres left.
Mrs. Bonnah agreed, but pointed out that the 10 acres would
be a stretched -out piece.
Planner Shearer noted that what could be done with a
property of that configuration is something like the Sixty Oaks
development.
Mrs. Bonnah doubted anyone would build something like Sixty
Oaks next to commercial. She also wished to know, if a traffic
light is needed, whether the DOT has to okay it and also if the
entranceway would be far enough away from SR60 that they
wouldn't have a problem okaying it.
Planner Shearer assured her that the entranceway will be far
enough away from SR60, and that a light there would not require
an okay by the DOT.
74
Mrs. Bonnah pointed out that four lanes of traffic are going
into a bottleneck, and the residents are being impacted all the
way around. She believed their biggest argument is why the
increase in the node is necessary when there is vacant property
on the east and south.
Commissioner Wheeler agreed that is a good question.
Chief Planner Shearer explained that there has been
considerable rezoning in the area since the Comprehensive Plan
was adopted and considerable commercial development, and it is
felt the ability to align the road justifies the increase. He
did feel if we are going to increase the node, it should be at
the intersection for reasons of safety. There has been a lot of
interest in development, and he believed this will be one of the
major intersections in the county in the future since 'SR60 is the
primary east/west road in the county.
Mrs. Bonnah noted that when this first came up about two
years ago, it split their neighborhood up pretty badly. Now,
however, they are more united because they have seen the impact
of Ryanwood. Mrs. Bonnah advised, if the Board does allow this
to happen, the residents would like to see a professional office
district on the little stretch of property behind them.
Helen Glenn, of 6550 Cherry Lane, informed the Board that
she has lived on Cherry Lane, which is a block and a half north
of Rivera Estates, for 42 years. She stated that between taking
children and grandchildren back and forth to school, going
shopping, and business trips, she travels down King's Highway to
SR60 an average of three times a day so she is well aware of the
traffic pattern in that area. Mrs. Glenn continued that she is
well aware of the Board's concern for the property rights of the
people of Rivera Estates, but they will have a 350' buffer zone.
She, therefore, felt the Board must be more concerned for the
safety of the 70,000 people who live in our county and use our
county roads. The school buses use that road also. She,
therefore, urged the Board to approve the rezoning, accept the
i
75
APR 1IS87
BOOK
I
BOOK 6 8 76
recommendation of their Traffic Engineers and Planning Department
to allow the entranceways to be lined up, plan to put a light
there sometime in the future, and send this on to Tallahassee to
be reviewed.
Anne Achino, 5850 23rd Street, stated that she moved here 6
years ago and loved this area, but now the residents are all
upset. She then quoted from an article in the PRESS JOURNAL
dated January 11th, 1987, wherein Chief Planner Shearer said
there is too much commercial already and now apparently he has
changed his mind. Mrs. Achino continued to stress that the
residents are upset about more commercial and do not feel we need
another shopping center. As to putting the driveways across from
each other, she noted that when the county golf course opens,
there will be even more traffic on King's Highway, and people are
taking a chance now when they cross the road. They do not want
this pushed down their throats.
Attorney O'Haire contended that what his clients are
proposing will not increase the volume of traffic on King's
Highway, and it will solve the safety problem.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Bird stated that based on the recommendations
of staff re the safety factor, and keeping in mind as well the
350' buffer between the new commercial zone and Rivera Estates,
(which he assured the residents he does not ever plan to vote to
change and have commercial zoning backing up to their property),
he would be in favor of sending the Comprehensive Plan amendment
request on to the state.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, to authorize staff to
transmit the subject Comprehensive Plan amend-
ment request to the State for review.
OR
Commissioner Eggert agreed that if the buffer were not
there, she could not vote for the Motion, but because it is there
and because she believed there are real safety problems when
streets do not align, she would vote for the Motion.
Commissioner Bowman expressed the hope that serious consid-
eration will be given to frontage roads in this area.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION.
It was voted on and carried unanimously.
ABOVE ACTION WILL BE INCLUDED IN RESOLUTION ADOPTED WHEN ALL
TODAY'S COMP. PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS ARE DEALT WITH.
PUBLIC HEARING PENN MOBILE PARTNERSHIP/HATALA/STENGER EQUEST TO
AMEND COMP. PLAN AND REZONE 3 ACRES
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:
BOOK 68 PACE X77
APP 14 '287 77
r -APR 141981
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 Z4ZtY
in the matter of 1=•_��1�/i/
In the Court, 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 m this day of ' A.D. �.—
Business Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Cou ndian River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
tion:
BOOK PA, -E-
NOTICE — PUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider the adoption of
I County ordinance rezoning land from: RM -6.
oul3 eldCommericiaRDistrictesidential
District. The subject Property
ocated east of U.S. Highway 1, and south of In-
dian River Memorial Hospital.
The subject property is described as:
aFraNNING AT A POINT 680 FEET
'f POINT OF
RUN SOUTH ALONG THE vEr+u Or -m'"
CITY LIMIT LINE 185.46 FEET; THENCE
EAST 686.0 FEET; THENCE NORTH
173.13 FEET TO POINT OF BEGINNING,
CONTAINING 3 ACRES, MORE - OR
LESS; and
A public. hearing at which parties M 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
Administration Commission located otthe at County
Street, Vero •Beach, Florida. on Tuesday. April
14, '1987 at -9:05 a.m. Commissioners w81 not
The Board of County
take final action on this rezoning request at this
meeting.. .any decislor►
Anyone who may wish to appeal will -rte to
which may be made at this meeting wil
ensure that-averbatim record of the proceedings
is made which includes thtestimony nd evi-
dence upon which the appeal
Indian River County
gy--s-Don ard of C uScur Scurlock, Charnere
man L*&r'dh 25,1987
Chief Planner Richard Shearer made the following presenta-
TO: The Honorable Members DATE: April 2, 1987 FILE:
of the Board of County
Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
SUBJECT: PENN MOBIL PARTNERSHIP/
Robert M. Keating, CP HATALA/STENGER REQUEST
Planning & Development Director TO AMEND THE COMPRE-
HENSIVE PLAN AND REZONE
3 ACRES
FROM:
Richard M. shearerr, REFERENCES:
Chief, Long -Range Planning
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of.April 14, 1987.
f 78
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS
Michael O'Haire, an agent for Penn Mobil Partnership, Ronald
Hatala and Daryl Stenger, the owners, is requesting !,to amend the
Comprehensive Plan by redesignating 3 acres located 200 feet east
of U.S. 1 and south of 35th Street from MD -1, Medium -Density
Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre), to MXD, Mixed -Use District
(up to 6 units/acre), and to rezone this property from RNI-6,
Multiple -Family Residential District, (up to 6 units/acre), to
CG, General Commercial District.
The owners would like to develop this property for retail
businesses and mini -storage facilities.
On March 12, 1987, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted
5 -to -0 to recommend approval of amending the Comprehensive Plan
and rezoning the west 150 feet of the subject property. The
Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request for the east
550 feet of the subject property because of the configuration of
the subject property which is extremely deep east -west and narrow
north -south. The applicants have appealed this decision.
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 Use Pattern
The subject property is undeveloped. North of the subject
property are single-family residences and mobile homes zoned
RM -6. East of the subject property is undeveloped' land zoned
RM -6. South of the subject property are single-family dwellings,
mobile homes and vacant land in the County zoned RM -6 and
single-family dwellings, vacant land and a used car dealer in the
City of Vero Beach zoned commercial. West of the subject
property is a single-family house with a detached garage and
accessory apartment in the City of Vero Beach zoned commercial.
Further west is U.S. 1 and the F.E.C. railroad.
Future Land Use Pattern
The Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property and the
land east, south and immediately north of it as MD -1,
Medium -Density Residential 1 (up to 8 units/acre). Approximately
150 feet north of the subject property is_ the 205 acre
hospital/ commercial node centered around Indian River Memorial
Hospital. The land west of the subject property is designated
commercial by Vero Beach's Comprehensive Plan.
During the Spring of 1986, the City and County planning staffs
studied the area around the subject property to determine the
appropriate zoning. At that time, the City was considering
detaching the area east of U.S. 1 and north of the Main Relief
Canal from the City Limits. The County Planning staff
recommended that if the property was detached from the City that
the County establish an MXD, Mixed Use District, running 350 feet
east of the existing east right-of-way line of U.S. 1 from 35th
Street south to 33rd Street and zone this area CL, Limited
Commercial District. The Board of County Commissioners
considered this recommendation in June of 1986 and agreed with
the staff recommendation for the MXD area but felt that the CG,
General Commercial District, would be more appropriate',.
79
APR 14 1987
BOOK 1) F�;F !
80DK 68 ,GF'ur 0
- -7
In analyzing this request, staff relied on the work done in 1986
and feels that the west 150 feet of the subject property should
be designated MXD .and rezoned to CG. This would be compatible
with the City's commercial zoning and commercial land use
designation for the 200 foot strip of property lying west of the
subject property and east of U.S. 1. The applicants would then
have commercial zoning for a depth of 350 feet from U.S. 1.
Transportation System
The subject property will have access to U.S. 1 (classified as an
arterial street on the County's Thoroughfare Plan). The maximum
development of the subject property under CG zoning could
generate up to 2741 average annual daily trips (AADT). U.S. 1
currently handles 21,900 AADT in this area at level -of -service
"C". This additional traffic will not diminish this
level -of -service.
Environment
The subject property is not designated as environmentally
sensitive nor is it in a flood -prone area.
r1+-; 1 , a-; --
Water is available for the subject property. County wastewater
facilities are not available.
RECOMMENDATION
Based on the above analysis, including the Planning and Zoning
Commission's recommendation, staff recommends that the staff be
authorized to transmit to the State the request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan for the west 150 feet of the subject property
to be redesignated as MXD. The staff also recommends that the
staff be directed to initiate a comprehensive plan amendment
request in July to establish an MXD area from 35th Street south
to the Vero Beach City limits.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
Attorney Michael O'Haire came before the Board representing
the applicant. He noted that when the application was made,
there were three owners, but now it is all in one ownership.
Staff did vote to extend the CG easterly 1501, and this leaves
approximately 550' not zoned for commercial purposes. This
property is almost immediately adjacent to the MED zoning for the
Hospital and is in one of those troublesome jurisdictional areas
where boundaries coincide with the City of Vero Beach. Attorney
O'Haire advised that his client would accept CL for the balance
of this property, but to have a residential zoning almost
immediately adjacent to the Hospital zoning and butting up to
Commercial on U.S.I doesn't make sense. This is a narrow
property, and to cut it in half, and in effect, have strip
80
M M M
commercial on U.S.[ is actually unworkable. There is no con-
flicting use easterly, and they would like to be able to use
thei-r property.
Commissioner Bird felt we had asked for a joint study by the
county and the city, and Director Keating noted the Planning
staffs did meet; we sent over our previous recommendation, which
they will critique; and then they will have another joint
meeting. Basically this whole area is still under study.
Commissioner Bird felt it is a foregone conclusion this will
be commercial, and that it is just a question of depth.
Chairman Scurlock inquired what the major objection is to
zoning the additional 550' commercial.
Planner Shearer noted that it is a long narrow strip, and
they feel 150' of depth would be sufficient to allow some
commercial uses. He explained that the first 200' east of U.S.1
is in the City limits and is zoned commercial; so, with 185' of
frontage and 350' of depth, we are giving them twice the depth of
their frontage in commercial.
Attorney O'Haire informed the Board that they have recently
contracted to buy the 150' north of them for the same depth and
they will be coming back in about that.
Discussion continued regarding the configuration of the
property with the westerly 200' being in the City limits, and
Chairman Scurlock emphasized that he felt the additional would
provide more flexibility and allow a better opportunity for
redevelopment of this area, which is a mess.
Commissioner Bird noted additional depth would also provide
the ability to do a larger project and give us more control.
Planner Shearer agreed that increasing the depth would
increase the flexibility, but emphasized it is a narrow strip.
The 900' does represent a property line; it skews over on the
front because of U.S.I.
Commissioner Bowman inquired as to the intended use, and was
advised they want to develop it for retail and storage)
81-_ p
BOOK B PAGE 61
APR -14 2 1
BOOK
Sam Culbertson came before the Board representing the owners
of property directly to the south. Their property is an addi-
tional 781' frontage on U.S.1 extending down to 33rd St. where
the depth is about 6501. They feel a depth of anything less than
650' of commercial will simply create more strip development such
as we have south of the canal, and, conversely, the additional
depth will provide more flexibility to do a development which
will go along with what is being done in the Hospital Node.
They, therefore, support the applicant's request.
Commissioner Bird noted that this is a request involving
both a Comprehensive Plan amendment and a rezoning and asked if
we have the ability to expand from what was advertised.
Planner Shearer advised that the whole depth of the subject
piece was advertised, but we cannot consider property to the
north or south of it.
It was determined that no one further wished to be heard,
and the Chairman declared the public hearing closed.
MOTION WAS MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED
by Commissioner Eggert, that consideration be given
to redesignating the entire 185 x 900 of the subject
property MXD and rezoning it CG and this request be
transmitted to the State for review.
Commissioner Wheeler stressed that he wished to encourage
the redevelopment of that whole area.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Commissioner Wheeler would be
willing to include in the Motion that the Board ask staff to
establish a larger MXD district, and he indicated that he would.
THE CHAIRMAN CALLED FOR THE QUESTION with the above
addition. It was voted on and carried unanimously.
82
i
RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING TRANSMITTAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT APPLICATION
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Commis-
sioner Bowman, the Board unanimously adopted Resolu-
tion 87-38, authorizing the transmittal of Comprehensive
Plan amendment applications listed below, staff recom-
mendations, and the recommendations of the local
planning agency to the State Dept. of Community Affairs
for a mandatory 90 -day review period:
Amendment -to the Transportation Element of the
Comprehensive Plan
Development Partners, Inc., request to amend the
Comprehensive Plan
Penn Mobile Partnership/Hatala/Stenger request to
amend the Comprehensive Plan
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL AND RESOLUTION 87-38 FOLLOW. ATTACHMENTS
ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD.
A
APR l z.L .IWI
BOOK 68 Pa IJE 83
APR 14, 1937
BOOK 68 f'ACf
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
April 20, 1987
Mr. Ralph Hook, Planner IV
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
Bureau of Local Resource Planning
2571 Executive Center Circle, East
Tallahassee, FL 32301
RE: INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS
Dear Mr. Hook,
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
Please find enclosed the County's Comprehensive Plan amendment
applications which were submitted in January of this year.
The County's Planning and Zoning Commission held public hearings
on each of these proposed amendments on March 12, 1987.
The Board of County Commissioners held preliminary public hearings
on each of these proposed amendments on April 14, 1987, and
approved resolution #87-38 which authorized transmittal of these
amendment applications to the State for the required ninety -day
review period (a copy of resolution #87-38 is enclosed).
Please be advised that the Board decided not to consider adding
45th Avenue to the Major Th9roughfare Plan and did not authorize
transmittal of that part of he Thoroughfare Plan amendment to the
State for review.
The Board of County Commissioners has amended the Comprehensive
Plan once this year on February 17, 1987. These proposed
amendments will be the second and final set of amendments
considered during 1987.
Any questions about the proposed amendments should be referred to:
Ms. Cherylene Boudreaux, Planner
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, FL 32960
ph. 305-567-8000, Ext. 237
Enclosed are ten copies of the memorandums describing each of the
proposed amendments. These memorandums describe:
1) The present and proposed land use designations;
2) The location and size of each property proposed
for land use change;
3) Surrounding land uses;
4) Description of availability of public facilities; and
5) Discussion of compatibility of the proposed amendment
with the general policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
In addition, ten copies of a map showing the location of each of
the proposed amendments is enclosed.
If you need further information, feel free to contact me.
Sincerely,
Richard M. Shearer, AICP
Chief, Long -Range Planning
(84
RESOLUTION NO. 87-38
A RESOLUTION OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA,
AUTHORIZING THE TRANSMITTAL OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, AND THE
RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AGENCY TO THE
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF FLORIDA
FOR A MANDATORY NINETY DAY REVIEW PERIOD.
WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes, 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 calandar year, 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 a
preliminary public hearing concerning these amendment's, and
WHEREAS, Florida Statutes require that the Board of County
Commissioners pass a resolution authorizing the transmittal of
Comprehensive Plan Amendments to the Department of Community
Affairs of the State of Florida for a mandatory ninety day review
period,
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the enclosed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment applications, staff recommendations,
and the recommendations of the local planning agency are hereby
authorized for transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs
for a mandatory ninety day review period.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commis-
sioner Eggert who moved its adoption. The motion was
seconded by Commissioner Bowman and, upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
M
MJ, , 0, ' i
11 �M'
BOOK 6V FVu-E 8
BOOK 68 fA,UE 86
RESOLUTION NO. 87- 38
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared Resolution No. 87-38 r
adopted and duly passed this 14th day of April , 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
By / G
DON -1C. CURLOCK, ,J
Chairman
ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE DEPARTMENT PETITION FOR ABANDONMENT OF AN
ALLEY (TOIVNSITE OF ROSELAND)
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 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 �,2 IFF 7
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. —7
Sworn to and subscribed before m this J`� day of � A.D. /
(/��s ness Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, 144(an River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
86
l
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEAAING
Notice of hearing to consider a petition for the
closing, abandonment, and vacation of an alley(
lying within Block 28 of the Towrsite of Rose -I
land Subdivision between 129tn Court and 129 -hl
Street. Said alley being more particularly oe-I
scribed as follows!
The subject property is described as. ;
ALL OF THAT CERTAIN 16 FCCT
ALLEY IN BLOCK 28 OF THE TOWN -
SITE OF ROSELAND SUBDIVISION, THE
MAP OF WHICH IS FILED IN PLAT
BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF ST LUC:E CCUNTY.
FLORIDA: THE SAID LAND NOW LYING
WHOLLYIN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY.
FLORIDA. THE ALLEY IS FURTHER 0= -
SCRIBED AS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 1
THROUGH 5 AND LOTS 6 THROUGH 10
iN SAID BLOCK 28.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and cirrens Sha:l have an Opportunity to C9
heard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
missioners Of Indian River County, Florida !n the
County Commission Chambers of the Cour+
Administration Bustling, located at 1840 25:n
Street. Vero Beach, Florida, on Tuesday, Apni
14. 1987 at 9.05 a.m
A .
nyone whom may wish to appeal any deci-
Von which may be made at this meeting *ii,
need to ensure that a verbatim record of the pro-
ceedings is made which includes the testirnonv
and evidence upon which the appeal wiii be
based
Indian River County
Board of County Comm,ssioners
By -s -Don C. Scurlock. Jr., Chairman
March 25, 1987
r
The Board reviewed staff memo, as follows:
TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: March 25, 1987 FILE':
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Ro� M. Kba't ng, i ICP SUBJECT: ROSELAND VOLUNTEER FIRE
Community Development Division DEPARTMENT PETITION FOR
Director ABANDONMENT OF AN ALLEY
THROUGH: Stan Boling A.13.
Chief, Current Development
FROM: David C. Neariilg REFERENCES: roseland fire
Staff Planner 6411 DAVE3
It is requested that the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
The Roseland Volunteer
for the abandonment of
28 of the Townsite of
and 129th Court.
Fire Department has submitted'ia petition
an alley lying within the cent6r. of Block
Roseland Subdivision, between 129th Street
The petitioner believes that the abandonment of this alley will
permit better utilization of its property which lies on both sides
of the alley. The applicant owns most of the lots in this block.
The owner of the two remaining lots, Mrs. Helen Hanson, is also in
agreement with this petition.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having jurisdiction within the right-of-way. All
reviewing agencies have recommended approval of the abandonment.
ANALYSIS:
This 16 foot wide unimproved alley is not used as an alley, nor is
it a part of the roadway system as noted on the County Thorough-
fare Plan and is not needed for the thoroughfare system. The
Roseland Volunteer Fire Department facilities are located on this
block. It is the fire department's intention to expand its
facilities in the future. The abandonment of this unnecessary
alley will allow better utilization of the fire department's
property which lies on both sides of this alley.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends
foot wide alley,
Commissioners be
(Attachment #3).
that the County abandon
and that the Chairman
authorized to execute
Ei
its rights to this 16
of the Board of County
the attached resolution
APR 14 1 ,,) BOOK U) frq L
87
r APR 14 1987
8001(
68 FAIn 88
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 87-36 approving the abandonment of the
subject 16' wide alley in the Townsite of Roseland.
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 36
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND
VACATION OF A 16 FOOT WIDE ALLEY LYING WITHIN BLOCK 28 OF THE
TOWNSITE OF ROSELAND SUBDIVISION BETWEEN 129TH STREET AND 129th
COURT.
WHEREAS, on February 10, 1987, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from the Roseland Volunteer Fire
Department, P. 0. Box 164, Roseland, Florida, requesting the
County to close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title,
and interest of the County and the public in and to all that
portion of a 16 foot wide alley lying within Block 28 of the
Townsite of Roseland Subdivision as recorded in Plat Book 1, Page
43 of the Public Records of St. Lucie County, now lying within
Indian River County; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition, supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-
of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of
the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and
public in and to that certain
particularly described as:
interest of the County and the
right-of-way being known more
ALL OF THAT CERTAIN 16 FOOT ALLEY IN BLOCK 28 OF THE
TOWNSITE OF ROSELAND SUBDIVISION, THE MAP OF WHICH IS
FILED IN PLAT BOOK 1, PAGE 43 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF
ST. LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA; THE SAID LAND NOW LYING
WHOLLY IN INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA. THE ALLEY IS
FURTHER DESCRIBED AS LYING BETWEEN LOTS 1 THROUGH 5 AND
LOTS 6 THROUGH 10 IN SAID BLOCK 28.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, dis-
continued, remised and released.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
f 88
s
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bird who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wheeler IF, and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman thereupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this 14th day of April , 1'987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlbck, Jr., firman
Board of County Commissioners
GRAND HARBOR PETITION TO ABANDON PORTION OF 53RD STREET
The hour of 9:05 o'clock A.M. having passed, the D7puty
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 Indian River County, Florida; that the attached copy of advertisement, being
�,`t SAN hf1'
- in the matter of
in the
lished in said newspaper in the issues of ///� �' ' ?
Court, was pub-
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 rnail 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-
tiserr.ent; 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 pubfication in the said newspaper.
Sworn to and subscribed before m this t'� day of 1 r A.D.
j (B ess Manager)
(Clerk of the Circuit Court, InbiSn River County, Florida)
(SEAL)
APR 14� it;oi
NOTICE OF RUBLIC HEARING
Notice of hearing to consider a petition for thel
closing, abandonment, and vacation of a cordon
of 53rd Street from a point approximately 2.3CO
feet east of the east right-of-way 'ins of U S. 1
and extending approximately 2.650 feet east.
Said right-of-way being more particularly de-
scribed as follows:
The subiect property is described as;
THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE FOLLOW-
ING -DESCRIBED PROPERTY: The
Southeast quarter of the southeast Quar-
ter and the southwest quarter of the
southeast quarter of Section 14. Town-
ship 32 S. Range 39E. Indian River
County, Florida.
A public hearing at which parties in interest
and citizens shall have an opportunity to oe
neard, 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 1e43 25th
Street. Vero Beach. Florida. on Tuesday A^-rai
14.1987 at 9'05 a.m.
Anyone whom may wish to aopeal any Ceci-
sion which may be made at tors meetirq wri
need to ensure that a verbatim record of file cro-
ce90mgs is made which includes trio fesl.mpn.,
and evidence upon which the appeal w.0 Ce
5ased.
Indian River County
Board of County Commissioners
By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr- Cnavman
March 25. 1987
BOOK FAGE
rBOOK 8 FACE 9
APR 1 � �9�7
The Board reviewed memo of Staff Planner Nearing:
TO:The Honorable Members of DATE: March 25, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
Robert M. Ke ng, 6XICP SUBJECT: GRAND HARBOR, INC. ' S
Community Development Division PETITION TO ABANDON A
Director PORTION OF 53RD STREET
THROUGH: Stan Boling /`%
Chief, Current Development
FROM: David C. Nearing REFERENCES: grand harbor
Staff Planner dyM DAVE3
It is requested that ,the data presented herein be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION:
Grand Harbor, Inc. has submitted a petition to abandon a 2,650
foot portion of 53rd Street beginning at a point approximately
2,300 feet east of U.S. Highway 1. The petitioner owns all the
property surrounding this subject right-of-way. This portion of
53rd Street is entirely within the Grand Harbor project area, east
of the proposed Indian River Boulevard North.
The applicant has researched ,this portion of 53rd Street to
establish the roadway's actual status as a publicly dedicated
right-of-way. The search failed to disclose any deeds or other
recorded documents establishing this as actual public right-of-
way. However, in order to avoid any future questions concerning
the status of this portion of 53rd Street, the applicant has
initiated this petition for abandonment requesting that the County
abandon any possible claims which it may have to the right-of-way.
The applicant intends to utilize the property over which this
right-of-way lies as a portion of the River Club development of
Grand Harbor (recently added to the D.R.I. project area by the
County). Abandonment of this unnecessary portion of 53rd Street
would permit development per the proposed plans.
Per guidelines established by the Board of County Commissioners,
the petition was reviewed by all County divisions and utility
providers having possible jurisdiction within the right-of-way.
All reviewing agencies have recommended approval of the abandon-
ment.
ANALYSIS:
This 25 foot wide portion of 53rd Street is currently improved as
a marl road. In the past the principal use of the road has been
as a grove maintenance road. The County has performed some
maintenance; however, no maintenance maps have ever been filed for
the subject portion. This 25 foot wide portion of right-of-way is
not a part of the roadway system as noted on the County Thorough-
fare Plan roadway system and is not needed as part of the thor-
oughfare system.
RECOMMENDATION:
Based on the analysis
abandon any rights it
53rd Street, and that
sioners be authorized
ment #3),
performed, staff recommends that the County
may have to this 25 foot wide portion of
the Chairman of the Board of County Commis -
to execute the attached resolution (Attach-
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bowman, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously adopted
Resolution 87-37 approving the abandonment of any
rights the county may have to the subject portion
of 53rd Street.
RESOLUTION NO. 87 - 37
RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN
RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROVIDING FOR THE CLOSING, ABANDONMENT, AND
VACATION OF A PARCEL OF RIGHT-OF-WAY KNOWN AS 53rd STREET FROM A
POINT APPROXIMATELY 21300 FEET EAST OF THE EAST RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE
OF U.S. HIGHWAY #1 AND EXTENDING EAST A DISTANCE OF APPROXIMATELY
2,650 FEET.
WHEREAS, on August 9, 1986, the County received a duly
executed and documented petition from Grand Harbor', Inc., 660
Beachland Blvd., Vero Beach, Florida, requesting the County to
close, vacate, abandon, and disclaim any right, title, and
interest of the County and the public in and to a portion of 53rd
Street from a point approximately 2,300 feet east of the east
right-of-way line of U.S. Highway #1 and extending east approxi-
mately 2,650 feet; and
WHEREAS, in accordance with Florida Statutes §336.10, notice
of a public hearing to consider said petition has been duly
published; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of the petition supporting
documents, staff investigation and report, and testimony of all
those interested and present, the Board finds that said right-
of-way is not a state or federal highway, nor located within any
municipality, nor is said right-of-way necessary for continuity of
the County's street and thoroughfare network, nor access to any
given private property.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
1. All right, title and interest of the County and the
public in and to that certain right-of-way being known more
particularly described as:
THE SOUTH 25 FEET OF THE FOLLOWING DESCRIBED PROPERTY:
The southeast quarter of the southeast quarter and the
southwest quarter of the southeast quarter of Section 14,
Township 32S, Range 39E, Indian River County, Florida.
is hereby forever closed, abandoned, vacated, surrendered, dis-
continued, remised and released.
2. Notice of the adoption of this resolution shall be
forthwith published once within thirty (30) days from the date of
adoption hereof; and
91
APR 14 '687 BOOK
FACE 91
r-
ARR 14 1987
BOOK PAGE
3. The Clerk is hereby directed to record this resolution
together with the proofs of publication required by Florida
Statutes §336.10 in the Official Record Books of Indian River
County without undue delay.
The foregoing resolution was offered by Commissioner
Bowman who moved its adoption. The motion was seconded by
Commissioner Wheeler , and upon being put to a
vote, the vote was as follows:
Chairman Don C. Scurlock, Jr. Aye
Vice -Chairman Margaret C. Bowman Aye
Commissioner Richard N. Bird Aye
Commissioner Carolyn K. Eggert Aye
Commissioner Gary C. Wheeler Aye
The Chairman f�_ehreupon declared the resolution duly passed
and adopted this day of April , 1987.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF INDIAN RIVER COUNTY, FLORIDA
BY:
Don C. Scurlock, Jr., airman
Board of County Commissioners
GRAND HARBOR REQUEST FOR CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEPTION APPROVAL
FOR RIVER CLUB GOLF COURSE
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:
92
im
VERO BEACH PRESS-JOURN
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
in the matter of
in the Court, was pub-
lished in said newspaper in the issues of Zffi- �5 Z, 5; F7
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-
tiserrent; 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 lief e m his day of Cdr' A.D. P7
vo / / •
(SEAQ
tral angle of 50°45'42 run an arc dis-
tance of 231.40 feet; thence North
29°47'26" East. 62.46 feet to intersect a
curve, the radius point of which bears
North 45'52'28" East, 342.92 feet;
thence along said curve to the right
having a central angle of 20.06'54", run
an arc distance of 120.39 feet' thence
South 65°59'17" West, 55.51 feet
thence on a curve to the right, having a
radius of 60.00 feet and a central angle
of 98.3354", run an arc distance of
103.22 feet to a point of compound cur-
vature: thence on a curve to the right,
having a radius of 462.92 feet and a cen-
tral angle of 03.35'01", run an arc dis-
tance of 28.95 feet to a point of reverse
curvature; thence on a curve to the left,
having a radius of 969.12 and a central
angle of 21-55'28", run an arc distance
of 370.84 feet to a point of reverse cur-
vature: thence on a curve to the right
having a radius of 626.15 feet and a cen-
tral angle of 37-5643", run an arc dis-
tance of 414.68 feet to a point of com-
pound curvature: thence on a curve to
the right, having a radius of 255.00 feet
and a central angle of 86°24'06", run an
arc distance of 384.54 feet, thence
South 89-2627" East 447.99 feet
thence on a curve to the right, having a
radius of 164.00 feet and a central angle
of 1913°20'34", run an arc distance of
562.00 feet to a point of reverse curva-
ture; thence on a curve to the left, hav-
ing a radius of 906.50 feet and a central
angle of 14°37'52 run an arc distance
of 231.48 feet: thence North 87.4344"
West, 48.52 feet;
thence on a curve to the left, having a
radius of 65.00 feet and a central angle
of 98.6455", run an arc distance of
112.22 feet; thence South 06-38'39"
East, 48.52 feet; thence on a curve to the
left, having a radius of 106.50 feet and a
central angle of 101-52'03", run an arc
distance of 189.35 feet to a point of re-
verse curvature: thence on a curve to
the right having a radius of 811.82 feet
and a central angle of 18'33'12", run an
arc distance of 262.88 feet to a point of
compound curvature: thence on a curve
to the right, having a radius of 164.00
feet and a central angle of 180°00'0(",
run an arc distance of 515.22 feet to a
point of reverse curvature; thence on a
curve to the left, having a radius of
830.03 feet and a central angle of
23.00'44", run an arc distance of 333.37
feet to intersect a curve, the radius point
of which bears South 73°31'38" West,
1139.12 feet: thence on said curve to the
right, having a central angle of
04.36'34", run an arc distance of 91.64
feet to a point of reverse curvature;
thence on a curve to the left, having a
radius of 292.92 feet and a central angle
of 29.2711", run an are distance of
150.58 feet to intersect a curve, the
radWs point of which bears South
i 61.24'06" East. 720.69 test; thence on
said .curve to the ngnt. having a central
angle of 21.5634', run an arc distance
tr tj)/
(Clerk of the Circuit
of 276.01 feet to a point of compound
curvature: thence on a curve to the right. I
having a radius of 60.00 feet and a cen-
tral angle of 97°35127", run an arc dis-
tance of 102.20 feet; thence South
31.52'05" East 55.75 feet to intersect a
curve, the radius point of which bears
South 31.52'08" East, 358.07 feet I
thence on said curve to the right having
a central angle of 41°4939", run an arc
distance of 261.40 feet; thecouth
80*02'28" East, 163.35 fast to . P�int of
compound curvature; thence on a curve
to the right, having a radius of 325.00
feet and a central angle of 03.42'39",
run an are distance of 21.05 feet to a
point of reverse curvature. thence on a
curve to the left, having a radius of 25.00
feet and a central angle of 66°34'38",
run an are distance of 29.05 feet to a
point of reverse curvature; thence on a
curve to the right, having a radius of
415.00 feet and a central angle of
64°01'27", run an arc distance of 391.30
feet thence North 21-23'14" East,
113.60 feet thence, North 07°33'58"
West, 71.78 feet; thence on a curve to j
the left, having a radius of 120.00 feet j
and a central angle of 138.16'56", run 1
an arc distance of 289.62 feet to a point i
of reverse curvature; thence on a curve : an
to the right, having a radius of 164.00 he
feet and a central angle of 192.08'59", ml
run an arc distance of 550.00 feet to a CO
point of compound curvature; thence on tra
a curve to the right, having a radius of Ve
570.00 feet and a central angle of at
35"25'05", run an arc distance of 352.35
feet; thence North 81.41'33" East wh
136.52 feet thence on a curve to the an
right, having a radius of 250.00 feet and is
a central angle of 90.4430", run an are de
distance of 395.93 feet: thence South
07.33158" East, 274.76 feet: thence on a c
curve to the right, having a radius of 'Q
265.00 feet and a central angle of ° M
26°50'10", run an arc distance of 124.12 °.
feet; thence South 19.16'12" West, .sr
100.00 feet; thence North 70.43'48"
West, 160.00 feet to intersect a curve,
the radius point of which bears North
27.07'39" West, 145.00 feet; thence
along said curve to the right, having a
central angle of 35.48'11 run an are
distance of 90.61 feet to a point of re-
verse curvature; thence on a curve to
the left, having a radius of 365.00 feet
and a central angle of 57-04'06", run an
arc distance of 363.55 feet to a point of
compound curvature: thence on a curve
to the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet
and a central angle of 100°4536", run
an arc distance of 43.96 feet to a point
of reverse curvature; thence on a curve
to the right, having a radius of 325.00
feet and a central angle of 04°41'05
run an arc distance of 26.57 feet to a
point of reverse curvature; thence on a I
curve to the left. having a radius of 25.00
feet and a central angle of 86.00'59",
run an arc distance of 37.53 feet to a
Point of reverse curvature on the no ryI
line of the aforesaid non-exclusive ro APR
Manager)
n River County, Florida)
right-of-way; thence following sato right-
of-way on a curve to the right, having a
radius of 686.00 feet and a central angle
of 08"57'57", run an arc distance of
107.35 feet: thence South 41-31'07"
East, 72.00 feet to a point on the south
line of said non-exclusive road right-of-
way; thence following the south line of
said right-of-way on a curve to the left,
having a radius of 614.00 feet and a cen-
tral angle of 38.32'44", run Southwest-
erly an arc distance of 413.07 feet:
thence North 80.03'51" West, 6.00 feet;
thence South 09.56'09" west 416.71
feet; thence on a curve to the right hav-
ing a radius of 490.00 feet and a central
angle of 80.12'14", run an arc distance
of 685.91 feet; thence North 89°51'37"
West, 661.13 feet; thence on a curve to
the right, having a radius of 698.70 feet
and a central angle of 32.07'35", run an
arc distance of 391.77 feet to a point of
reverse curvature; thence on a curve to
the lett, having a radius of 270.00 feet
and a central angle of 32-12'16", run an
are distance of 151.76 feet; thence North
89.56'17" West, 55.03 feet: thence North
00.01'26" East, 30.00 feet to the Point of
Beginning.
NO tluC nnAFiiNta
Notice of ring .o consider the
Wanting of ption approval for a golf
course. The subject properly +s presently owned -
by The River Club Of Indian River County. Inc.,
Grand Harbor, Inc. and is located at 2000 49th
Street Vero Beath. Florida.
The subiect property is described as:
That part of the Southeast quarter of
Section 14 lying South of the Indian
River Farms Water Management District
sedimentation basin and South of the
South right-ot-way line of the north relief
canal: and also. the Noah half of the
Northwest quarter of the Northeast quar-
for of Section 23 and the North half of
the Northeast quarter of the Northeast I
quarter of Section 23. and a parcel of
land lying in the South half of the North-
am quarter of the Northeast quarter of
Section 23 and In the West half of the
Northwest quarter of Section 24, the !
boundary of said parcel being more
particularly described as follows: Begin
at the Northeast comer of the South half
of the Northeast quarter of Me Northeast
quarter of Section 23, Township 32
South, Range 39 East; thence run North
89'51'37" West, along the North line of
said South half of the Northeast quarter
of the Northeast quarter a distance of
736.01 feet; thence South 52"10'16"
East 53.92 feet; thence on a curve to the
left, having a radius of 51.11 feet and a
central angle of 22°00'33", run an arc
distance of 19.63 feet; thence on a curve
to the left having a radius of 155.00 feet
and a central angle of 33°46'31", run an
arc distance of 91.37 feet: thence
curve to the right, having a radius of
230.54 feet and a central angle of
47°14'58", run an arc distance of 190.12
feet; thence on a curve to the Jett having
a radius of 155.00 feet and a central
angle of 63°55'37", run an arc distance
of 145.89 feet; thence on a curve to the
right, having a radius of 370.00 feet and
a central angle of 33°17'59", run an arc
distance of 215.04 feet: thence on a
curve to the left, having radius of 65.00
feet and a central angle of 4814648",
run an arc distance of 55.34 feet to a I
A public hearing at which parties in interest
d citizens shall have an opportunity to be
ard, will be held by the Board of County Com-
ssioners of Indian River County, Florida in the
mmission Chambers of the County Adm
tion Building, located at 1840 25th Street
to Beach. Flonda. on Tuesday, April 14, 1987,1
9:05 a.m.
Anyone who may wish to appeal any decislonl
tort may be made at this meeting will need tol
sure that a verbatim record of the proceedings)
made which includes the testimony and evi-
nce upon which the appeal will be based.
INDIAN RIVER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
By -s -Don C. Scurlock, Jr., Chairman
Ma 25.1987
93
14 1981 BOOK
ppppint on the West line of Section 24.
Township 32 South, Range 39 East:
thence following said section line, run
South 00°00'40" West 131.62 feet:
thonce into Section 24, run South
891°59'20" East 100.00 feet; thence
North 0000040" East 325.00 feet;
thence North 44'59'24" West, 141.42
feet to a point on the said West line of
Section 24; thence following said section
line, run South 00°00'40" West. 275.00 _.
feet to the Point of Beginning. All lying
and being In Township 32 South, Range
39 East Indian River County, Florida.
Containing 179.97 acres, more or less.
and LESS AND EXCEPT that property
described on Exhibit "A- attached here-
to.
Exhibit A
PARCEL[
That portion of the fallowing described
property lying within the boundaries of
Section 14:
Being a subdivision of lands in part of
the Northeast quarter of Section 23 and
part of the Southeast quarter of Section
14, all in Township 32 South, Range Je
East, Indian River County. Florida; the
boundary of said subdivision, which in-
c�udes a minimum 60400t wide non-ex-
usive road right-of-way. more particu-
larly described as follows:
Beginning at the Southwest corner of
the Southeast quarter of said Section 14;
nonce North 00-47'34" East. 30.00 feet
to a point on the North line of said nor! -
exclusive road right-of-way: thence fol-
lowing said right-of-way line, run South
89.56'19" East 227.87 feet: thence on a
curve to the right, having a radius of
330.00 feet and a central angle of
35.33'37", run an arc distance of 204.81
feet to a point of reverse curvature;
thence on a curve to the left. having a
radius of 470.00 feet and a central angle
of 35°28157", run an arc distance of
291.07; thence South 89°51'37" East,
538.71 feet; thence on a curve to the left,
having a radius of 430.00 feet and a can -
trot angle of 80.12'14", run an arc dis-
tance of 601.92 feet: thence North
09.56'09" East, 416.71 feet; thence
North 80.03'51" West. 6.00 feet to inter-
sect a curve, the radius point of which
bears South 80.0351" East. 686.00 feet;
thence along said curve to the right
having a central angle of 21.30'53", run
an arc distance of 257.59 feet to a point
of reverse curvature, thence leaving said
non-exclusive nght-of-way and entering
the area to be subdivided on a curve to
the left, having a radius of 25.00 feet and
a central angle of 85.53'56", run an arc
distance of 37.48 feet to a point of com-
pound curvature; thence on a curve to
the left, having a radius of 275.00 feet
and a central angle of 25.35'34". run an
arc distance of 122.84 feet; thence North
80.02'28" West. 163.35 feet: thence on a
curve to the left, having a radius of
308.07 feet and a central angle of
17°31'10", run an are distance of 94.20
feet thence run south 07.33'37" East
67.37 feet, thence on a curve to the
right. having a radius of 60.00 feet and a
central angle of 76.00'08". run an arc
distance of 79.59 feet to a point of re-
verse curvature; thence on a curve to
the left, having a radius of 188.07 feet
and a central angle of 16145'50', run an
arc distance of 55.03 feet to a point of
compound curvature; thence on a curve
to the left, having a radius of 430.69 feet
and a central angle of 21.53'15". run an
arc distance of 164.53 feet: thence
South 29.47'26" West. 129 61 feet;
thence on a curve to the right. having a
radius of 681.74 feet and a central angio
of 39.29'58", run an arc distance of
$69 99 test to a point of compound cur-
ature: thence on a curve to the right
having a radius of 164.00 feet and a cen-
tral angle Of 191.15'39". run an arc oia-
tance of 547.46 feet to a point of reverse
urvature; thence on a curve to the Wift
havtng s r&4iuS of 261.19 test and a een-
A P R 14 1997
BOOK 68 PAVE 94
Chief Planner Stan Boling made the staff presentation
recommending approval based on the conditions presented with the
deletion of condition 3 as the 53rd Street R/W segment has been
abandoned by Resolution 87-37.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 3, 1987 FILE:
the Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
'�Q� *e -
Robert M. Keat'ng, � P SUBJ ECT: GRAND HARBOR'S REQUEST FOR
Planning & Dev lopment Director CONCEPTUAL SPECIAL EXCEP-
TION APPROVAL FOR THE
THROUGH: Stan Boling RIVER CLUB GOLF COURSE
Chief, Current Development
FROM: John W. McCoyt�W REFERENCES: Grand harbor
Staff Planner JOHN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AND LOCATION:
Beindorf and Associates, Inc. has submitted a conceptual site plan
application on behalf of Grand Harbor, Inc. to construct an 18
hole golf course. Because the proposed golf course is located in
the RM-6/RS-6 zoning districts, the golf course is considered a
special exception use and must go through the special exception
approval process. This process requires public hearings by the
Planning & Zoning Commission and the Board of County
Commissioners.
The total River Club area, which is to consist of the proposed
golf course and a single-family subdivision, is within the total
Grand Harbor D.R.I. project area. However, the proposed golf
course and subdivision are not within the Grand Harbor PRD and
must, therefore, be approved separately:
the golf course requires special exception and site plan
approval;
the single family subdivision requires plat approval.
At their March 26, 1987 regular meeting, the Planning and Zoning
Commission recommended conceptual special exception approval for
the River Club golf course. Grand Harbor, Inc. is now requesting
that the Board of County Commissioners grant conceptual special
exception approval for the golf course.
The subject golf course property is 144.23 acres in size and is
located just south of the north relief canal and between 800' and
1600' west of the Indian River. The golf course is to surround
the proposed single family subdivision. The conceptual plan
proposes a temporary clubhouse, permanent clubhouse, (to be
constructed in a later phase), and a maintenance building. A site
plan for the golf course and these facilities has been submitted
and is currently under staff review.
/ 94
The entire site consists of groves, palms and exotics (peppers and
Austrialian pines). The majority of the site will be cleared of
all vegetation due to,the fill and excavation work proposed. The
applicant will be required to replant according to the landscape
ordinance requirements, which will be applied during the review of
site plan application. The site will contain 34.1 acres of lake
area. The applicant will construct 10 sq. ft. of vegetated
littoral zone for every one lineal foot of lake shore for all
lakes shown (in accordance with D.O. requirements). The lakes on
the site are limited to 10' in depth below the mean highwater
level, and have already been approved by the St. John's Water
Management District.
Pursuant to section 25.3 of the zoning code, Regulation of Special
Uses, the Board of County Commissioners is to consider the special
exception use criteria for golf courses (specified below) the
appropriateness of the requested use based on the submitted
conceptual site plan, and the suitability of the site for that
use. The County may attach any conditions and safeguards
necessary to assure compatibility of the use with the surrounding
area.
ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS:
An analysis of the submitted conceptual site plan is as follows.
1. Size of Property: 144.23 acres
2. Zoning Classification: - RM -6, Residential Multi -family and
RS -6, Residential Single Family.
3. Land Use Designation: MD -1, Medium Density (up to 8
units/acre)
4. Building Area: Proposed clubhouse and maintenance facilities
are to be site -planned separately.
5. Traffic Circulation: The site will use the proposed Paseo
del Rio drive to access the golf course site. This proposed
drive is to service the golf course and subdivision. Paseo
del Rio drive is to connect with 53rd Street, which is
presently unpaved. Pursuant to County paving requirements,
53rd Street from U.S. 1 to the project's west boundary at
Paseo del Rio Drive must be paved.
A 25' wide "right-of-way" extension of 53rd Street crosses
the southern portion of the project area that has been
maintained by the County in the past. Planning staff is
processing an application to formally abandon this maitained
road segment. This abandonment should take place prior to
construction of the course facilities.
6. Drainage Plan: The Stormwater Management Plan has been
reviewed and approved by the Public Works Department.
7. Landscaping: The Landscape Ordinance will be applied to the
site plan. No native vegetation exists on the site. There-
fore, no preservation of native vegetation applies.
To ensure land use compatibility, a permanent 30' wide
bufferyard with Type "A" screening should be established
along the eastern boundary of the site which abuts the
commercially zoned "Harbor Center" area. Provision of this
buffer would utilize the open spaces of the golf course
development and would facilitate future development of the
"Harbor Center" by providing for the required buffer between
commercial and residential uses.
8. Utilities: "he golf course and subdivision will be serviced
by County ..ester and wastewater. The Environmental Health
95
APR 1 A 1087
L!
BOOK 168 FA GUE 95
APR 14 `1987
BOOK 6 8 FAGUE 9
department has approved the use of temporary wells and septic
tanks at the clubhouse and the maintenance building.
9. Irrigation: The course will primarily be irrigated by
irrigation quality effluent; secondly by surface water
management lakes; and thirdly by irrigation wells from the
Floridan aquifer.
An effluent agreement between the developer and the County
has been scheduled for approval at the April 7, 1987 Board of
County Commissioners meeting.
10. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses:
North: R.O.W./North Relief Canal
East: General Commercial/Vacant
West: RM-6/Grove
South: RM-6/Grove
11. Special Exception criteria for golf courses are as follows:
a) Golf courses and accessory facilities shall not be
interpreted to include freestanding commercial miniature
golf courses and/or driving ranges;
b) No major accessory use or principal building or struc-
ture shall be located closer than one hundred (100) feet
to any lot line which abuts a residential district;.
c) Golf courses shall, to the most reasonable extent,
retain and preserve native vegetation over at least
thirty (30) percent of the total upland area of the
course due. to their characteristically high water demand
and heavy nutrient loads; and
d) The golf courses shall be designed so that any lighting
is shielded and directed away from residential areas.
Staff finds that the application conforms to the special exception
criteria.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Board of County Commissioners grant
conceptual special exception approval for the Grand Harbor River
Club golf course with the following conditions:
1. 53rd Street, from U.S. 1 to the west boundary of the project,
be paved prior to C.O. of any clubhouse facilities and
operation of the golf course;
2. The irrigation system shall be designed in a manner that
facilitates use and disposal of effluent;
3. Prior to the release of any golf course site plans, the 53rd
Street right-of-way segment that crosses the subject property
must be abandoned.
4. Prior to C.O. of any clubhouse facilities and operation of
the golf course, the developer shall establish a 30' buffer-
yard, with a Type "A" buffer, along the eastern boundary of
the subject site where it abuts the commercially zoned
"Harbor Center" area.
The Chairman asked if anyone present wished to be heard.
There being none, he declared the public hearing closed.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously granted
Conceptual Special Exception approval for the Grand
Harbor River Club Golf Course based on conditions
Nos. 1, 2 and 4, No. 3 having already been carried
out.
ISSUANCE OF LAND DEVELOPMENT PERMIT FOR THE GRAND HARBOR
ESTUARINE AREA
Chief Planner Boling made the staff presentation recom-
mending issuance of the permit based on the conditions outlined
in Attachment #3.
TO: The Honorable Members of DATE: April 6, 1987 FILE:
The Board of County Commissioners
DIVISION HEAD CONCURRENCE:
i�__J��jj� ISSUANCE OF LAND DEVELOP-
``�� " moi► ins
Robert M. Keating, A P SUBJECT: MENT PERMIT FOR THE GRAND
Community Developmen Division HARBOR ESTUARINE AREA
Director
FROM: Stan Boling /. & REFERENCES: dridc
Chief, Current Development STAN2
It is requested that the data herein presented be given formal
consideration by the Board of County Commissioners at their
regular meeting of April 14, 1987.
DESCRIPTION & CONDITIONS:
When the Grand Harbor D.R.I. Development Order (D.O.) was adopted
by the Board in October 1985, the Board expressed a desire to
approve the issuance of County land development permits for the
project. Of special interest to the Board were the permits for
the first phase (upland area) and the estuarine area of the
project. In December of 1986, the Board of County Commissioners
approved the issuance of the Phase lA land development permit.
Construction of this phase is proceeding. The Public Works
department is now ready to issue a land development permit for the
estuarine area, with the Board's concurrence.
Grand Harbor, Inc. has received its D.E.R. permit (17311043029),
Army Corps of Engineers permit (#851PK-20563) and its,, St. John's
97
i L SPP 14 197
BOOK Cd FAGE
BOOK 6 olu
River Water Management District permit (#4-061-0075M3) to develcp
the estaurine area. Also, the developer has obtained: an
agreement with the Mosquito Control District for mosquito control,
County mangrove alteration permits (effective upon issuance of
land development permit), and a waiver for cut and fill
requirements below elevation 4' within the floodplain. The land
development permit application is in conformance with the
estaurine plan and conditions as approved by the Board in October
1986. The plan, upon which all the permits are based, proposes
development of the estuarine area, which will include establishing
and re-establishing saltwater wetlands and filling some existing
degraded wetland areas for roadways, golf course holes, and some
residential and commercial areas. The land development permit
application has been reviewed by public works and planning staff
and is ready for issuance with conditions (see attachment 10).
ALTERNATIVE & ANALYSIS
The D.E.R. and Army Corps permits include conditions relating to
the following issues:
- pesticide sampling and analysis during construction
- prohibition of seagrass dredging
- use of turbidity screens
- shoreline stabilization
- survivability and percent coverage of vegetative plantings,
with quarterly status reports
- developer funding of two-year boat traffic analysis
- developer funding of two-year, bi-weekly aerial manatee census
- developer funding for a marine patrol officer for three years,
and provision for a marine patrol boat slip
- quarterly sampling reports for stormwater discharge into State
waters (two year report period)
- monitoring of water quality, sediment chemistry and biological
communities
- creation of a freshwater gradient system
- mapping of manatee resources in the inter -inlet area
- contractor responsibility for any harm, harassment, or killing
of manatees
- method of handling DDT -laden soils, including flocculation,
separation of materials, and transport to and use in upland
golf course areas.
The scaled land development permit plans show all open water, low
marsh, and high marsh areas, including navigation channels, with
numerous cross-sections of all areas. Vegetation planting
schemes, with littoral zone cross-sections, are included in the
plans.
Aside from State and federal inspections and monitoring of the
system, County staff will also make inspections. Aerial maps
provided by the applicant will aid in calculating actual
"as -built" open water, low marsh, and high marsh areas. Field
inspections will be made to examine vegetative planting areas.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends
Public Works to
Harbor estuarine
in attachment #3.
that the Board of County Commissioners allow
issue the land development permit for the Grand
system area with the permit conditions outlined
.:
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
April , 1987
Grand Harbor, Inc.
c/o Schaub Communities
660 Beachland Blvd.
Vero Beach, FL 32963
Suncom Telephone: 424-1011
RE: Grand Harbor Estuarine Area, Land Development Permit #028
Dear Sirs,
Enclosed is the Land Development Permit for the subject
project. Please be advised that the County shall inspect the work
as required and that the contractor shall request all inspections
as noted on the permit.
Below are the Land Development Permit conditions for Grand
Harbor Estuarine Area:
1) The Land Development Permit shall expire on April 15,
1988.' If at that time construction is not complete, the
Developer will submit to the Public Works Department a. -
revised Type B Stormwater Management and Flood Protection
Permit Application for review and approval including all
development areas within the Grand Harbor And River Club
projects that have been permitted for construction.
2) Detailed construction plans of the concrete bulkhead
structures shown on estuarine plan sheet 5 of 5 shall be
submitted to the Public Works Department for review and
approval within thirty days of Land Development Permit
approval.
3) Gifford Dock Road shall remain in its present condition
and location until proper abandonment of the old
right-of-way and dedication of the new right-of-way is
approved by the Board of County Commissioners, and until
the new road alignment is constructed, and inspected and
deemed acceptable by Public Works.
4) The construction of the estuarine area south of the
existing Gifford Dock Road shall not commence until all
approvals are given for relocation of Gifford Dock'Road.
5 ) The cut and fill waiver tor the Grand Harbor project is
limited to 646,000 cubic yards of fill and 320,000 cubic
yards of cut. Every six months from the date of issuance
of the Land Development Permit until the completion of
the estuarine area a tabulation of cut and fill
quantities shall be submitted to the Public Works
Department.
6) Silt screens, hay bales and grassing shall be required to
control erosion during and after construction.
7) This permit recognizes that permits issued by the Florida
D.E.R., St. Johns River Water Management District, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, and Florida D.N.R. contain
permit conditions. These conditions shall be monitored
for compliance and the developer is subject to State,
Federal and Local (ordinance) requirements.
APP g r ud S — BOOK 6 V [ KJE 9
APR 14 1987 BOOK s PA�i,r loo
8) During construction (including excavation) of the
proposed marina basins, estuary/waterways, or surface
water management system, soils contaminated with DDT or
other restricted agricultrual compounds shall be removed
and used as fill for the golf course and/or building
pads. Deposition of contaminated material on the golf
course shall be deposited above the seasonal high water
table and covered with no less than one foot of clean
fill or topsoil. [D.O. Condition No. 91
9 ) Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for
any structures, the esturarine/waterway system shall be
connected to the Indian River Lagoon. No connection of
the excavated estuarine/waterway system shall be made to
either the lagoon or the existing connected open water
basin (marina 1) until such time as DDT, other restricted
constituents, and standard water quality parameters
within that system have been reduced to levels at or
below background levels of such constituents within the
Indian River Lagoon, and until such time as shorelines
have been stabilized and the littoral zone habitats along
the edge of the wetland areas and estuarine/waterway
system have been planted and work inspected by Treasure
Coast Regional Planning Council and Indian River County.
The developer shall at his own expense, submit tests that
show the estuarine/waterway system to be at or below
background levels of DDT and other restricted
constituents. Tests shall be preformed by an independent
laboratory selected by the developer and approved by the
County. The County Environmental Health Department shall
monitor the test results. [D.O. Condition No. 111
10) In the event that it is determined that any
representative of a plant or animal species designated as
endangered or threatened on Federal, State of Florida, or
Florida Committee on Rare and Endangered Plants and
Animals lists is resident on, or otherwise is
significantly dependent upon the Grand Harbor property,
the developer shall cease all activities which might
negatively affect that individual or population and
immediately notify both the Florida Game and Freshwater
Fish Commission and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Proper protection, to the satisfaction of both agencies,
shall be provided by the developer. [D.O. Condition No.
19]
11) The perimeter of the golf course shall be.bermed and
swaled to prevent direct runoff from entry into the
surface water management system of lakes, the constructed
marina basins, the estuary/waterway system or the Indian
River Lagoon. [D.O. Condition No. 281
12) 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 water to lower the water table on-site (entire
project site) shall cease. No pumping shall take place
after the connection is made. [D.O. Condition No. 121
13) The developer shall submit to planning and public works
staff, all correspondence and submittals to State and
federal agencies regarding permits and permit conditions
(eg monitoring reports, test reports, funding).
14) Prior to commencement of any work within the estuarine
area, the developer shall arrange with and meet County
environmental planning staff at the site to establish
pre -construction conditions. At the time of the on-site
meeting, the developer shall arrange with the environmen-
tal planning staff a schedule of site inspections.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
issuance of the land development permit for the!
Grand Harbor estuarine system based on the conditions
outlined in attachment #3, as recommended by staff.
Chief Planner Boling noted that staff would like to request
that the rest of the land development permits be handled at staff
level if the Board has no desire to see them.
In the following discussion, Board members generally indi-
cated that they would like to continue to see these.
GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
The Board reviewed memo from County Attorney Vitu6ac:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 8, 1987
RE: AGENDA - BCC 4114/87
ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
GRAND HARBOR DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT
In conjunction with the development of Grand Harbor it is
necessary for the developer to confirm the availability of
water and wastewater utility services for the project. The
attached two contracts, which together form a Developer's
Agreement, are recommended for approval by the County staff
and have been executed by the developer.
The agreements reserve 1,000 equivalent residential units
worth of water and wastewater capacity to Grand Harbor and
require that at least 250 ERUs be paid for in cash at the
time building permits are pulled or a higher number if the
number of building permits requested exceeds 250. In
addition, simultaneously with the payment in cash, a letter
of credit must be issued in favor of the County for payment
of the remaining number of impact fees for which payment in
cash has not been made. Only $1,002,500 may be drawn on the
letter until December 13, 1987.
The developer will be responsible for constructing and
payinq for water, wastewater, and effluent return Fines from
I
101
BOOK maJLU
APR 14 'Wl
APP 14 J9i
BOOK68 FA,,E102
his development to the County designated points of
connection. The Grand Harbor wastewater will be treated in
the first one million gallons per day expansion of the
existing County wastewater plant. Ultimately a second one
million gallons per day expansion will be constructed from
impact fees paid by Grand Harbor.
The second part of the Developer's Agreement is an effluent
return agreement which requires that all the effluent
generated from the wastewater treatment from Grand Harbor
wi I I be returned to Grand Harbor for irrigation use on the
developer's golf courses.
These agreements have been reviewed and anproved by the
County Administrator, the OMB Director, the Director of the
Division of Utility Services, and this office, and are
recommended for approval by the Board of County
Commissioners.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Eggert, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the two contracts which form the Developer's Agreement
with Grand Harbor, Inc., and River Club of Indian River
and authorized the signature of the Chairman.
SAID AGREEMENTS ARE ON FILE IN THE OFFICE OF CLERK TO THE BOARD
DISCUSSION RE ENFORCEMENT OF COMMISSION ON ETHICS RECOMMENDATION
County Attorney Vitunac reviewed the following:
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Charles P. Vitunac, County Attorney
DATE: April 2, 1987
RE: AGENDA - BCC MEETING 4/14/87
COUNTY ATTORNEY'S MATTERS
The Commission has recently received a Final Order and
Public Report from the State of Florida Commission on Ethics
regarding a former member of the Indian River County Housing
Finance Authority who neglected to file a statement of
financial interests for 1984. The recommended order is that
the Board of County Commissioners fine the respondent the
sum of $300.00.
State law does
to levy this
Commissioners
not give the Commission on
fine itself. Instead, the
"shall have the power
102
Ethics the power
Board of County
to enforce" the
recommended fine. I have talked with Mr. Kent L.
Weissinger, Assistant Attorney General in charge of ethics
violations, and it was our mutual understanding of the law
that the Board of County Commissioners may take any action
it wishes, between fining the respondent the maximum of
$300.00 to taking no action on the recommendation of the
Commission on Ethics. The law is ambiguous concerning the
power of the Attorney General's Office to step in and
require enforcement on the Commission on Ethics' required
order.
am placing this matter before the County Commission for an
indication from the Board as to how it wishes to proceed.
State of Florida
`•Comnussion 6thics
Room 2105, The Capitol • P.O. Box 6 • Tallahassee, Florida 32302-0006 • (404) 488-7864
March 16, 1987
The Honorable Members of the
Indian River County Board of County Commissioners
1840 25th Street
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
RE: Complaint No. 86-23, In re BILL LEWIS
Dear Commissioners:
Martha W. Barnett
chair
Lawrence A. Gonzalez
Exeruhw Director
Jimmy D. Barr
Myron J. Brodie
Henry E. Davis
Robert J. Eigen
Mark Herron
Karen M. Margulies
Karen S. Matteson
James M. Seneff, Jr.
I
The State of Florida Commission on Ethics has completed a full
and final investigation of a complaint filed against Mr. Bill
Lewis, as a member of the Indian River County Housing Finance
Authority. Pursuant to Section 112.324(4), Florida Statutes, we
are required to report our findings and to recommend appropriate
disciplinary action to you in this case.
Therefore, we are enclosing a copy of our final order in this
matter, along with a copy of the stipulation which was adopted by
the final order. As we have found that Mr. Lewis has violated
the financial disclosure law and has agreed to pay a fine of
$300, we have recommended that you impose upon him a civil
penalty of $300, to be paid within 30 days of the date of our
order.
If we may be of any assistance to you in your deliberations,
please do not hesitate to contact us. We would appreciate your
informing us of the manner in which you dispose of this matter.
For information regarding the collection of this civil penalty,
please contact the office of the.Attorne_y General, Mr. Kent L.
Weissinger, Assistant Attorney General.
-Sincerely,
v
Lawrence A. Gonzalez
Executive Director
'Y
f A P9
��..�
103
BOOK 68 f'•� �E 103
r
APP 114 1987
BOOK 68 PAGE1Q
Attorney Vitunac noted that the person involved simply
forgot to file and resigned from the Housing Finance Authority
immediately. There was nothing untoward in it, and Mr. Lewis
swore he would never again work for a public agency; this has
made him feel like a criminal. Attorney Vitunac continued that
he talked to the Assistant Attorney General's office, and it was
their feeling, after prodding by him, that actually we could
ignore this Order and not fine the man or even possibly find him
not guilty.
Chairman Scurlock clarified the person involved is Bill
Lewis who served on the Finance Advisory Committee. He recalled
that the Housing Finance Authority was basically for a period of
time without any membership due to people moving away, etc. When
the Pope County issue arose, it came to our attention that it was
in limbo, and we reconstituted the Finance Advisory Committee as
the Housing Finance Authority to participate in that issue. That
is the only thing they have ever done, and no conflict ever
occurred. The Chairman found it very unfortunate that they are
going after a fellow who served 5 or 6 years in various capaci-
ties of an advisory nature and did no wrong, and now this
experience has soured him on public service and serving in a
voluntary capacity.
Commissioner Eggert asked if Mr. Lewis had ever filed
before, and Chairman Scurlock explained that you only have to
file if you are part of a body that can actually make a decision.
When we finally created the Finance Housing Authority, it had a
decision-making ability and then he did have to file.
Commissioner Eggert inquired if Mr. Lewis got a request to
file from the Supervisor of Elections, and Attorney Vitunac
stated that he did get the forms, but he simply forgot to file
and lost the papers.
Administrative Assistant to the Board, Liz Forlani, advised
that Mr. Lewis resigned from the agency in February and he didn't
get the notice to fill out the forms until after he had resigned.
i
104
Commissioner Wheeler noted that he ran into a similar
situation when he was on the Airport Development Commission, and
he refused to file because he was in an advisory capacity. There
was a lot of confusion about what was supposed to be done.
ON MOTION MADE by Commissioner Wheeler, SECONDED by
Commissioner Bowman, the Board unanimously agreed to
ignore the recommendation by the Commission on Ethics
to impose a $300 fine.
Commissioner Bird felt it would be appropriate for the
Chairman to write Mr. Lewis informing him of the Board''s action,
apologize for the embarrassment this has caused him, and thank
him again for his services. The Chairman agreed he would do so.
REPORT ON TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
Commissioner Bowman presented the following summary of
actions and asked that the Board just accept the report:
TRANSPORTATION PLANNING COMMITTEE
SUMMARY OF ACTIONS
April 8, 1987 MEETING
1. COUNTY ROAD 512/ROSELAND ROAD/LACONIA STREET IMPROVEMENTS
The Committee discussed conceptual improvements to this
intersection in conjunction with the Sebastian Lakes
Development Plan. Approval was given to a demonstration
project to construct a 4 -lane divided roadway for CR -512 in
the old railroad right-of-way; to use impact fees for the,
funding; to align Roseland Road and Laconia Street and to
have staff work out engineering details with the developer.
2. 43rd AVENUE TRAFFIC OPERATIONS PLAN
Report presentation and discussion was tabled due to the
lack of a quorum.
3. OLD DIXIE HIGHWAY RAILROAD CROSSING
Sebastian representative Kenneth Roth presented the
Committee with a memorandum from the Sebastian Planning and
Zoning Commission asking that the Old Dixie railroad
crossing not be traded or removed. No action was taken.
4. TREASURE COAST REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL MEETING
The Committee was informed of a Treasure Coast Regional
Planning Council workshop to be held on April 13 to discuss
various Florida Department of Transportation issues, and
that local representatives are welcome to provide input at
the workshop.
105
APR 1 1987 BOOK �3 PAGE 10
APR 14 M7
BOOK 68 fAGE6
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously accepted
the above summary of actions for the record.
DISCUSSION OF -ROSE -4
Commissioner Bowman referred the Board to the following
letter from Mr. Busch, President of the Roseland Property Owners
Association:
lwwlOWNERSROSELAND PROPERTY ASSOCIATION, Me.
P. • _ •
- • •
, FLA. 32957
April 8, 1987 ��`�✓ qp'A-r
R 198
The Honorable County Commissioners M '
184025th
Indian
Veonty N A
5 Street
y�
Vero Beach, Florida 32960
9z����
RE: MORATORIUM ON ORDINANCE NO. 87
Dear County Commissioners:
At the Roseland Property Owners Association's meeting on April
7th, a motion was made and unanimously carried that we request
you to put a moratorium on Ordinance No. 87.
We are having a workshop on April 14th to prepare our recomm-
endations for a new ordinance for the Rose 4 area. We are quite
concerned about the zoning for home occupations, and also the
zoning for the undeveloped area in Rose 4. You must know that
this area is a large part of our Roseland Community.
We hope that you will consider this Moratorium so that permits will
not be issued until we can submit our recommendations.
Some of you and your people were at our meeting, and are aware of
our feelings concerning the present zoning.
Thank you kindly for your consideration in this matter.
If you have any questions, do not hesitate to contact the under-
signed.
nder-
signed.
Sincerely,
The Roseland Property Owner's Association
Mr. Ed Busch, President
106
I
Commissioner Bowman informed the Board that she attended a
meeting of the Roseland Property Owners Association, and they
were very irate because they did not understand the whole thing.
In the first place, when this came up at the Commission meeting,
nobody was here from Roseland, and they are concerned because
they had not intended the undeveloped area to be included in
ROSE -4. Since commercial property is so very expensive in this
county, they fear that anyone wanting to start up a little
business would come up to Roseland to do so. Commissioner Bowman
advised that she suggested they have a workshop and let the Board
know how they want us to go, and then we will initiate the
rezoning.
Chairman Scurlock asked if that is how the Board wished to
proceed, and the consensus was to proceed as suggested,by
Commissioner Bowman.
Commissioner Eggert noted that the people should have been
here, and this would not have happened.
Commissioner Bowman felt they did not understand the
procedure.
APPRAISALS OF PROPERTIES FOR PARKS
Commissioner Bird referred the Board to the following memo
from Public Works Director Davis:
107
APP 14 'V: J BOOK I F-A"E107
C's APR 14 1987 Boos
TO: THE HONORABLE MEMBERS OF DATE: April 13, 1987 FILE:
THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH:
Charles P. Balczun
County Administrator
SUBJECT: Authorization for Appraisal
1) South County Regional Park
(Oslo Rd at 20th Avenue)
2) North Tracking Station Park
3) County owned property west
of 43rd Ave. at 5th St. SW
FROM: PublicWWorrks1D recto REFERENCES:
DESCRIPTION AND CONDITIONS
County Staff recently performed an appraisal of the proposed South
County Regional Park Property at Oslo. Road and 20th Avenue. The
appraised value of $227,400 was not acceptable to the owner. An
independent appraisal is requested by the owner.
At the 4-9-87 Parks and Recreation Committee Meeting, a
recommendation was made to have the North Tracking Station Property and
the 8-9 acre tract west of 43rd Avenue at 5th Street S.W. appraised.
This land could be sold to generate funds to purchase the South County
Park.
RECOMMENDATION AND FUNDING
It is recommended that staff be authorized to have appraisals
performed for the 3 subject parcels. Funding to be from Park Trust Fund
113-210-572-033.19. There is approximately $150,000 in this fund, of
which $120,000 is uncommitted.
Commissioner Bird recommended that we have these appraisals
done, but informed the Board that in a recent meeting with the
Finance Advisory Committee, it was recommended that we expand our
purchase to 80 acres and take in the property fronting 20th
Avenue as well. He, therefore, would like to have an appraisal
done on the whole 80 acres and see what kind of money we are
talking about.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Eggert, the Board unanimously authorized
staff to have appraisals performed for the three
parcels listed, expanding the appraisal for _t�e
tract proposed for the South County Park to cover
80 acres as described above.
108
Y'"
FINANCE ADVISORY COMMITTEE
Chairman Scurlock reported that the Finance Advisory
Committee at their March 25th meeting recommended that the Board
of County Commissioners expand the services of the firm of Mayes,
Sudderth and Etheredge, to investigate alternative funding
mechanisms, such as an impact fee, to fund County parks,
including the South County Regional Park, and further, that the
consultants develop a master plan for County -wide recreation
programs. Their whole thought process was impact fee and user
fee oriented.
ON MOTION by Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously authorized
expanding the scope of services rendered by Mayes,
Sudderth and Etheredge to include the above.
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMITTEE
Commissioner Bird presented the following summary of action
and reviewed the various items:
4/9/87 SUMMARY OF ACTIONS - PARKS AND RECREATION
COMMITTEE
The Babe Ruth League usel; Kiwanis-Hobart ballfield. They requestefd"
permission to have a flagpole, refrigerator, amplified speaker
system, and telephone installed at Kiwanis-Hobart ballfield.'
All the equipment will be donated and will become the property
of the County when installed. The Babe Ruth League will pay for
telephone charges during their seasons; North County Recreation
will pay the charges between seasons. The Committee recommended
that the request be cyraAr-L.
Coca Cola will put in a lighted scoreboard if they can have a 5 year
contract that only their drinks will be sold and advertised. They
will furnish the sign, and the Kiwanis Club will have it installed
and hooked up. The Committee recommended that the County enter into
an agreement with Coca Cola for construction of the scoreboard. The
Committee further recommended that the Babe Rut`s League, or someone
else if they do not want to do it, be asked to run the concession
stand for a one year trial period during their ball season. The
County will pay for the electric operation of the concession stand
and scoreboard out of the present operating budget, and readdress
the cost at budget time.
The Committee recommended that the County have an appraisal done
of the South County Park parcel; the north Tracking Statio property,
and Ambersand Parkn and Co. owned property W of 43rd Ave or 5th St. SW.
APP 14 1987 109
BOOK 68 PVVJF 109
BOOK
Complaints have been received about campers at Ambersand Beach Park.
The County Attorney will be asked to research this property to see if
it can be sold, or if it has to remain as a park. When Golden Sands
is developed, Jim Davis feels we will need a fulltime park ranger;
it was suggested that a gate be installed at Ambersand and the ranger
can open and close it each day. If the property remains a park, it
was suggested that the County finish paving the parking area.
Received a request for a bowling green..' Advised Mrs. Whittemore to
approach the City since their facilities are more centrally located,
and also advised her to write a letter to the Editor of the Press
Journal to see how much interest is generated for this type of
recreation. If no success is gained from the City, she will again
contact the County Parks and Recreation Committee to see what can be
done for this request.
Little League requested assistance to purchase lights for the J. A.
Thompson Little League ballfield. They have an emergency situation,
and are unable to use the lights in their present state. The
Commitf-ee voted to contribute $3,000 if that amount is available in
the capital expense fund.
The Committee requested the County Commission to approve asking for
alternates for each Committee member as recently there has not been
a quorum present.at the meetings.
Commissioner Bird asked if the Commission had any problem
with having an agreement with Coca Cola for five years.
Chairman Scurlock asked if we couldn't get competitive bids.
Commissioner Wheeler felt the sign with the advertisement
for Coca Cola should be sufficient payment for five years. He
didn't like to be tied to selling only to Coke products; he did
not have a problem with selling Coke for five years but did not
want a contract with them.
Commissioner Bird noted we could present a counter offer.
Discussion continued at length, and Administrator Balczun
suggested this matter be tabled and we can solicit some other
vendors.
Commissioner Eggert referred back to the proposal to put a
telephone at Kiwanis-Hobart ballfield. She wished to know if it
will be locked and was assured that it would be.
Discussion continued as to a telephone, the season the field
is used, etc., and Commissioner Wheeler asked if it might not be
cheaper to take the phone out between seasons and have it
reinstalled.
Commissioner Bird believed that North County Recreation
feels the phone is a safety factor.
:110
I
Commissioner Bird next referred to the complaints received
about campers at Ambersand Beach Park, and the possibility of
selling that park property which is narrow and surrounded by
residential property. He noted that discussion was had as to
whether it is advisable to continue to operate this park, and it
was felt we need to explore our options.
Commissioner Bowman pointed out that Ambersand Beach Park
goes all the way to the river, and she felt it should be kept
open and available to the public.
Commissioner Bird next addressed the need for lights for
the J. A. Thompson Little League ballfield at Rosewood School.
He explained that it was found the candle power was way below
standard, and they had to shut down playing at night. The Little
League approached Parks & Recreation with an emergencyirequest to
fund some monies towards replacement of the lights to bring the
field back up.to a safe playable condition. Apparently they have
gone out in the community to raise the money. The Committee has
recommended contributing $3,000 towards the $9,000 cost.
ON MOTION BY Commissioner Bird, SECONDED by Com-
missioner Wheeler, the Board unanimously approved
the $3,000 contribution toward replacing the lights
at J. A. Thompson Little League ballfield as recom-
mended by the Parks & Recreation Committee.
Commissioner Bird next discussed the attendance problem and
the recommendation of having alternates with voting powers for
each Committee member.
Commissioner Eggert noted that we didn't do this for the
Planning E Zoning Commission.
Commissioner Wheeler noted that unless the alternates
attended regularly, they would be coming in uninformed. He
personally felt the answer would be to have stricter attendance
requirements.
111
APT 1907 BOOK '8 f ,-F Ill
APP 14 1937
BOOP( 68 r'�:UE112 -1
After further discussion, Commissioner Bird believed the
consensus was that the Board was not in favor of the proposal for
alternates, and he felt possibly notified the members of this may
prompt better attendance.
Chairman Scurlock inquired about North County Recreation and
the issue in regard to their use of the Sebastian Municipal
Center building up there. It seems there is some inequity there,
and that they don't have a clear understanding of the fact that
we contribute about $73,000 to recreation in the North County.
He -felt the Commission should stand behind Commissioner Bird and
the letter he sent, which is as follows:
Telephone: (305) 567-8000
April 8, 1987
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
1840 25th Street, Vero Beach, Florida 32960
The Honorable Gene Harris
Mayor, City of Sebastian
P. 0. Box 127
Sebastian, Florida 32958
Dear Mayor Harris:
Suncom Telephone* 424-1011
I was concerned and somewhat disappointed in an article I read in
the Press Journal dated Wednesday, April 8, 1987. In the
article it quoted members of the Sebastian Recreation Committee
as saying they were unhappy with the fees being charged to
Sebastian residents when participating in supervised North County
Recreation programs held at the Sebastian Municipal Center.
For your information, and that of the rest of the Council
members, I want to make sure everyone understands the situation.
The Board of County Commissioners are expending funds amounting
to $73,575 in fiscal year 86-87 to financially support the North
County Recreation Department.. This includes funds for capital
improvements as well as salaries for supervisory personnel. We
are happy to make these programs and recreational opportunities
available to all residents of the North County, including
residents of the City of Sebastian. The fees that are charged
are consistent throughout the North County and are primarily used
to pay the instructors who supervise the programs. The only
participation we have asked from the City of Sebastian is to use
the Sebastian Community building to house some of these programs.
I understand free programs are also available in the building,
and not all programs are charged for. I would like to point out
that in recent years, several thousand dollars have been expended
112
� r �
in the Sebastian area by North County Recreation for additional
recreational facilities and opportunities. This would include,
but not be limited to, fencing for the Sebastian Little League
field; $2,000 that has been allocated for a jogging trail;
construction and lighting of handball courts; building basketball
courts, lighting tennis courts; and other projects.
I believe that North County Recreation has worked well with the
City to try and provide recreational facilities and opportunities
without the City being asked to participate to any great degree
in the cost. My personal feeling is that the free use of the
tbfihunity building for a limited number of programs is a minimal
X`cohitribution from the City toward the overall recreational
ieilf_b t.%bein expended in that area. M
Q13eve 9 P y personal goal, and I
the goal of the other County Commissir.::!ers, is to
continue to work toward additional recreational opportunities in
the Sebastian/North County area as we cooperate together in what
will hopefully be the forming of a county -wide recreation
program. In the meantime, I believe our relationship is a great
one and it bothers me when I read that a few individuals may feel
they are being treated unfairly.
I hope this will set the record straight and I will certainly be
willing to meet with the Council or Recreation Committee at any
time to discuss the matter further. I am sorry that a prior
commitment prevents me from attending your meeting tonight in
person, but I hope you will convey my thoughts to your fellow
Council members.
Incidentally, I understand that the North County Recreation
Department has allocated $1,800 to be spent on ceiling fans to be
installed in the Sebastian Community building, which should also
help to further justify their use of the facility for their
programs.
Sincerely,
Richard N. Bird
Commissioner Wheeler commented that he talked to Mayor
Harris about this matter last week also, and he was in full
agreement with Commissioner Bird's letter.
Commissioner Bird believed it is just one or two individuals
who aren't looking at the whole picture and made some remarks and
unfortunately it got blown up in the Press.
FLOOD INSURANCE MAP
Chairman Scurlock noted that several years ago there was an
attempt in Congress to designate certain areas on the Barrier
Island on the federal flood insurance maps as undeveloped coastal
areas. We were successful at that time in convincing Congress
these areas were developed and should not be included. Now, it
113 _
APP 14 1987 BOOP( � F4GE�1e�
BOOK D,GE 114.
APR 14 1027
seems there is a move on again to include the area on the island
north of CR510, and he met with a large number of individuals who
are very concerned about this and will be lobbying Congress to
make decisions in terms of what actually exists. These same `
people have expressed a desire and an interest in extending water
service all the way to.Sebastian Inlet either through some sort
of arrangement with North Beach Water or an independent separate
county system. They are willing to participate in this and
assess themselves.
Chairman Scurlock reported that he is in the process of
negotiating not only with North Beach Water for acquisition or
extension of their franchise area, but also pursuing with
Director Pinto the feasibility of putting in a new county system.
Actually he was going to schedule a public hearing on this as it
seems North Beach Water Company has gone outside their franchise
area, without county concurrence, to service Indian River Trails
even though they have refused in a reasonable time frame to serve
some of the area within their franchise. The Chairman continued
to discuss at length the various options for water service in the
north barrier island area, noting that they will continue to
negotiate with North Beach Water Company and he will be reporting
back with Director Pinto on all these issues.
There being no further business, on Motion duly made,
seconded and carried, the Board adjourned at 3:40 o'clock P.M.
ATTEST:
CLERK
114
CHAIRMAN
go